From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Subject: Re: USGS digital data
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:49:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In article <9301271508.AA12609@crdokokl> "Alan H. Rea" <ahrea@CRDOKOKL.CR.USGS.GOV> writes:
>Sorry, I deleted all of my daily onslaught of GIS-L messages, including
>a reply to my posting about how mapping is funded at USGS.  I have to reply
>to your points from memory.
>
>The decision to emphasize 1:100,000-scale mapping was, I think, firmly
>based in the world of reality.  You see, EVERYONE wants ALL of the
>1:24,000 DLGs for their area NOW.  The level of funding appropriated
>by Congress is simply not sufficient to accomplish that in a time
>frame that would satify everyone.  Perhaps for your work,

But you see...this is what is WRONG with the way our government
spends MY tax dollars. If everyone wants 1:24,000 DLG's then this is
where the money SHOULD go. Also remember that you can create 1:100,000
DLG's FROM 1:24,000 DLG's, but not vice-versa. Hence you get a two for
one return by starting on the 1:24,000's immediately. N'est pas?

>1:100,000-scale data are not suitable, but such data ARE suitable for
>many purposes, and meet the needs of many state agencies, because they
>typically want uniform, state-wide coverage.  Those agencies are a

It may be that 1:100,000 scale maps are okay for some work. But I am still
curious about where the demand comes from.

>major source of funding for USGS, which is the only Federal agency I
>know of that relies heavily on funding from the states rather than
>vice versa.  Naturally, the needs of those agencies tend to be met


I thought that USGS being a federal agency relies on the tax base.
Which is "the people" and not state agencies. Oh well... I am not 
a government employee so I wouldn't know this.

>before the needs of university researchers, etc., who are usually not
>providing funding.  For example, ALL the 1:100K DLG themes for

Well, there is a lot of tax dollars taken out of my paycheck each
year so I am still confused as to how I don't pay a portion
of your salary. 

>Oklahoma will be completed next year, because the state came up with
>some money to fund the work.

That's good!

>
>Perhaps your real beef is with the level of funding Congress has
>appropriated for basic mapping?  If so, you may want to talk to your
>Congressional representatives.  Money is tight everywhere, though, not
>just in California.

I have written letters to appripriate people. No response. But the 
USGS as a government agency, that I have had to deal with also 
WASTES a lot of money. So they could also tighten their ship a bit :-).

>
>Let's see, two weeks sounds reasonable to reproduce a 1:24K quad.  How
>long to do 55,000 of them?

But remember, I am one person, using inadequate facilities, doing other 
things while I am creating this. If I HAD the appropriate facilities
I could cut this time dramatically. It would be better to spend time 
making 1:24,000 maps and then simply piecing them together at 1:100,000
scale for those who desire it. 

Two for one.

>
>Finally, if you know of serious quality-control problems, please let
>someone in the Western Mapping Center in Menlo Park know about the
>specifics.  This is something to be taken very seriously.  Quality


They ALREADY are aware of the problems.

>SHOULD be the hallmark of USGS data.  Although I think we all get a
>bit frustrated at times with the slowness of progress, I think most
>people who work for USGS take pride in knowing that when the job is
>finally done, it's done right.  If there are serious quality problems,
>someone is letting us all down.

Well the problems are well known by the people in charge. And there is 
not a lot that anyone can really do about it.


>
>Again, I don't work in map production -- I just know a few people who
anne