|
Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC
| File ID: |
818D59B3-7F44-4905-AD31-7494E8B15682 |
|---|
| Hierarchy Level: |
dataset |
|---|
| Abstract: |
Development Setback Lines for coastal areas at risk of coastal hazards. |
|---|
| Statement: |
Designed to identify the areas at risk from coastal hazards (erosion and flooding) and provide for maintenance of a protective buffer zone even with worst likely erosion.
The data set can be used to:
• Help determine which properties are prone to coastal hazards as shown by the position of the proposed development setbacks
• Help locate the position of the 1995/96 vegetated toe of dune, and hence monitor future changes in the position of the beach
• Help determine areas requiring site specific strategies
• However this data set should not be used in isolation as the sole means for determining the above. Users must contact the WRC Policy group for assistance deciding on the applicable policy and plan issues at individual property level.
Refer to WRC Documents for further information:
Final Report – EW DOCS# 745373.
Summary Report – EW DOCS# 738169.
|
|---|
| Keywords: |
Beaches,Coastal,Dunes,Hazard |
|---|
| Topic Category: |
oceans:features and characteristics of salt water bodies (excluding inland waters) |
|---|
| Resource Reference Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
| Metadata URL: |
https://data.waikatoregion.govt.nz:8443/ords/f?p=140:12:0::NO::P12_METADATA_ID:901 |
|---|
Responsible Parties
| Role: |
author |
|---|
| Position: |
GIS and Data Management Team Leader |
|---|
| Organisation: |
Waikato Regional Council |
|---|
| Delivery Point: |
160 Ward Street |
|---|
| City: |
Hamilton Central |
|---|
| Postal Code: |
3204 |
|---|
| Country: |
New Zealand |
|---|
| Phone: |
|
|---|
| Fax: |
|
|---|
| Email: |
|
|---|
|
Metadata
| Language: |
English |
|---|
| Character Set: |
utf8 |
|---|
| Standard: |
ANZLIC |
|---|
| Standard Version: |
1.1 |
|---|
Metadata Constraints
| Access Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
Download Links
Supporting Information Links
General Notes:
HAZARD.sdeadmin.CHL_PRIMARY_DEVL_SETBACK
| |
| File Identifier: |
EF601C7B-BD59-48B9-AB49-543B3BDE4166 |
Parent Identifier: |
B191DD0F-AE90-44F9-A863-A67FF618BD79 |
|---|
| Hierarchy Level: |
feature |
Hierarchy Level Name: | feature of Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC |
|---|
| Abstract: |
Primary Development Setback (PDS) includes the worst probable erosion likely to be associated with existing coastal processes plus an allowance of 10 m to ensure a protective buffer is maintained even under conditions of worst erosion. |
|---|
| Statement: |
Data has been assessed from aerial mapping, oblique photography, recollections from local residents, radiocarbon dating of dune sediments and other coastal deposits, beach surveys, and applied science (e.g. using the Brunn Rule). These have been used to determine the long-term trend of each shoreline and the effect of predicted sea level rise. |
|---|
| Other Information: |
This extends to the coastal areas of the Thames Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Administrative boundaries. The data set has varying currency of data ranging from the early 1990s to the present day. It is envisaged that the data will be updated every 10 years however updating and maintenance of the data will not be on a continuous basis. The first draft of the development setback report was produced in July 2000. It has since been subject to two scientific peer-reviews both concluding that the proposed setbacks were not overly conservative on the basis of present scientific data. This is 100% complete although site specific statagies are required at some locations.
The accuracy of the hazard setback lines is a combination of error in the underlying data sources and processing, including CRS data, aerial photograph registration, placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and accuracy of the calculated setback from the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. Errors in the calculated setback are assumed negligible given the precision of the GIS.
1. CRS Data.
Positional accuracy is related to, but less than that of the CRS data, which is as follows.
The accuracy standard for the CRS is the LINZ Standard for Geographical Accuracy, that is "For the great majority of points, digitised co-ordinates must be accurate, relative to numeric survey co-ordinates, to within +/- 1mm multiplied by the representative fraction of the capture map scale." The scales of these maps range from 1:396 (50 links to an inch) to 1:50,000 with scales of 1:792, 1:1000, 1:1584 and 1:2000 predominant in urban areas and scales of 1:7920 and 1:10,000 predominant in rural areas. This means the accuracy for boundaries is approximately +/- 2 m for urban properties and +/- 10 m for rural properties.
It is recognised that population by digitisation perpetuates all the existing errors in the manually produced cadastral record maps and may contribute more of their own. LINZ has endeavoured to minimise errors during the pre-capture task of data preparation and during data capture to ensure that the positional accuracy of the CRS is at least, if not of greater accuracy, than that of the existing cadastral record maps from which most of the CRS is derived.
