WyGEO Community Survey 2025

State of GIS Data & Coordination in Wyoming

Author

Wyoming Geospatial Professionals (WyGEO)

1 Executive summary

  • Broad consensus for statewide coordination: Large majorities of respondents Agree or Strongly agree that greater statewide GIS coordination would make Wyoming better off, support economic development, improve decision-making, and reduce duplication and public costs.
  • GeoHub is treated as infrastructure by many users: While usage frequency is uneven, a significant share rate the GeoHub as critical (4–5 on a 1–5 scale), meaning changes to its availability, funding, or reliability would directly affect their day-to-day work.
  • Counties and agencies are hitting capacity limits: Open-ended responses repeatedly cite staffing constraints, difficulty maintaining foundational layers (especially parcels, addresses, and NG911-related datasets), and frustration with data silos and duplication of effort.
  • The gap is governance and sustained support—not technology: Respondents ask for clear standards, authoritative statewide layers, predictable update cadences, and a funded, empowered statewide GIS coordination function.

Without a clearer statewide role, Wyoming will continue to absorb unnecessary emergency‑response risk, redundant GIS spending, and fragmented workflows that make it harder for agencies, businesses, and the public to trust and use geospatial information.

Wyoming’s highest‑earning sectors—energy, outdoor recreation tourism, broadband investment, and permitting—depend on accurate spatial data; in that sense, statewide GIS coordination is economic infrastructure.

“There needs to be a structure, authority, and funds to ensure that agreed‑upon authoritative data, in its most up‑to‑date form, is available.”
— State agency respondent

2 Overview

We received 65 responses from at least 61 distinct organizations across Wyoming’s GIS community. This is one of the broadest statewide GIS snapshots Wyoming has collected, spanning state agencies, local governments, utilities, private firms, and higher education.

NoteKey takeaway

Respondents represent a mix of state agencies, local governments, private firms, and educational institutions—this is not just “one shop’s” opinion.

3 Core data layers — satisfaction snapshot

Across the core statewide layers, satisfaction skews positive:

  • Parcels and governmental units have the strongest “Good/Excellent” ratings.
  • Addresses, transportation, and orthoimagery sit mostly in the Adequate–Good band.
  • Hydrography and elevation show the highest share of “Poor/Very poor” responses, highlighting them as priority layers for improvement.

4 GeoHub usage & criticality

Roughly 70% of respondents are aware of the GeoHub, while about 30% are not—underscoring both its importance and a clear outreach opportunity.

Use skews toward “hardly ever” and monthly access, with relatively few respondents using GeoHub weekly or daily—suggesting many users still rely on alternative workflows or direct sources for day-to-day data.

Ratings cluster in the middle to high range: some respondents say they would be “fine without it,” but a similar share rate GeoHub 4 or 5, indicating that changes to its availability or quality would directly impact their work.

Important

For many respondents, GeoHub already functions as critical infrastructure. Changes to its availability or quality would directly impact their work. At the same time, comments describe stale layers, broken links, and uncertainty about what is authoritative. The primary gap is not interest or awareness, but sustained governance and maintenance so GeoHub can operate as the single front door for statewide data.

5 Attitudes toward statewide GIS coordination

Across all six statements, support for statewide GIS coordination is consistently high:

  • The strongest agreement clusters around reducing duplication & public costs, improving decision-making, and supporting economic development.
  • Even the more general statement about expanding the state’s role in GIS coordination shows a clear majority in the “Agree/Strongly agree” range.
  • Only a very small minority land in the “Disagree/Strongly disagree” category for any item, indicating broad alignment that a coordinated statewide approach is both useful and needed rather than controversial.
  • In governance terms, this looks less like a divided issue and more like rare professional alignment around a shared direction of travel.

“Spatial data collection and coordination has been, and will always be, an important issue to state business.”
— Beth Hoobler, Legislative Service Office

5.1 How broad is the consensus?

Taken together, responses show broad and deep support for a stronger statewide role:

  • Many respondents agree with five or all six coordination statements, not just one or two.
  • Only a small minority disagree across the board, suggesting that concerns are about implementation details, not the idea of statewide coordination itself.
  • This pattern is exactly what you look for when assessing readiness for a governance shift: the community is already aligned on the direction of travel and is asking for structure, leadership, and resources.

6 Voices from the community (open-ended responses)

Open-ended comments highlight recurring themes:

  • Data currency & standards – calls for clear statewide standards and predictable update cycles.
  • Clarity of roles – better definition of who maintains what, and where the “official” version lives.
  • Practical coordination – interest in shared repositories, regular meetings, and simple mechanisms to avoid duplicating work.

