The question in the title of this article has many answers. Below we offer a collection of our answers and discussions in order for you to determine the stage of development that your land mapping effort has reached and to spark further consideration within your organizations as to whether you should consider embarking on the data standard changes necessary to begin land mapping in the future.  We present this article in order to begin the education necessary to perform land mapping.

We find most companies at a beginning automated-land-mapping-effort level. This is not because the technology does not exist. The technology does exist. It is because the expectations and standards of the organization have not reached a level that sees automated land mapping as valuable or appropriate.

The following are answers to the above question with discusssions on why automated land mapping does not seem to be economically feasible for some companies.    Also present after the discussions are suggestions on how to rank your company as to the level of data standards, expectations, and technology necessary to perform automated land ownership mapping.

1. Data is not available, is out of date, not trustworthy, or is formatted incorrectly to map. No data standards exist.

All the above items translate into maps that are not trustworthy. Obviously, if mappable data is not available, then you cannot map. If the data is out of date, then the data is not trustworthy. If the data is formatted improperly to map, then data is not really available.

All these factors relate to standards. Most companies do not realize that data standards must exist in order to perform automated mapping. The successful companies (companies that can perform automated land mapping) set standards in several areas: broker-supplied data, own-account internal land records system data, and third-party vendor supplied data. All these types of data must be complete, trustworthy, and in a standard format in order to perform automated land mapping.

We have noticed a side benefit to the implementation of standards.   We find that the data within an organization with standards is of higher quality, mort trustworthy.  If a company has reached the stage of actually performing automated land mapping, the data quality is even higher.  Why is this?    When you expose your data to view, it is reviewed, errors are identified and corrected.

In order to move past the limitations of poor data and poor standards, the company must have a vision of the benefits of automated land mapping. This can only be experienced by seeing what is occurring in one of your active areas in relationship to the Geology and Production of an area. The companies that have been successful in performing large-scale land plays, large acquisitions, and successful exploration have been able to display land ownership along side Geology and Production data.

If you have no data standards, then rank your efforts at Level 1.

If you have some data standards, then rank your efforts at Level 2.

If you have standards for all types of data and can map from these data, then rank your effors at Level 3.

2. Technology not current, technicians don't want to learn new technology.

We find that many times the people who are currently required to update maps don't want to change or think that the change places too much burden on them. We usually find one of five types of mapping activities being employed. Each has its own form of inertia that must be overcome in order to perform automated land mapping.

One, no mapping at all. This usually manifests in the complete lack of data. Lease maps are not available and all information would have to be collected together. The task of mapping all the data is usually prohibitive because of the effort required in collecting all data. However, if the company has active projects underway, then these projects can be used to move into the process. This is the most difficult situation because the technicians must be trained completely. If you are at this level of effort, then rank your efforts as Level 1.

Two, representations are supplied by brokers. These are ownership representations that require any users of these data to cross reference the information to other geologic or production maps. This is similar to the first circumstance in that the technician must be completely trained. Furthermore, since some representation is available, then it appears as if the effort would not be efficient. If you are at this level of effort, then rank your efforts as Level 1.

Three, hand drawn polygons with hand-entered text are updated upon request. This method requires little skill and only has to be addressed when lands are acquired or sold. Unfortunately, the technician must "hand" cross reference any lists with the maps. If you have large amounts of data, this exercise is very error prone. This is the most common method found within the industry. The technician requires a relatively low level of skill to perform with this method. Since a relatively low level of skill investement has been made, then great increases in speed and improved accuracy in producing maps can be acheived upon automation. If you are at this level of effort, then rank your efforts as Level 1.

Four, dual entry systems are employed. We find that if an automated system is being employed, i.e., Geographix Leasemap, we typically find that the effort required to load the data from a client's land records database is so daunting and time consuming that it is easier to maintain two systems. Dual entry creates duplicate effort and is prone to error. We usually find a relatively skilled technician that does not want to learn a new system for land mapping. If the technician can suspend their disbelief that more efficient systems exist, then a valid judgement of whether to move to a new system can be made. Once a technician has moved from a dual-entry system, they will never return. This usually requires that the land mapping system allow for the easy input of data from the many "standard" sources available. If you are at this level of effort, then rank your efforts as Level 2.

Five, standards and systems are in place in order to create land maps in the systems required. The land maps in this system can be displayed with Geologic and Production data. Third-party land ownership can be displayed and compared to company-owned data. These systems allow for the easy checking of missing or poorly formatted data and rely heavily upon a single-source of data, i.e., no duplicate entry systems. This level of effort is usually driven by the Exploration and Production departments. These departments need to see the ownership data associated with the Geology and Production data. E & P departments need the data in a timely fashion in order to make time-critical decisions. If you are at this level of effort, then rank your efforts as Level 3.

3. Automated land mapping does not match the business intentions of our company.

This reason is usually a result of the land department of a company not wanting to supply their data directly to the other departments. There are several reasons for this:

-landmen cannot vouch for the trustworthiness of the data without examining the data that is supplied.

-emerging legal situations arise that need to apprised by qualified landmen.

-the quality of data and quality of efforts can be assessed by knowing what is being requested and supplied.

All the above are valid reasons and fall under the category of Control. We require direct control when we do not have measurment systems and standards to ensure that we are sensing what is most important to our department or company.

We have discovered that if the other departments are required to request data, then the land department then knows what is occurring and can supply data that is trustworthy. Data can be examined and double-checked prior to supplying the data and thereby ensures trustworthiness. This is a valid process that you will find in many companies and brings to light the process of data evolution within a land department. One reason that this is required is because standards may not exist or be arbitrary. We suspect that where you find resistance to automated land mapping, then you will find limited standards.