Many of the urban areas within the Waikato Region have upgraded positional accuracy. This has been achieved by numeric entry using the latest survey information at the time. It is expected that the accuracy achieved for these areas would be within +/- 0.5 metres. These areas include: Acacia Bay, Arapuni, Cambridge, Cooks Beach, Hahei, Hatepe, Kinloch, Leamington, Matamata, Morrinsville, Motuoapa, Pauanui, Putaruru, Tairua, Taupo, Te Awamutu, Te Kuiti, Te Rangiita, Thames, Tirau, Waihi, Whangamata, and Whitianga. There may be other areas that have also been upgraded.
2. Aerial photograph registration. The aerial photographs were not orthorectified but were rubber-sheeted to get the best overall visual fit with clearly identifiable CRS parcel edges and road centrelines. No quantitative assessment of accuracy was undertaken at the time of image registration because all control points are matched perfectly when rubber-sheeting. Where there are more clearly identifiable points, the alignment between the CRS and the photograph is better (respecting that in some areas, the CRS data is a poor picture of what is actually on the ground).
3. Placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. This is dependent on the mapping skills and resolution of the registered aerial photography. Mapping skills are assumed accurate. Checks of the Whitianga, Pauanui, Papa Aroha, Whangamata and Whangapoua images show that the image resolution is 1.3m. This gives a quantitative error of +/- 1.3m for a mapper to place the line. Note that in some instances field checking moved the line from what appears to be the toe of vegetation in the aerial photograph.
The positional accuracy can be considered as either absolute or relative.
Absolute accuracy, i.e. how a co-ordinate on the setback line would compare to a GPS or surveyed co-ordinate, is a combination of all error sources. Absolute accuracy is assessed to be between 3.6m and 25m depending on the CRS accuracy and the number and quality of points available for image registration. This varies for each beach.
Relative accuracy, i.e. when viewing the lines over the aerial photography, whether the setback line appears to run through a house or not, is dependent on placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and to a lesser extent the aerial photograph registration. Relative accuracy is assessed to be +/- 1.3m.
N.B: 3.6m = (1.3m*2+0.5m*2). 25m = (1.3m*2 + 10m*2).
The data can be provided in hard or soft copies of customised GIS map outputs at a range of scales.
The proposed development setbacks were developed from scientific data collected up until July 2000. If required, the data set will be updated in 10 years time as new research and information comes to hand. |
|---|
| Keywords: |
Beaches,Coastal,Dunes,Hazard |
|---|
| Topic Category: |
oceans:features and characteristics of salt water bodies (excluding inland waters) |
|---|
| Resource Reference Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Metadata Constraints
| Access Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
Maintenance Information
| Maintenance frequency: |
notPlanned |
|---|
| Last Load Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Spatial Representation Information
| Recommended Scale: |
|
|---|
| Reference System: |
EPSG2193 |
|---|
| Spatial Representation Type: |
vector |
|---|
| Vector | Grid | Geographic Bounding Box |
|---|
| GeometricObjectType : |
curve |
|---|
| geometricObjectCount : |
25 |
|---|
| topologyLevel : |
geometryOnly |
|---|
|
| Number of Dimensions : |
|
|---|
| Cell Geometry : |
|
|---|
| Transformation Param Available : |
N |
|---|
|
| westBoundLongitude : |
1857639.58 |
|---|
| eastBoundLongitude : |
1818045.97 |
|---|
| southBoundLatitude : |
5868942.41 |
|---|
| northBoundLatitude : |
5954876.23 |
|---|
|
Responsible Parties
| Role: |
owner |
| Position: |
GIS and Data Management Team Leader |
|---|
| Organisation: |
Waikato Regional Council |
|---|
| Delivery Point: |
160 Ward Street |
|---|
| City: |
Hamilton Central |
|---|
| Postal Code: |
3204 |
|---|
| Country: |
New Zealand |
|---|
| Phone: |
|
|---|
| Fax: |
|
|---|
| Email: |
|
|---|
|
Data Constraints
| Data Access Constraints : |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Distribution: |
Third party, internal permission |
|---|
| Licence Type : |
To be determined |
|---|
| Licence: |
|
|---|
| Licence Expiry: |
|
|---|
| Licence Conditions: |
Waikato Regional Council will the data set available on the basis that no modification of the data set is to take place. The dataset will be supplied and is to be used as a GIS layer only and WRC is not responsible for assisting any third party with importing the data into their systems or for spurious data resulting from inappropriate use or conversion or incompatible software or hardware. Users must recognise the data use limitations and disclaimers which apply to the data.
