GIS Assessment Report for The Electric Utility
Date: January 2007
Control: Extractor v1.1b DWG→MSQL
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
I.
The Electric Utility
January 2007
Executive Summary The following chapters contain a description of the most relevant aspects of this assessment job performed in The Electric Utility GIS database, followed by a series of detailed appendixes with the complete set of assessment reports obtained. This is a summary of the information analyzed: Total number of files processed
1,556 Autodesk Map DWG files
Total number of feature records
921,099
Total number of attribute records (*)
860,209
(*) Attribute records either in the form of block attributes or object data fields. The following is a brief summary of the most relevant findings of our assessment work:
Feature naming conventions should be addressed and enforced more tightly to avoid proliferation of unwanted, unnecessary or non-validated feature objects in the GIS database
Layer naming conventions should also be subject to further investigation in order to determine the cause for detected non-compliant feature instances
Feature scaling is a major source of inconsistent use due to the proliferation of large number of scale factors not properly rounded to the correct figure
Point feature duplication at the same location is something that should be validated more closely, because it potentially impacts the result of electric analysis or outage resolution applications, if this is information is obtained from the GIS database
Some coloring and layering cleanup should be applied to linear features in order to avoid improper interpretation or object misuse
The complete list of feature attributes has potential for optimization and standardization
Feature attributes domain analysis has been able to uncover an important source of nonvalidated or non-compliant data held in object instances and rules to enforce such validation should be addressed in the very short term.
This document has been organized in several chapters and related appendixes, each one covering a specific aspect of the database under analysis. The following is a comprehensive list of the reports included:
Feature Analysis
Layer Analysis
Feature by Color and Layer Analysis
Feature by Scale Analysis
Point Feature Location Analysis
Linear Feature by Color and Layer Analysis
Linear Feature Path Analysis
GIS Data Experts
1
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
Feature Attribute Analysis
Feature Attributes Domain Analysis
Device Status Analysis.
January 2007
This last report is specifically designed to address the needs of The Electric Utility to maintain status information about electric facilities or switchable devices that are either in Normal Open (NO) or Normal Closed (NC) positions. I.1.
Assessment dimensions Dimension
Description
Feature classes
Identification of all GIS model classes, feature dictionary management, feature dictionary maintenance process
Layering
Utilization of layers and object layer placement (where applicable)
Representation & Visualization
Symbology applicable to media, business context, target audience, zoom levels (coloring, line typing and symbol scaling)
Spatial location
Appropriateness of rules for object placement: adjacency, overlaps, joint vertices, containment, etc. Assessmet of actual object placement against defined rules
Attributes
Identification of all GIS classes attributes, attribute dictionary management and maintenance process
Attribute domains
Attribute domain dictionary management and maintenance process, assessment of existing values against domain definitions
Data update maturity
Process capability to update the GIS platform in terms of objectives, responsibilities, communication, documentation, automation, deliverables and resources
The result of our assessment is summarized in the following table for each dimension: 100% compliance = 5
Dimension
Gap
Actual
Recommended
Feature classes
0.7
3
77%
Layering
1.5
2
25%
Representation & Visualization
2
4.1
51%
Spatial location
1
2
50%
Attributes
1
3
67%
Attribute domains
0.5
4
88%
Data update maturity
1.5
3.5
57%
The gap between Actual and the Recommended status has been expressed as the level of effort that The Electric Utility has to apply to reduce it. The recommended status has been determined based on our industry experience and the process capability level of the organization. The following radar chart depicts this summary information in graphical format:
GIS Data Experts
2
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
GIS Data Quality Assessment for "The Electric Utility" Feature classes 5 4
Data update maturity
3
Layering
2 1 0
Representation & Visualization
Attribute domains
Attributes
Spatial location Actual Recommended
GIS Data Experts
3
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
II.
Feature Analysis
II.1.
Report description
The Electric Utility
January 2007
This report offers a list of feature names and occurrences. II.2.
Purpose This report is intended to detect those features that do not comply with naming conventions, including those that should not exist in the GIS database.
II.3.
Scope Typically during normal business operation, GIS data sets evolve, or are migrated from one system to another, or are simply employed by different people in different moments in time. When business rules are not properly enforced, GIS systems tend to become a mixture of symbology with different name conventions, different layering, different styles and even different applications and this report addresses these issues.
II.4.
