Summary
The objective of the master thesis was comparative analysis of the creation of spatial plans in the Czech Republic and the differences of their creation within the GIS (Geographic Information System) and CAD (Computer Aided Design) environment. The work was divided into three parts – examination via questionnaire of the spatial plans processors, consultation with the chosen spatial plans processors, and own creation of a spatial plan of the township of Náměšť na Hané in the GIS and CAD environment.
The first part was focused on assembling a questionnaire which was then sent to spatial plans processors. The questions were about the software they use in creating the spatial plans, what is their opinion on the GIS and CAD environment, what data and methodologies they use, who is involved in the making of the spatial plans, and what education they have, how they assess certain steps in the GIS and CAD environments, etc.
In the second part, interviews were conducted with four spatial plans processors to quantify certain steps of the spatial plans creation in terms of time, distinguishing the GIS and CAD environment.
The last part was practical – the creation of the graphic part of a spatial plan in the GIS and CAD environment. The software was selected based on the results elicited from the questionnaires – ArcGIS Desktop 10 as the GIS environment, and MicroStation V8i Select Series as the CAD environment. The creation was quantified in terms of time, too. The most serious rendering problems were determined in the creation of the spatial plan and the proposals of their solution were suggested based on them.
The examination via questionnaires confirmed the assumption that for the most part, spatial plans are created in the CAD environment using the program MicroStation. Although the CAD environment prevails, this prevalence is not high because one-fourth of the processors use both environments, while another 25 % use the GIS environment only. This indicates a trend in the increasing use of the GIS systems in urban planning.
The main part of the questionnaire was the comparison of various steps in the GIS and CAD environment, that is, finding out in which environment the action is done better, easier. The results showed that most steps are performed better in the CAD environment, but for every step, a mere one vote was decisive. Examples of steps where it is better to use the CAD environment include digitalization and related editing of geometric data, and, moreover, tools for smooth curves are much better the CAD systems. On the other hand, editing of attribute data or access to the WMS services are better in the GIS systems.
The consultation with the spatial plans processors showed that it is very difficult to try to assess the creation of the graphical part of a spatial plan from the viewpoint of time, since the time it takes is influenced by many factors, such as the size of the area, the quality of underlying data, the number of people working at the spatial plan, programs used, etc.
Considering the time required for the creation of a spatial plan, the program ArcGIS is better as it contains a large number of time-saving tools. These include the Maplex extension which facilitates the creation of labels, the Cartographic Representation tool which facilitates the creation of character keys, and others. In contract, MicroStation is better in the editing of geometry, which allows better work with rounded curves. However, if it is not interconnected with a database through which it is possible to insert the labels easily, the work with them is very difficult and takes much time to work on the spatial plan. The greatest advantage of the GIS environment is admittedly the preparation of map outputs because a big part of the legend can be automatically generated and if something is changed in the drawing, the legend changes accordingly. The CAD environment does not offer this opportunity so it is necessary to perform everything by hand.
Some problems were noticed in converting data from the CAD format to the GIS format and vice versa. The conversion from the CAD format was done by ArcCatalog relatively easily. Even though data was not transferred perfectly in its entirety, there were no significant problems. By contrast, conversion to the CAD format occurred as a big problem. At first glance, data was transferred correctly, but after a closer examination, the data was scaled down. Therefore, a different converting method had to be found. After a long search for available programs, FME Desktop was eventually selected as it converted the data correctly.
The comparison of time between own creation of the spatial plan and the processor’s creation shows that in some steps, the results are very similar, while some are completely different. For example, the preparation and processing of data was similar, while the time for making the labels varied. By comparing the time of own creation in the GIS and CAD environments, it appears that the processing and data preparation, development of appropriate colours and printing of drawings are identical. Minor differences were found in the preparation of drawings and their export; these steps lasted a bit longer in the CAD environment than in the GIS environment. The biggest difference was in the creation of labels, where the implementation of this step involved much more time in the CAD environment than in the GIS environment.
In conclusion, it is possible to state that the GIS environment itself offers a multitude of tools that facilitate and accelerate work by creating the graphic part of the spatial plan. On the other hand, after adding additional extensions to the CAD environment, the usage of CAD is comparable.