Stakeholders debate file formats, metadata and security controls for a statewide design‑data exchange

The workshop’s second discussion asked what file formats, metadata and access controls would best support a consistent statewide planning-and-design information exchange. Staff asked participants which formats are generally accepted and which are best for statewide use; stakeholders replied with a mix of GIS and document formats and cautioned about security and retention.

Participants named a broad set of commonly used formats — PDF, CAD, KML/KMZ, GeoJSON, shapefile, CSV and LAS — and recommended allowing requesters to specify preferred export formats. "PDF works best for us," said Dustin of SoCalGas, because many reviewers lack full GIS or CAD access; others suggested offering both human‑readable PDFs and machine‑readable GIS exports.

Several speakers urged that shared files include metadata describing how and when data were collected, the coordinate datum and the ASCE 38‑22 quality level. "If we're going to be sharing file types that can be input into something like CAD…we're going to need to have the datum that the data was collected in associated," said Adam Zachery.

Security and data retention dominated the latter part of the conversation. Joshua Dalton and other telecom representatives said many operator engineering maps are schematic and subject to retention or access rules; Josh Dalton described measures his company uses: time‑limited links to engineering files (for example, 30‑day links), embedded disclaimers and contact information, and contractual nondisclosure terms. "We don't want these maps put into large data sources or locations where they can be grabbed and pulled down by somebody who is a bad actor," he said.

Several participants recommended technical and contractual controls: project‑specific access, user authentication tied to a professional account level, automatic expiration of shared files, and explicit disclaimers that shared materials are for design only and not for excavation without field verification. Operators also suggested tagging files with a quality/confidence indicator so recipients understand whether data are schematic, GIS‑mapped, EM/GPR locates, or SUE‑qualified.

Board staff said these security, metadata and format concerns will feed into system‑design decisions and future workshops and rulemaking under SB 254. The session closed with a reminder of a follow‑up workshop on standard processes and ticket procedures and a late‑February 2026 survey on timelines.