Assessment results There are 212 records in this report. Based on feature occurrence, there are 33 feature classes with just 1 instance in the GIS database out of 212, representing 16% of the database, 16 feature classes with just 2 instances and 11 with only 3 instances. There is also a set of feature classes that are not only suspiciously named but also present a low number of instances in the database, as indicated below: Feature Class Name # of Instances A$C48317C49 13 A$C58EF7415 2 A$C762E5E0F 1 Additionally, there are several feature classes that are named following the same root with no apparent different purpose: Feature Class Name # of Instances INDEX 1079 INDEXA 16 INDEXAL 9 INDEXB 28 INDEXBM 2 INDEXC 6 INDEXD 14 INDEXE 14 INDEXEX1 12 INDEXEX2 2 INDEXEX3 10 INDEXEX4 1 GIS Data Experts
4
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
Feature Class Name # of Instances INDEXEX5 9 INDEXEX6 5 INDEXF 28 INDEXG 13 INDEXI 33 INDEXJ 18 INDEXK 22 INDEXL 13 INDEXLM 2 INDEXLY2 1 INDEXM 8 INDEXN 10 INDEXO 30 INDEXP 10 INDEXQ 7 INDEXR 8 INDEXS 18 INDEXSQ 13 INDEXT 5 INDEXU 19 INDEXV 18 INDEXV1 5 INDEXX 4 Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Feature Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
5
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
III. Layer Analysis III.1.
Report description This report offers a list of layer names, color and type of line.
III.2.
Purpose This report is intended to detect layers that do not comply with layer naming conventions and those that should not exist in the GIS database.
III.3.
Scope In a similar fashion as the feature analysis report, while the GIS database is updated over time not always business rules are properly enforced, effectively turning GIS systems into a mixture of layers with different name conventions, varying styles and even different usage and this report addresses these issues.
III.4.
Assessment results There are 522 records in this report. Based on feature occurrence by layer, there are 199 layer names with just 1 instance in the GIS database out of 522, representing 38% of the database. There is also a surprisingly high rate of similarly named layers, with low object occurrence and no apparent use distinction, as exemplified below: Layer Name SC110 SC111 SC112 SC113 SC115 SC12 SC122 SC125 SC13 SC130 SC1301 SC1302 SC131 SC132 SC133 SC134 SC135 SC136 SC137 SC15 SC17 GIS Data Experts
Feature Instances 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 6
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
Layer Name SC20 SC226 Etc.
The Electric Utility
January 2007
Feature Instances 1 4 …
The following groups of layers should probably standardized under one single layer name: Layer Name Feature Instances ROADS 2473 ROADS-ADJACENT 74 ROADS-COUNTY 43 ROADS-DASHED 2007 ROADS-PRIVATE 4 ROADS-SIDE 14 ROADS-STATE 225 ROADS-US 7 Layer Name RAILROAD RAILROADS
Feature Instances 23 1236
The next example is probably a result of a typing error: Layer Name Feature Instances N-RIVERS_CREEKS 1 N-RIVERS-CREEKS 185 Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Layer Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
7
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
IV. Feature by color and layer analysis IV.1.
Report description This report offers a list of feature names and number of instances considering on which layer objects are placed, and what color they are set to.
IV.2.
Purpose This report is intended to verify that all features are placed on the appropriate layer and that are colored using the prescribed pattern or shade; this report can also help uncover and implement new business rules within the existing GIS data set that have simply emerged as a result of regular system use.
IV.3.
Scope Typically, maintenance of GIS data sets using CAD systems is a manual and error-prone process where, unless otherwise stated, feature placement on the correct layer and color is at the user’s discretion. Furthermore, data validation routines usually do not address these issues or are difficult to apply system wide, resulting in multiple and inconsistent presentations of the same feature class. The purpose of this report is to identify where these cases are in order to make them comply with business rules.
IV.4.
Assessment results There are 38 records in this report. Notably, there is one feature class that exists in many different layers, with a variety of colors and several instances each. The table below presents this situation: Feature Class AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER AVE_RENDER
Layer Name Color Code # of Instances ASHADE 1 27 ASHADE 3 27 ASHADE 4 29 ASHADE 5 14 ASHADE 6 14 ASHADE 7 14 ASHADE 8 14 ASHADE 9 14 B-ASHADE 1 81 B-ASHADE 3 81 B-ASHADE 4 94 HATCH 1 1 HATCH 3 1 HATCH 4 1
We suggest analyzing the following fixing scenarios:
Layers should all be normalized to one of those that currently exist (ASHADE , B-SHADE or HATCH) where the AVE_RENDER feature class has been placed; it should be noted that the
GIS Data Experts
8
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
ASHADE layer contains 167 AVE_RENDER objects, B-SHADE 256 instances and HATCH just 3 occurrences
Color codes 1, 3 and 4 appear more than once on three layers, possibly meaning that color codes 5 through 9 should be replaced with appropriate ones to comply with drafting rules for the AVE_RENDER feature class
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Feature by color and layer Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
9
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
V.