|
|---|
| Copyright : |
© Waikato Regional Council 2002-2007. Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC. |
|---|
| Data Disclaimers : |
The standard Waikato Regional Council Disclaimer applies to this data “While Waikato Regional Council has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this information, Waikato Regional Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you.” |
|---|
| Data Use Limits : |
"This data should not be used in isolation as the sole means for determining which properties and areas are at risk, or in setback zones. Users of this data must contact the Thames Coromandel District Council and/or Waikato Regional Council Policy Group for assistance on deciding on the applicable policy and plan issues for individual properties, and to confirm which zone(s) a particular property may or may not fall into. The lines should only be used at a scale appropriate for the inherent positional accuracy of the data and are only indicative at individual property level." |
|---|
Download Links
Supporting Information Links
General Notes:
Attribute Information
| Name | Description | Notes | Restricted | Primary Key |
|---|
| GEOMETRY |
|
|
N |
N |
| LOCATION |
Location |
|
N |
N |
| BEACH_TYPE |
Type of beach |
|
N |
N |
| SETBACK_DISTANCE_METRES |
Distance of setback in meters |
|
N |
N |
| COMMENTS |
Additional information/comments on data |
|
N |
N |
| MAP_NUMBER |
Map numer |
|
N |
N |
| ID |
Unique Identifier |
|
N |
Y |
|
HAZARD.sdeadmin.CHL_SECONDARY_DEVL_SETBACK
| |
| File Identifier: |
8D561979-91B5-4E48-AE8A-5B9951CB008A |
Parent Identifier: |
B191DD0F-AE90-44F9-A863-A67FF618BD79 |
|---|
| Hierarchy Level: |
feature |
Hierarchy Level Name: | feature of Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC |
|---|
| Abstract: |
Secondary Development Setback (SDS) the second setback incorporates an allowance for the effects that may accompany predicted global warming over the next 100 years. |
|---|
| Statement: |
Along the eastern Coromandel Coast, the PDS is either 35 m or 40 m, while the total SDS varies from 50-60 m. The equivalent setbacks along the western Coromandel are typically 25 m and 50 m, though a lesser setback (15 m) is recommended for Otautu Bay.
Data has been assessed from aerial mapping, oblique photography, recollections from local residents, radiocarbon dating of dune sediments and other coastal deposits, beach surveys, and applied science (e.g. using the Brunn Rule). These have been used to determine the long-term trend of each shoreline and the effect of predicted sea level rise. |
|---|
| Other Information: |
This extends to the coastal areas of the Thames Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Administrative boundaries. The data set has varying currency of data ranging from the early 1990s to the present day. It is envisaged that the data will be updated every 10 years however updating and maintenance of the data will not be on a continuous basis. The first draft of the development setback report was produced in July 2000. It has since been subject to two scientific peer-reviews both concluding that the proposed setbacks were not overly conservative on the basis of present scientific data. This is 100% complete although site specific statagies are required at some locations.
The accuracy of the hazard setback lines is a combination of error in the underlying data sources and processing, including CRS data, aerial photograph registration, placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and accuracy of the calculated setback from the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. Errors in the calculated setback are assumed negligible given the precision of the GIS.
1. CRS Data.
Positional accuracy is related to, but less than that of the CRS data, which is as follows.
The accuracy standard for the CRS is the LINZ Standard for Geographical Accuracy, that is "For the great majority of points, digitised co-ordinates must be accurate, relative to numeric survey co-ordinates, to within +/- 1mm multiplied by the representative fraction of the capture map scale." The scales of these maps range from 1:396 (50 links to an inch) to 1:50,000 with scales of 1:792, 1:1000, 1:1584 and 1:2000 predominant in urban areas and scales of 1:7920 and 1:10,000 predominant in rural areas. This means the accuracy for boundaries is approximately +/- 2 m for urban properties and +/- 10 m for rural properties.
It is recognised that population by digitisation perpetuates all the existing errors in the manually produced cadastral record maps and may contribute more of their own. LINZ has endeavoured to minimise errors during the pre-capture task of data preparation and during data capture to ensure that the positional accuracy of the CRS is at least, if not of greater accuracy, than that of the existing cadastral record maps from which most of the CRS is derived.
Many of the urban areas within the Waikato Region have upgraded positional accuracy. This has been achieved by numeric entry using the latest survey information at the time. It is expected that the accuracy achieved for these areas would be within +/- 0.5 metres. These areas include: Acacia Bay, Arapuni, Cambridge, Cooks Beach, Hahei, Hatepe, Kinloch, Leamington, Matamata, Morrinsville, Motuoapa, Pauanui, Putaruru, Tairua, Taupo, Te Awamutu, Te Kuiti, Te Rangiita, Thames, Tirau, Waihi, Whangamata, and Whitianga. There may be other areas that have also been upgraded.