Here are a few representative comments from respondents who gave permission to be quoted with their name and organization:

“To me, [coordination] is breaking down the silos of data and helping to provide the authoritative data to those that are needing it. We need a good repository.”
— Destry Dearden, Lincoln County

“Using GIS data for decisions made at any level in the state is crucial. This allows everyone to be able to use accurate information for more informed decisions.”
— City of Evanston respondent

“Greater coordination would help the GIS community know what is going on across the state… It would cut down on duplication, because the community would know what is happening in other agencies, and stop creating the same data for their needs.”
— Chad Kopplin, Wyoming DEQ

“NG911 framework development and implementation. Having a central repository of data for all agencies to access. There needs to be a central state level repository.”
— Monte McClain, Park County Sheriff’s Office

“GIS coordination is creating a common operating picture that helps all parties speak a common spatial language.”
— Pickett and Associates respondent

7 Operational risk & exposure

Respondents identify several risks associated with maintaining a loosely coordinated statewide GIS environment, particularly for public safety, emergency response, and long‑term investment decisions:

  • Fragmented foundational layers: Multiple versions of parcels, addresses, roads, and hydrography exist in different places, with varying quality and unknown update cycles.
  • Staffing and capacity constraints: Counties and agencies struggle to recruit and retain staff capable of maintaining NG911-grade datasets.
  • Inconsistent access and trust: Users often cannot determine which dataset is authoritative, leading agencies to recreate local versions.

7.1 Public safety and NG911

Comments repeatedly emphasize that Wyoming’s NG911 posture lags national expectations:

  • PSAPs need seamless cross‑boundary visibility and reliable routing near county and state borders.
  • Several responses call for regulatory standards and governance to ensure statewide 911 data.

“Wyoming NG9‑1‑1 is far behind the national standards. We need proper GIS mapping to ensure wireless 9‑1‑1 calls land in the correct place for emergency service dispatch.”
— Sheriff’s Office respondent

7.2 Why counties and agencies can’t sustain this alone

  • Smaller agencies lack staff and budget to maintain authoritative layers.
  • Duplicating effort across 23+ counties increases gaps and inconsistencies.
  • Respondents favor a model where local subject‑matter experts maintain data, while a statewide function sets standards and coordinates updates.

7.3 Economic and development impacts

Respondents link the value of statewide GIS coordination to broader outcomes:

  • Permitting, resource planning, broadband, and economic development depend on authoritative data.

  • Better coordination reduces friction for the public and private sectors.

  • High‑quality statewide layers help direct limited public funds toward the greatest need.

Outdoor recreation tourism is consistently mentioned as a high‑value industry where accessible, map‑based experiences help both residents and visitors make better use of Wyoming’s landscapes.

NoteWhat “authoritative statewide data” means in practice
  • A clearly identified custodian for each foundational layer
  • A shared schema and documentation that partners can adopt
  • A predictable update cadence and communicated publish dates
  • Transparent metadata about completeness, coverage, and limitations

8 Key messages & next steps

  • Data quality: Most statewide layers are rated Adequate–Good, but confidence decreases when update cycles and custodianship are unclear.
  • GeoHub: High awareness and clear evidence it is mission-critical for many respondents’ work.
  • Coordination: Overwhelming support for a stronger statewide role to reduce duplication, support economic development, and improve decision-making.
  • Consensus, not controversy: Across coordination statements, strong majorities agree, and outright disagreement is rare. Many respondents agree with nearly every coordination statement, indicating that the appetite for a stronger statewide role already exists.
  • Governance gap, not technology gap: Respondents are clear that the problem is not software. The problem is missing standards, predictable update cycles, custodianship, and funding. Wyoming needs a clear, empowered statewide GIS authority to own, publish, and sustain the geospatial infrastructure.
  • Momentum: Comments show not just critique but willingness to collaborate and help shape a modern, statewide GIS governance model.

Wyoming already has willing partners, technical maturity, and broad consensus; what is missing is a funded, empowered statewide GIS authority to protect public safety, economic efficiency, and data quality.

9 Appendix A — Ready‑to‑deploy statewide actions

The survey results point toward several concrete steps that could be taken without waiting for a full statutory overhaul:

  • Publish and adopt standards for foundational layers such as parcels, addresses, roads, and NG911 data, with input from counties, state agencies, tribes, and utilities.
  • Define custodianship and minimum staffing expectations for authoritative NG911‑grade datasets, especially parcels and addresses that support routing and service delivery.
  • Commit to a predictable update cadence (for example, at least twice per year) for statewide layers, and publish a simple schedule so partners know when to align their own work.
  • Stabilize and modernize the GeoHub as the single front door for statewide data by fixing stale links, clarifying what is authoritative, and ensuring ongoing operational funding.
  • Stand up a regular coordination forum (such as quarterly calls or working groups) where custodians, counties, and statewide partners can surface issues, share progress, and align on priorities.

These steps are consistent with what respondents describe and could begin to close the governance gap while longer‑term structural options are explored.