Feature by scale analysis
V.1.
Report description
January 2007
This report offers a list of point feature names and occurrences considering the scale factor applied to them. V.2.
Purpose This report is intended to verify that all point features are scaled following standard scaling conventions; this report can also help uncover and implement new business rules within the existing GIS data set that have simply emerged as a result of regular system use.
V.3.
Scope Typically, maintenance of GIS data sets using CAD systems is a manual and error-prone process where, unless otherwise stated, feature sizing is at the user’s discretion. Furthermore, data validation routines usually do not address this almost “visual” aspect of the GIS data set or is difficult to apply system wide, resulting in multiple and inconsistent presentations of the same feature class. The purpose of this report is to identify where these cases are in order to make them comply with business rules.
V.4.
Assessment results There are 31,923 records in this report. Based on the results of this report, it is possible to observe a varying and extraordinary application of scale factors to point features in the entire GIS database. The following table illustrates this situation: Feature Class Different Scales 1BANK-TR 2023 2BANK-TR 103 2TRAN-CL 26 3BANK-TR 213 3TRAN-CL 53 The table above is just an example of some of the first features found in the database that show a large number of scales employed, such as the 1BANK-TR class that showcases more than 2 thousand different scales. Although this might seem appropriate for certain visual applications, it is interesting to note that out of the 2,023 different scales, just three scale factors carry more than 70% of the total number of feature class occurrences. These scale factors are 30, 15 and 7.5 Consequently it is possible to suspect that all other scale factors are the result of a massive batch update process that either did not end properly or did not fix this value to a standard format. In most cases, scale factors show a significant pattern of round error, as shown below in this short excerpt: Feature Class Scale Factor # of Instances 1BANK-TR 3.75 3 1BANK-TR 7.5 1217 1BANK-TR 9.895 3 1BANK-TR 9.908 1
GIS Data Experts
10
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
Feature Class Scale Factor # of Instances 1BANK-TR 9.918 1 1BANK-TR 10 9 1BANK-TR 10.065 1 1BANK-TR 10.1507 1 1BANK-TR 11.25 3 1BANK-TR 14.51 1 1BANK-TR 14.554 1 1BANK-TR 14.595 1 1BANK-TR 14.613 1 It can be seen that with the exception of scale factor 7.5 that carries more than 1,200 objects, the remaining scale factors have a small number of occurrences. Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Feature by scale Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
11
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
VI. Point feature location analysis VI.1.
Report description This report offers a list of point feature names and coordinates when two or more instances share the same insertion point.
VI.2.
Purpose This report is intended to detect point features that are potential overlaps, potentially resulting in replicated data.
VI.3.
Scope Although a visual check of a GIS update project could look adequate on the surface, this visual verification method does not guarantee that there are not two or more overlapping objects at the same location. The purpose of this report is to uncover these situations to avoid wrong feature count or erroneous input into other applications from inconsistent or replicated GIS source data.
VI.4.
Assessment results There are 3,253 records in this report. There are 43 feature classes that show potential duplicates. With a few exceptions, two instances at the same location is the most common situation. In the small extract shown below, it is possible to see that there are 4 locations where 1BANK-TR feature class presents more than one object: File Name Feature Class 282231.dwg 1BANK-TR 282231.dwg 1BANK-TR 282231.dwg 1BANK-TR 282231.dwg 1BANK-TR
X 761434.737 762044.039 762562.143 763978.44
Y # of Instances 1458389.377 2 1459110.199 2 1459587.317 2 1459506.021 2
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Point Feature Location Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
12
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
VII. Linear feature by color and layer analysis VII.1.
Report description This report offers a list of all layers employed in the GIS data set (by name) with a list of linear feature names and number of instances considering which line style used, and what color they are set to.
VII.2.
Purpose This report is intended to verify features types are placed on the appropriate layer and that are colored according to the prescribed pattern or using the correct line style; this report can also help uncover and implement new business rules within the existing GIS data set that have simply emerged as a result of regular system use.
VII.3.