2. Aerial photograph registration. The aerial photographs were not orthorectified but were rubber-sheeted to get the best overall visual fit with clearly identifiable CRS parcel edges and road centrelines. No quantitative assessment of accuracy was undertaken at the time of image registration because all control points are matched perfectly when rubber-sheeting. Where there are more clearly identifiable points, the alignment between the CRS and the photograph is better (respecting that in some areas, the CRS data is a poor picture of what is actually on the ground).
3. Placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. This is dependent on the mapping skills and resolution of the registered aerial photography. Mapping skills are assumed accurate. Checks of the Whitianga, Pauanui, Papa Aroha, Whangamata and Whangapoua images show that the image resolution is 1.3m. This gives a quantitative error of +/- 1.3m for a mapper to place the line. Note that in some instances field checking moved the line from what appears to be the toe of vegetation in the aerial photograph.
The positional accuracy can be considered as either absolute or relative.
Absolute accuracy, i.e. how a co-ordinate on the setback line would compare to a GPS or surveyed co-ordinate, is a combination of all error sources. Absolute accuracy is assessed to be between 3.6m and 25m depending on the CRS accuracy and the number and quality of points available for image registration. This varies for each beach.
Relative accuracy, i.e. when viewing the lines over the aerial photography, whether the setback line appears to run through a house or not, is dependent on placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and to a lesser extent the aerial photograph registration. Relative accuracy is assessed to be +/- 1.3m.
N.B: 3.6m = (1.3m*2+0.5m*2). 25m = (1.3m*2 + 10m*2).
The data can be provided in hard or soft copies of customised GIS map outputs at a range of scales.
The proposed development setbacks were developed from scientific data collected up until July 2000. If required, the data set will be updated in 10 years time as new research and information comes to hand. |
|---|
| Keywords: |
Beaches,Coastal,Dunes,Hazard |
|---|
| Topic Category: |
oceans:features and characteristics of salt water bodies (excluding inland waters) |
|---|
| Resource Reference Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Metadata Constraints
| Access Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
Maintenance Information
| Maintenance frequency: |
notPlanned |
|---|
| Last Load Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Spatial Representation Information
| Recommended Scale: |
|
|---|
| Reference System: |
EPSG2193 |
|---|
| Spatial Representation Type: |
vector |
|---|
| Vector | Grid | Geographic Bounding Box |
|---|
| GeometricObjectType : |
curve |
|---|
| geometricObjectCount : |
24 |
|---|
| topologyLevel : |
geometryOnly |
|---|
|
| Number of Dimensions : |
|
|---|
| Cell Geometry : |
|
|---|
| Transformation Param Available : |
N |
|---|
|
| westBoundLongitude : |
1857640.75 |
|---|
| eastBoundLongitude : |
1818040.75 |
|---|
| southBoundLatitude : |
5868926.47 |
|---|
| northBoundLatitude : |
5954869.61 |
|---|
|
Responsible Parties
| Role: |
owner |
| Position: |
GIS and Data Management Team Leader |
|---|
| Organisation: |
Waikato Regional Council |
|---|
| Delivery Point: |
160 Ward Street |
|---|
| City: |
Hamilton Central |
|---|
| Postal Code: |
3204 |
|---|
| Country: |
New Zealand |
|---|
| Phone: |
|
|---|
| Fax: |
|
|---|
| Email: |
|
|---|
|
Data Constraints
| Data Access Constraints : |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Distribution: |
Third party, internal permission |
|---|
| Licence Type : |
To be determined |
|---|
| Licence: |
|
|---|
| Licence Expiry: |
|
|---|
| Licence Conditions: |
Waikato Regional Council will the data set available on the basis that no modification of the data set is to take place. The dataset will be supplied and is to be used as a GIS layer only and WRC is not responsible for assisting any third party with importing the data into their systems or for spurious data resulting from inappropriate use or conversion or incompatible software or hardware. Users must recognise the data use limitations and disclaimers which apply to the data.
