U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2019-1012

Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future 

Needs
Cover. The global-scale geologic units of Mars, as shown by draping USGS SIM 3292 

(Tanaka and others, 2014) over a Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) color-shaded 

relief map in orthographic projection.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program 

Status and Future Needs

By James A. Skinner, Jr., Alexandra E. Huff, Corey M. Fortezzo, Tenielle Gaither, 

Trent M. Hare, Marc A. Hunter, and Holly Buban 

Open-File Report 2019-1012

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS 

(1–888–275–8747).

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Skinner, J.A. Jr., Huff, A.E., Fortezzo, C.M., Gaither, T., Hare, T.M., Hunter, M.A., Buban, H., 2019, Planetary geologic 

mapping—program status and future needs: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1012, 40 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191012

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

USGS Astrogeology Science Center—Planetary 

Geologic Map Coordination Group

James A. Skinner, Jr.

Alexandra E. Huff

Corey M. Fortezzo

Tenielle A. Gaither

Trent M. Hare

Marc A. Hunter

Holly C. Buban

with review input from

Mike Bland, (USGS Astrogeology) 

Devon Burr, (University of Tennessee)

Colin Dundas, (USGS Astrogeology)

Lisa Gaddis, (USGS Astrogeology)

Laz Kestay, (USGS Astrogeology)

Jay Laura, (USGS Astrogeology)

Pete Mouginis-Mark, (University of Hawaii Manoa)

Sharon Purdy-Wilson, (Smithsonian Institution)

Chris Okubo, (USGS Astrogeology)

Dave Williams, (Arizona State University)
iv

Contents

USGS Astrogeology Science Center—Planetary Geologic Map Coordination Group .....................iii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program...............................................................................2

Survey Rationale............................................................................................................................................2

Survey Questionnaire....................................................................................................................................3

Preparation ............................................................................................................................................3

Distribution.............................................................................................................................................4

Summary Responses.....................................................................................................................................4

Respondent Details...............................................................................................................................4

Map Scale and Topics..........................................................................................................................5

Map Use .................................................................................................................................................6

Map Access...........................................................................................................................................7

Future Needs .........................................................................................................................................7

Optional Comments...............................................................................................................................8

Key Findings and Recommendations .........................................................................................................8

Next Steps.....................................................................................................................................................10

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................11

Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire ..........................................................................................................13

Appendix 2. Summary Responses .........................................................................................................22

Appendix Figures

1.1. Cover and instructions to survey questionnaire.................................................................13

1.2. Questions 1 through 3 on the topic of respondent career and organizational 

 affiliation....................................................................................................................................14

1.3. Questions 4 through 6 on the nature of respondent work and funding..........................14

1.4. Questions 7 and 8 on the topic of relevant planetary bodies or systems and data

 types...........................................................................................................................................15

1.5. Question 9 through 12 on the topics of software services and respondent role in 

 use or creation of geoscience maps....................................................................................16

1.6. Questions 13 and 14 on why respondents do not use geoscience maps, prompted 

 by a “never” response to Question 12 (frequency of geoscience map use).................16

1.7. Questions 15 and 16 on the topics of map scale and geoscience map types used .....17

1.8. Question 17 on the relevance of geologic process to respondent work .......................18

1.9. Questions 18 through 20 on the importance of map publication source, elements, 

 and the use of non-standardized maps that contain standard symbol sets and 

 formats.......................................................................................................................................18

1.9. —continued.............................................................................................................................19

 1.10. Question 21 on the use of geoscience maps to establish context and question 22 

 on respondent knowledge of map standard mapping methods. .....................................19
v

 1.11. Questions 23 through 24 on respondent access to geoscience maps, importance

 of maps to respondent work and the importance of a single, online geoscience map 

 repository. .................................................................................................................................20

 1.12. Questions 26 through 29 on topics concerning the future needs of the geoscience 

 map community. .......................................................................................................................20

 1.12. —continued..............................................................................................................................21

 1.13. Question 30 providing respondents the ability to comment regarding planetary 

 geoscience mapping efforts. .................................................................................................21

2.1. Responses showing a majority of respondent work based in university, college, or 

 federal institutions (question 1).............................................................................................22

2.2. Responses indicating stages of career in which respondents reside (question 2). ....22

2.3. Respondents area of discipline as chosen through a selection of up to three choices

 (question 3). ..............................................................................................................................23

2.4. Respondents type of work as selected through three options (question 4)..................24

2.5. Respondents source of funding (question 5). .....................................................................25

 2.6. Respondent involvement in active mission planning, operations, or affiliated

 research (question 6). .............................................................................................................26

2.7. Relevance of planetary bodies or systems to respondent work (question 7). ..............27

2.8. Relevance of data type to respondent work (question 8).................................................28

 2.9. Importance of software and services to respondent work (question 9)........................29

 2.10. Presence of hard-copy USGS-published planetary geologic map in respondent 

 workspace (question 10). .......................................................................................................29