Scope Maintenance of GIS data sets is a process that requires great deal of attention to detail and being accurate because, unless otherwise specified, feature placement on the correct layer, using the appropriate color and line style may be at the user’s discretion. Furthermore, validation routines usually do not address these issues or are difficult to apply system wide, resulting in multiple and inconsistent presentations of the same polyline-type feature class. The purpose of this report is to identify where these cases are in order to make them comply with business rules.
VII.4.
Assessment results There are 493 records in this report. There are several situations in the company’s GIS database where the same feature type appears in the same layer but with different line types and colors, as exemplified in the tables below: Layer Name ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED
Feature Type Line Type Color # of Instances LWPOLYLINE 7 LWPOLYLINE 3DOT 200 1 LWPOLYLINE 1DOT 20 2 LWPOLYLINE 1DOT 1 LWPOLYLINE 1DOT 150 4 LWPOLYLINE 1DOT 10 5 POLYLINE 1
Layer Name Feature Type Line Type Color # of Instances LOT-LINES ARC 18 LOT-LINES LINE
DASHED
9
LOT-LINES LINE LOT-LINES LWPOLYLINE
2210 4
1
LOT-LINES LWPOLYLINE DASHED
4
LOT-LINES LWPOLYLINE LOT-LINES LWPOLYLINE CENTER
GIS Data Experts
2447 1
13
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
We suggest analyzing the following fixing scenarios:
Linear feature types by layer should be normalized so that they are consistent
Line types have been assigned following no apparent usage pattern
Color codes have been applied randomly to these feature classes
Appropriate business rules should be applied to the GIS database to make use of these features in a standard fashion in order to avoid confusion and potential misunderstandings due to inadequate or inconsistent data representation. Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Linear feature by color and layer Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
14
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
VIII. Linear feature path analysis VIII.1.
Report description This report offers a list of linear feature names when two or more instances share the same path or trajectory –i.e. they overlap.
VIII.2.
Purpose This report is intended to detect linear features that are potential overlaps, consequently resulting in replicated data.
VIII.3.
Scope Although a visual check of a GIS update project could look adequate, this visual verification method does not guarantee that there are not two or more overlapping objects that follow the same path. The purpose of this report is to spot these situations to avoid wrong feature count or erroneous input into other applications from inconsistent or replicated GIS source data.
VIII.4.
Assessment results There are 336 records in this report. There are 336 linear feature objects that, in pairs, share the same coordinates, potentially representing duplicated data in the GIS database. There are 18 instances where there are 3 and even 4 object instances with the same coordinates. The report presents start and ending point only as exemplified in the small extract below: File Name 292132A1.dwg 292132A.dwg 292132A1.dwg 272407.dwg 282314.dwg 272407.dwg 271934C2.dwg 272407.dwg 261903.dwg
Feature Type LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE LWPOLYLINE
Starting X 802316.416 802164.917 802306.624 688873.077 749328.415 692023.284 868679.392 690012.597 867197.028
Starting Y 1489350.085 1489373.423 1489348.534 1454266.088 1472402.654 1449341.888 1420215.513 1454168.136 1417650.754
Ending X 802180.866 802057.242 802171.084 688870.622 749331.671 692043.274 868601.2815 690032.588 869849.314
Ending Y # of Instances 1490213.16 2 1489225.347 2 1490211.619 2 1454227.288 3 1472453.649 3 1449340.515 3 1418889.3828 3 1454166.825 3 1417475.751 3
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Linear feature path Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
15
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
IX. Feature attribute analysis IX.1.
Report description This report offers a matrix of feature and attribute names.
IX.2.
Purpose This report is intended to verify that all feature class attributes comply with feature-attribute usage rules; this report can also help uncover and implement new business rules within the existing GIS data set that have simply emerged involuntarily as a result of system use.
IX.3.
Scope Maintaining a consistent catalog of GIS feature classes is a difficult and challenging task that requires not only appropriate methods and processes to be in place, but also the right tools to perform it. Ensuring feature catalog consistency throughout the GIS data set is critical to enforce business rules and to avoid inconsistent or incompatible data and analysis results. The purpose of this report is to identify cases where features classes have redundant or incomplete data attributes based on actual use in order to make them comply with business rules.
IX.4.