|
|---|
| Copyright : |
© Waikato Regional Council 2002-2007. Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC. |
|---|
| Data Disclaimers : |
The standard Waikato Regional Council Disclaimer applies to this data “While Waikato Regional Council has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this information, Waikato Regional Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you.” |
|---|
| Data Use Limits : |
"This data should not be used in isolation as the sole means for determining which properties and areas are at risk, or in setback zones. Users of this data must contact the Thames Coromandel District Council and/or Waikato Regional Council Policy Group for assistance on deciding on the applicable policy and plan issues for individual properties, and to confirm which zone(s) a particular property may or may not fall into. The lines should only be used at a scale appropriate for the inherent positional accuracy of the data and are only indicative at individual property level." |
|---|
Download Links
Supporting Information Links
General Notes:
Attribute Information
| Name | Description | Notes | Restricted | Primary Key |
|---|
| GEOMETRY |
|
|
N |
N |
| LOCATION |
Location |
|
N |
N |
| BEACH_TYPE |
Beach type |
|
N |
N |
| SETBACK_DISTANCE_METRES |
Setback distance |
|
N |
N |
| COMMENTS |
Additional information/comments |
|
N |
N |
| MAP_NUMBER |
Map Number |
|
N |
N |
| ID |
Unique Identifier |
|
N |
Y |
|
HAZARD.sdeadmin.CHL_SETBACK_UNDEVL_AREA
| |
| File Identifier: |
E9A97F1D-2D86-485B-ACB6-A1211C0D2804 |
Parent Identifier: |
B191DD0F-AE90-44F9-A863-A67FF618BD79 |
|---|
| Hierarchy Level: |
feature |
Hierarchy Level Name: | feature of Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC |
|---|
| Abstract: |
Setback for Undeveloped Areas (SUA) in areas that have not yet been developed, a third setback has been mapped. |
|---|
| Statement: |
On the eastern and western Coromandel Coast, this setback is 100 m and 50 m respectively. This larger setback (same as SDS on western Coromandel) is to allow for coastal hazard risk and other values such as natural character and public amenity. In some specific locations, a different setback has been proposed and reasons for this are recorded in the technical report and as comments in the attributes of the GIS database.
Data has been assessed from aerial mapping, oblique photography, recollections from local residents, radiocarbon dating of dune sediments and other coastal deposits, beach surveys, and applied science (e.g. using the Brunn Rule). These have been used to determine the long-term trend of each shoreline and the effect of predicted sea level rise. |
|---|
| Other Information: |
This extends to the coastal areas of the Thames Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Administrative boundaries. The data set has varying currency of data ranging from the early 1990s to the present day. It is envisaged that the data will be updated every 10 years however updating and maintenance of the data will not be on a continuous basis. The first draft of the development setback report was produced in July 2000. It has since been subject to two scientific peer-reviews both concluding that the proposed setbacks were not overly conservative on the basis of present scientific data. This is 100% complete although site specific statagies are required at some locations.
The accuracy of the hazard setback lines is a combination of error in the underlying data sources and processing, including CRS data, aerial photograph registration, placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and accuracy of the calculated setback from the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. Errors in the calculated setback are assumed negligible given the precision of the GIS.
1. CRS Data.
Positional accuracy is related to, but less than that of the CRS data, which is as follows.
The accuracy standard for the CRS is the LINZ Standard for Geographical Accuracy, that is "For the great majority of points, digitised co-ordinates must be accurate, relative to numeric survey co-ordinates, to within +/- 1mm multiplied by the representative fraction of the capture map scale." The scales of these maps range from 1:396 (50 links to an inch) to 1:50,000 with scales of 1:792, 1:1000, 1:1584 and 1:2000 predominant in urban areas and scales of 1:7920 and 1:10,000 predominant in rural areas. This means the accuracy for boundaries is approximately +/- 2 m for urban properties and +/- 10 m for rural properties.
It is recognised that population by digitisation perpetuates all the existing errors in the manually produced cadastral record maps and may contribute more of their own. LINZ has endeavoured to minimise errors during the pre-capture task of data preparation and during data capture to ensure that the positional accuracy of the CRS is at least, if not of greater accuracy, than that of the existing cadastral record maps from which most of the CRS is derived.
Many of the urban areas within the Waikato Region have upgraded positional accuracy. This has been achieved by numeric entry using the latest survey information at the time. It is expected that the accuracy achieved for these areas would be within +/- 0.5 metres. These areas include: Acacia Bay, Arapuni, Cambridge, Cooks Beach, Hahei, Hatepe, Kinloch, Leamington, Matamata, Morrinsville, Motuoapa, Pauanui, Putaruru, Tairua, Taupo, Te Awamutu, Te Kuiti, Te Rangiita, Thames, Tirau, Waihi, Whangamata, and Whitianga. There may be other areas that have also been upgraded.
2. Aerial photograph registration. The aerial photographs were not orthorectified but were rubber-sheeted to get the best overall visual fit with clearly identifiable CRS parcel edges and road centrelines. No quantitative assessment of accuracy was undertaken at the time of image registration because all control points are matched perfectly when rubber-sheeting. Where there are more clearly identifiable points, the alignment between the CRS and the photograph is better (respecting that in some areas, the CRS data is a poor picture of what is actually on the ground).
3. Placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. This is dependent on the mapping skills and resolution of the registered aerial photography. Mapping skills are assumed accurate. Checks of the Whitianga, Pauanui, Papa Aroha, Whangamata and Whangapoua images show that the image resolution is 1.3m. This gives a quantitative error of +/- 1.3m for a mapper to place the line. Note that in some instances field checking moved the line from what appears to be the toe of vegetation in the aerial photograph.
The positional accuracy can be considered as either absolute or relative.
Absolute accuracy, i.e. how a co-ordinate on the setback line would compare to a GPS or surveyed co-ordinate, is a combination of all error sources. Absolute accuracy is assessed to be between 3.6m and 25m depending on the CRS accuracy and the number and quality of points available for image registration. This varies for each beach.
Relative accuracy, i.e. when viewing the lines over the aerial photography, whether the setback line appears to run through a house or not, is dependent on placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and to a lesser extent the aerial photograph registration. Relative accuracy is assessed to be +/- 1.3m.
N.B: 3.6m = (1.3m*2+0.5m*2). 25m = (1.3m*2 + 10m*2).
The data can be provided in hard or soft copies of customised GIS map outputs at a range of scales.
The proposed development setbacks were developed from scientific data collected up until July 2000. If required, the data set will be updated in 10 years time as new research and information comes to hand. |
|---|
| Keywords: |
Beaches,Coastal,Dunes,Hazard |
|---|
| Topic Category: |
oceans:features and characteristics of salt water bodies (excluding inland waters) |
|---|
| Resource Reference Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Metadata Constraints
| Access Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
Maintenance Information
| Maintenance frequency: |
notPlanned |
|---|
| Last Load Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Spatial Representation Information
| Recommended Scale: |
|
|---|
| Reference System: |
EPSG2193 |
|---|
| Spatial Representation Type: |
vector |
|---|
| Vector | Grid | Geographic Bounding Box |
|---|
| GeometricObjectType : |
curve |
|---|
| geometricObjectCount : |
16 |
|---|
| topologyLevel : |
geometryOnly |
|---|
|
| Number of Dimensions : |
|
|---|
| Cell Geometry : |
|
|---|
| Transformation Param Available : |
N |
|---|
|
| westBoundLongitude : |
1855430.97 |
|---|
| eastBoundLongitude : |
1817132.91 |
|---|
| southBoundLatitude : |
5875847.18 |
|---|
| northBoundLatitude : |
5954905.97 |
|---|
|
Responsible Parties
| Role: |
owner |
| Position: |
GIS and Data Management Team Leader |
|---|
| Organisation: |
Waikato Regional Council |
|---|
| Delivery Point: |
160 Ward Street |
|---|
| City: |
Hamilton Central |
|---|
| Postal Code: |
3204 |
|---|
| Country: |
New Zealand |
|---|
| Phone: |
|
|---|
| Fax: |
|
|---|
| Email: |
|
|---|
|
Data Constraints
| Data Access Constraints : |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Distribution: |
Third party, internal permission |
|---|
| Licence Type : |
To be determined |
|---|
| Licence: |
|
|---|
| Licence Expiry: |
|
|---|
| Licence Conditions: |
Waikato Regional Council will the data set available on the basis that no modification of the data set is to take place. The dataset will be supplied and is to be used as a GIS layer only and WRC is not responsible for assisting any third party with importing the data into their systems or for spurious data resulting from inappropriate use or conversion or incompatible software or hardware. Users must recognise the data use limitations and disclaimers which apply to the data.