 2.11. Frequency of geoscience map creation by respondents (question 11).........................30

 2.12. Frequency of geoscience map use by respondents (question 12) .................................30

 2.13. Respondent response and reason for lack of geoscience map use (question 13)......31

 2.14. Relevance of map scale to respondent work (question 15).............................................31

 2.15. Relevance of geoscience map type to respondent work (question 16).........................32

 2.16. Relevance of unit, terrain and (or) feature type to respondent work (question 17).....33

 2.17. Importance of geoscience map publication type to respondent work (question 18). .34

 2.18. Importance of map elements to respondent work (question 19). ...................................35

 2.20. Relevance of geoscience maps to respondents in establishing context for scientific

 community (question 21).........................................................................................................36

 2.19. Respondent evaluation of standard cartographic symbols in non-standardized 

 geoscience maps (question 20).............................................................................................36

 2.21. Evaluation of respondent confidence in applying standard mapping processes 

 (question 22). ............................................................................................................................37

 2.22. Respondent evaluation of geoscience map accessibility (question 23)........................37

 2.24. Respondent preference towards a single online repository of geoscience maps

 (question 25). ............................................................................................................................38

 2.23. Importance of map formats to respondent work (question 24). ......................................38

 2.26. Respondent evaluation of expedited production of standardized geoscience maps 

 (question 27). ...........................................................................................................................39

 2.27. Respondent evaluation of multi-year mapping campaigns for particular planetary 

 bodies and map scales (question 28). ..................................................................................39

 2.25. Respondent evaluation of geoscience maps as fundamental to surface science

 investigations (question 26). .................................................................................................39

 2.28. Likelihood of respondent use of topical mapping guidance (question 29). ...................40
vi

Tables

 1. Email listserv and social media details for releasing the survey questionnaire. The 

survey was posted to listserv and social media groups on March 27, 2017.......................4

2. Units, terrains, and (or) features per body that respondents indicated were “very relevant” in proportions greater than “somewhat relevant” or “not relevant”. Determined 

by cross-comparing question 7 (body relevance) with question 17 (unit/terrain/feature 

relevance)......................................................................................................................................6
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future 

Needs

By James A. Skinner, Jr., Alexandra E. Huff, Corey M. Fortezzo, Tenielle Gaither, Trent M. Hare, Marc A. 

Hunter, and Holly Buban on behalf of the USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program

Executive Summary

The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Planetary 

Geologic Map Coordination Group (Flagstaff, Ariz.) surveyed 

planetary geoscience map makers and users to determine the 

importance, relevance, and usability of such products to their 

planetary science research and to current and future needs of 

the planetary science community. This survey was prepared 

because the planetary science community lacks a modern 

assessment of the value invested in geoscience map products 

and processes (including the diverse scientific and technical 

personnel who add to and maintain this infrastructure) and a 

strategy that ensures these efforts appropriately prioritize mapping efforts across all solid surface bodies in the Solar System. 

A 30-question survey was conducted through an online questionnaire and was designed to (1) take <10 minutes, (2) instill 

a sense that responses would be acted upon, and (3) encourage 

community participation through a user-friendly interface. 

There was no intention to identify and then require responses 

from named members within the planetary science community 

nor was there an attempt to target a specific set of discipline 

scientists. As a result, we understand and fully acknowledge 

that the cumulative responses represent a “self-selected” set of 

perceptions about planetary geoscience maps. 

The survey made a distinction between “standardized” 

geoscience maps (those published by the USGS that require 

adherence to specific cartographic standards, conventions, and 

principles) and “non-standardized” geoscience maps (those 

published by other venues such as peer-reviewed journals 

that are not required to, but might, adhere to some cartographic standards, conventions, and principles). The survey 

was opened on Sunday, March 18, 2017 (to coincide with the 

annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Tex.) and was closed on Thursday, May 25, 2017. There 

was a total of 265 unique responses.

Responses were formulated into 17 unique findings 

that are matched with one or more recommendations to be 

addressed by the planetary science community. In general, 

both standardized and non-standardized planetary geoscience 

maps are broadly valued as a community resource and both 

appear to fill a critical role in research and exploration. Standard approaches to planetary geoscience mapping, regardless 

of publication venue, are deemed important and efforts should 

be made within the community to not only continue support 

for these products but also to capture and transfer the knowledge associated with map-making to sustain the endeavor 

in the long-term through university classes and training of 

post-graduate students. Global to hemispheric-scale standardized geologic maps should be made for all solid surface bodies 

within the Solar System for which they do not already exist 

(and for which adequate data are available). For those bodies or planetary systems that already have such maps, efforts 

should focus, at least in part, on campaigning at set scales (or 

a narrow range of scales) and for particular types of terrains. 

Geomorphological, surficial, and compositional maps are 

deemed legitimate and useful geoscience maps and efforts 

should be made to adapt existing approaches to accommodate 

their creation as standardized products. Control to standard 

reference frame, objectivity of unit description, and use of 

standard symbol sets are highly valued in geoscience maps 

and increased efforts should be made to assist a larger part of 

the community in meeting these standards in the geoscience 

map-making process. The community is strongly encouraged 

to discuss minimum cartographic standards for all geoscience 

map products, both standardized and non-standardized. Once 

established, the community should provide open database 

schemas, symbol sets, tools, and tutorials needed to enable 

the broadest part of the community to make maps that meet 

those minimum standards. Digital maps, especially GIS format 

maps, are the most valued, though there appears to be difficulty in the community on finding and using the maps, particularly in digital format. As such, the community is encouraged 

to explore the technical, managerial, and financial means by 

which all planetary geoscience maps, regardless of publication 

venue, could be searched for and accessed in a single location. 