Assessment results There are 52 different feature classes and 55 different attributes registered in the GIS database. The accompanying sparse matrix presents which attributes are employed by which feature class based on actual system data. Of the 55 existing attributes, many of them are employed only once which presents potential simplification opportunities, as indicated in the table below: Attribute Name
# of features that use it
AMP_TYPE
1
B_SCALE
1
BOOK
1
CONDUCTOR
1
DEV_TYPE
1
DIST_ID
1
DIST_NUM
1
FEEDER_NUM
1
FIRST_SEC
1
G_SCALE
1
KVAR
1
M_#
1
MAPNAME
1
MID_NUM
1
MP_#
1
NAME
1
GIS Data Experts
16
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
Attribute Name
The Electric Utility
January 2007
# of features that use it
NODE
1
OUTAGE_DATE
1
OUTAGE_LOC
1
OUTAGE_NUM
1
P_SCALE
1
PH
1
PIECE
1
SECT_LNGTH
1
SUB_NUMBER
1
TCC_CURVE
1
VOLT
1
It is also worth noting that some feature classes that seem related do not share the same attribute base, as exemplified in the matrix below: Attribute Name Feature class name
SIZE
PHASE
SECTIONNUM
KVA
TRANS_NUM
1BANK-TR
X
X
X
X
2BANK-TR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3BANK-TR
X
In the example above, SIZE attribute is present in feature class 3BANK-TR but not employed in feature classes 1BANK-TR and 2BANK-TR, which could mean one of two different things:
SIZE attribute has been replaced by KVA attribute, and hence it should be removed from 3BANK-TR feature class definition
SIZE attribute should be added to 1BANK-TR and 2BANK-TR definitions.
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Feature attribute Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
17
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
X.
Feature attributes domain analysis
X.1.
Report description
January 2007
This report offers a list of feature and attribute names with actual data values as extracted from the GIS data set. X.2.
Purpose This report is intended to identify attribute values that do not comply with rules for correctness, validity and consistency; this report can also help uncover and implement new business rules within the existing GIS data set that have simply emerged as a result of regular system use.
X.3.
Scope Depending on how strong GIS check rules are, not being able to ensure valid domain values at the attribute level can potentially generate important quantities of incorrect or unusable data. Even if domain check rules are in place, it is sometimes possible to turn them off prior to posting a new update project in order to ignore it. Finally, server-based batch update processes that do not go through a tightly-validated, client-based GUI could also potentially incorporate erroneous data values into the GIS database. The purpose of this report is to identify cases where features class attributes have incorrect or incomplete values based on actual use in order to fix them or correct the corresponding business rules.
X.4.
Assessment results Feature attributes domain analysis exhibits an important aspect of the GIS database, as it is evident when some values are completely out of range. The example below presents some unusual findings, appropriately highlighted, covering just two attributes of one feature class: Feature Class Attribute Name Attribute Value 1BANK-TR KVA 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR
GIS Data Experts
KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA KVA
0 1.5 10 100 15 167 167.5 -21761 25 2500 3 35 37 37.2 37.5 37.6 40
18
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
Feature Class 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR
The Electric Utility
January 2007
Attribute Name Attribute Value KVA 45 KVA 5 KVA 50 KVA 52 KVA 7.5 KVA 7.51 KVA 75
Feature class Attribute Name Attribute value 1BANK-TR PHASE 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR 1BANK-TR
PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE
1BANK-TR
PHASE
? 0 0B 2 A A A, A· A░ Aá AB ABC AD AÉ Af AI AΣ B B B) B╫ Bá
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Feature attributes domain Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
19
GIS Data Quality Assessment Report
The Electric Utility
January 2007
XI. Device status analysis XI.1.
Report description This report offers a list of feature names that represent operable devices (such as switches, valves, reclosers, etc.) with status values as extracted from the GIS data set.
XI.2.
Purpose This report is intended to verify that all feature classes representing devices comply with status identification rules.
XI.3.
Scope Depending on how status information is implemented in the GIS application, ensuring valid status values at the device level is critical to take advantage in other solutions, such as engineering analysis or outage management. The purpose of this report is to identify cases where device status have incorrect or incomplete values based on actual use in order to fix them according to predefined business rules.
XI.4.
Assessment results There are 23 records in this report, showing status values for 7 different feature classes. All of these classes show both valid and invalid status values as defined in the electric industry: NO/NC. Some examples are shown in the tables below; suspect status values highlighted in yellow:
Feature Type Feature Class Status Value POINT ENCL-1 POINT POINT POINT POINT POINT POINT
ENCL-1 ENCL-1 ENCL-1 ENCL-1 ENCL-1 ENCL-1
0 2922298580 N0 NC NO U
Feature Type Feature Class Status Value POINT ENCL-3 POINT POINT POINT POINT
ENCL-3 ENCL-3 ENCL-3 ENCL-3
0 ABC NC NO
Please, refer to the appropriate appendix for the complete Device status Analysis Report.
GIS Data Experts
20