|
|---|
| Copyright : |
© Waikato Regional Council 2002-2007. Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC. |
|---|
| Data Disclaimers : |
The standard Waikato Regional Council Disclaimer applies to this data “While Waikato Regional Council has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this information, Waikato Regional Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you.” |
|---|
| Data Use Limits : |
"This data should not be used in isolation as the sole means for determining which properties and areas are at risk, or in setback zones. Users of this data must contact the Thames Coromandel District Council and/or Waikato Regional Council Policy Group for assistance on deciding on the applicable policy and plan issues for individual properties, and to confirm which zone(s) a particular property may or may not fall into. The lines should only be used at a scale appropriate for the inherent positional accuracy of the data and are only indicative at individual property level." |
|---|
Download Links
Supporting Information Links
General Notes:
Attribute Information
| Name | Description | Notes | Restricted | Primary Key |
|---|
| GEOMETRY |
|
|
N |
N |
| LOCATION |
Location |
|
N |
N |
| BEACH_TYPE |
Beach typer |
|
N |
N |
| SETBACK_DISTANCE_METRES |
Setback distance in meters |
|
N |
N |
| COMMENTS |
Additional information/comments |
|
N |
N |
| MAP_NUMBER |
Map number |
|
N |
N |
| ID |
Unique Identifier |
|
N |
Y |
|
HAZARD.sdeadmin.CHL_TOE_OF_DUNE
| |
| File Identifier: |
12716C26-6ED4-4B41-8B04-D3F672B662C8 |
Parent Identifier: |
B191DD0F-AE90-44F9-A863-A67FF618BD79 |
|---|
| Hierarchy Level: |
feature |
Hierarchy Level Name: | feature of Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC |
|---|
| Abstract: |
The shoreline mapped from 1995/96 aerial photography (Coastal Toe of Vegetation) provided a baseline for the PDS and SDS to be mapped from. |
|---|
| Statement: |
This line represents the toe or base of the most seaward dune at the time of the 1995/6 photography. This line was mapped from the photos and ground truthed with field visits. Considerable care was taken to keep this line reasonably smooth. This was necessary to minimise irregularities in location of the setback boundary, which could potentially disadvantage some properties in relation to adjacent areas.
Data has been assessed from aerial mapping, oblique photography, recollections from local residents, radiocarbon dating of dune sediments and other coastal deposits, beach surveys, and applied science (e.g. using the Brunn Rule). These have been used to determine the long-term trend of each shoreline and the effect of predicted sea level rise. |
|---|
| Other Information: |
This extends to the coastal areas of the Thames Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Administrative boundaries. The data set has varying currency of data ranging from the early 1990s to the present day. It is envisaged that the data will be updated every 10 years however updating and maintenance of the data will not be on a continuous basis. The first draft of the development setback report was produced in July 2000. It has since been subject to two scientific peer-reviews both concluding that the proposed setbacks were not overly conservative on the basis of present scientific data. This is 100% complete although site specific statagies are required at some locations.
The accuracy of the hazard setback lines is a combination of error in the underlying data sources and processing, including CRS data, aerial photograph registration, placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and accuracy of the calculated setback from the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. Errors in the calculated setback are assumed negligible given the precision of the GIS.
1. CRS Data.
Positional accuracy is related to, but less than that of the CRS data, which is as follows.
The accuracy standard for the CRS is the LINZ Standard for Geographical Accuracy, that is "For the great majority of points, digitised co-ordinates must be accurate, relative to numeric survey co-ordinates, to within +/- 1mm multiplied by the representative fraction of the capture map scale." The scales of these maps range from 1:396 (50 links to an inch) to 1:50,000 with scales of 1:792, 1:1000, 1:1584 and 1:2000 predominant in urban areas and scales of 1:7920 and 1:10,000 predominant in rural areas. This means the accuracy for boundaries is approximately +/- 2 m for urban properties and +/- 10 m for rural properties.
It is recognised that population by digitisation perpetuates all the existing errors in the manually produced cadastral record maps and may contribute more of their own. LINZ has endeavoured to minimise errors during the pre-capture task of data preparation and during data capture to ensure that the positional accuracy of the CRS is at least, if not of greater accuracy, than that of the existing cadastral record maps from which most of the CRS is derived.
Many of the urban areas within the Waikato Region have upgraded positional accuracy. This has been achieved by numeric entry using the latest survey information at the time. It is expected that the accuracy achieved for these areas would be within +/- 0.5 metres. These areas include: Acacia Bay, Arapuni, Cambridge, Cooks Beach, Hahei, Hatepe, Kinloch, Leamington, Matamata, Morrinsville, Motuoapa, Pauanui, Putaruru, Tairua, Taupo, Te Awamutu, Te Kuiti, Te Rangiita, Thames, Tirau, Waihi, Whangamata, and Whitianga. There may be other areas that have also been upgraded.
2. Aerial photograph registration. The aerial photographs were not orthorectified but were rubber-sheeted to get the best overall visual fit with clearly identifiable CRS parcel edges and road centrelines. No quantitative assessment of accuracy was undertaken at the time of image registration because all control points are matched perfectly when rubber-sheeting. Where there are more clearly identifiable points, the alignment between the CRS and the photograph is better (respecting that in some areas, the CRS data is a poor picture of what is actually on the ground).
3. Placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line. This is dependent on the mapping skills and resolution of the registered aerial photography. Mapping skills are assumed accurate. Checks of the Whitianga, Pauanui, Papa Aroha, Whangamata and Whangapoua images show that the image resolution is 1.3m. This gives a quantitative error of +/- 1.3m for a mapper to place the line. Note that in some instances field checking moved the line from what appears to be the toe of vegetation in the aerial photograph.
The positional accuracy can be considered as either absolute or relative.
Absolute accuracy, i.e. how a co-ordinate on the setback line would compare to a GPS or surveyed co-ordinate, is a combination of all error sources. Absolute accuracy is assessed to be between 3.6m and 25m depending on the CRS accuracy and the number and quality of points available for image registration. This varies for each beach.
Relative accuracy, i.e. when viewing the lines over the aerial photography, whether the setback line appears to run through a house or not, is dependent on placement of the “coastal toe of vegetation” line and to a lesser extent the aerial photograph registration. Relative accuracy is assessed to be +/- 1.3m.
N.B: 3.6m = (1.3m*2+0.5m*2). 25m = (1.3m*2 + 10m*2).
The data can be provided in hard or soft copies of customised GIS map outputs at a range of scales.
The proposed development setbacks were developed from scientific data collected up until July 2000. If required, the data set will be updated in 10 years time as new research and information comes to hand. |
|---|
| Keywords: |
Beaches,Coastal,Dunes,Hazard |
|---|
| Topic Category: |
oceans:features and characteristics of salt water bodies (excluding inland waters) |
|---|
| Resource Reference Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Metadata Constraints
| Access Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
Maintenance Information
| Maintenance frequency: |
notPlanned |
|---|
| Last Load Date: |
24/04/2007 |
|---|
Spatial Representation Information
| Recommended Scale: |
|
|---|
| Reference System: |
EPSG2193 |
|---|
| Spatial Representation Type: |
vector |
|---|
| Vector | Grid | Geographic Bounding Box |
|---|
| GeometricObjectType : |
curve |
|---|
| geometricObjectCount : |
36 |
|---|
| topologyLevel : |
geometryOnly |
|---|
|
| Number of Dimensions : |
|
|---|
| Cell Geometry : |
|
|---|
| Transformation Param Available : |
N |
|---|
|
| westBoundLongitude : |
1857686.07 |
|---|
| eastBoundLongitude : |
1809625.63 |
|---|
| southBoundLatitude : |
5868960.13 |
|---|
| northBoundLatitude : |
5961057.48 |
|---|
|
Responsible Parties
| Role: |
owner |
| Position: |
GIS and Data Management Team Leader |
|---|
| Organisation: |
Waikato Regional Council |
|---|
| Delivery Point: |
160 Ward Street |
|---|
| City: |
Hamilton Central |
|---|
| Postal Code: |
3204 |
|---|
| Country: |
New Zealand |
|---|
| Phone: |
|
|---|
| Fax: |
|
|---|
| Email: |
|
|---|
|
Data Constraints
| Data Access Constraints : |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Use Constraints: |
copyright |
|---|
| Data Distribution: |
Third party, internal permission |
|---|
| Licence Type : |
To be determined |
|---|
| Licence: |
|
|---|
| Licence Expiry: |
|
|---|
| Licence Conditions: |
Waikato Regional Council will the data set available on the basis that no modification of the data set is to take place. The dataset will be supplied and is to be used as a GIS layer only and WRC is not responsible for assisting any third party with importing the data into their systems or for spurious data resulting from inappropriate use or conversion or incompatible software or hardware. Users must recognise the data use limitations and disclaimers which apply to the data.
|
|---|
| Copyright : |
© Waikato Regional Council 2002-2007. Coastal Hazards Lines - Development Setback Recommendations for TCDC. |
|---|
| Data Disclaimers : |
The standard Waikato Regional Council Disclaimer applies to this data “While Waikato Regional Council has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this information, Waikato Regional Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you.” |
|---|
| Data Use Limits : |
"This data should not be used in isolation as the sole means for determining which properties and areas are at risk, or in setback zones. Users of this data must contact the Thames Coromandel District Council and/or Waikato Regional Council Policy Group for assistance on deciding on the applicable policy and plan issues for individual properties, and to confirm which zone(s) a particular property may or may not fall into. The lines should only be used at a scale appropriate for the inherent positional accuracy of the data and are only indicative at individual property level." |
|---|
Download Links
Supporting Information Links
General Notes:
Attribute Information
| Name | Description | Notes | Restricted | Primary Key |
|---|
| GEOMETRY |
|
|
N |
N |
| LOCATION |
Location |
|
N |
N |
| BEACH_TYPE |
Beach type |
|
N |
N |
| SETBACK_DISTANCE_METRES |
Setback distance in meters |
|
N |
N |
| COMMENTS |
Additional information/comments |
|
N |
N |
| MAP_NUMBER |
Map number |
|
N |
N |
| ID |
Unique identifer |
|
N |
Y |
|
|
|