Introduction

Geoscience maps, regardless of target body, are spatial and temporal representations of materials and processes 

recorded on planetary surfaces (Varnes, 1973; Spencer, 

2000). The information and context provided by these maps 

promote basic and applied research within and across various geoscience disciplines. They also provide an important 

basis for programmatic and policy decisions (for example, 

H.R. 2763 – 102nd Congress, National Geologic Mapping Act 

of 1992). Since 1961, planetary geoscience maps (maps that 

summarize the geology of all solid surface bodies in the Solar 

System beyond Earth) have been used in nearly every facet of 

planetary exploration, from landing site characterization for 

human (for example, Grolier, 1970) and robotic (for example, 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Anderson and Bell, 2010) missions to mineralogical analyses 

of water-alteration on Mars (for example, Loizeau and others, 

2007). Modern planetary geoscience maps are either standardized (those published by the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) that require adherence to cartographic standards, 

conventions, and principles) or non-standardized (those 

published by other organizations that are not required to, but 

might, adhere to some cartographic standards, conventions, 

and principles). Geoscience mapping and its resultant map 

product, whether standardized or non-standardized, is widely 

considered a routine reconnaissance and contextual investigation that should be performed in advance of and (or) in tandem 

with surface science investigations. Geoscience mapping 

campaigns are systematically included in mission proposals 

as anticipated derivative products (for example, Williams and 

others, 2014), along with other high-order cartographic data 

products such as controlled-image mosaics and digital terrain 

models. Additionally, planning documents from multiple 

planetary-science focused programs, organizations, and institutions identify geoscience maps as key scientific and technical results from and contributors to planetary exploration 

strategies (Planetary Decadal Survey, 2011; MEPAG, 2015; 

Hendrix and others, 2018). In line with these community uses 

and priorities, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in cooperation with the USGS Astrogeology 

Science Center (Flagstaff, Ariz.), has built and maintained 

a significant infrastructure dedicated not only to producing 

geoscience maps but also to building and releasing mappingbased resources to the planetary science community.

USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic 

Mapping Program

The USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program 

is a multi-decades-long cooperative program between the 

USGS and NASA whose objective is to define the geology of 

all solid surface bodies (other than Earth) in the Solar System 

by making, distributing, and supporting the use of geoscience maps. This Program is managed by the USGS Planetary 

Geologic Map Coordination Group (hereafter USGS Planetary 

Mapping Group) that is tasked with building, supporting, and 

maintaining planetary geoscience maps as reliable scientific 

context for conducting research and supporting a long-lived, 

robust planetary exploration strategy. In ongoing efforts to 

fulfill this task, the USGS Planetary Mapping Group works to 

generate, distribute, and maintain policies and resources for 

the construction and use of planetary geoscience maps, both 

standardized and non-standardized, by the planetary science 

community. We note that NASA planetary geoscience maps 

supported and eventually published by the USGS Planetary 

Mapping Group are based on the explicit direction of NASA 

program officers. 

The USGS is effectively the default publication venue for 

NASA-funded research projects that generate a standardized 

product because of its long history with establishing and using 

mapping standards. These projects are currently published as 

USGS Scientific Investigation Maps (SIM) series products. As 

such, the USGS Planetary Mapping Group not only develops 

the requirements involved in making standardized products 

(with community input) but also manages the progression, 

production, and formal standards review of NASA-funded 

maps to ensure a baseline level of objectivity and adherence 

to cartographic standards, conventions, and principles through 

peer review. Most of the resources provided by the USGS 

Planetary Mapping Group are directly related to the generation 

of SIM series maps that meet USGS mapping standards. The 

USGS publishes formal map products that result from NASAfunded projects that have been through such a review.

The Program has significant interest in the production of 

all planetary geoscience maps and provides varying levels of 

assistance to all researchers who produce planetary geoscience 

maps, regardless of publication venue, institutional affiliation, 

or nationality. All resources (for example, mapping-based 

process documents, tutorials, guidelines, and standards) are 

intended to be used to produce geoscience maps, standardized 

or non-standardized, and there are certainly other publication venues under which planetary geoscience maps have 

been—and should continue to be—published, including peerreviewed journal articles. Even though planetary geoscience 

maps are recognized as important products that both document 

and drive exploration of worlds beyond Earth, currently there 

is no other institution, organization, or program that provides 

an equivalent service to the national and international community. However, the planetary science community lacks a 

modern assessment of the value of NASA’s significant investment in geoscience map products and processes (including 

the diverse scientific and technical personnel who add to and 

maintain this infrastructure) and a strategy that ensures these 

efforts appropriately balance and prioritize mapping efforts 

across all solid surface bodies in the Solar System. 

Survey Rationale

As part of its charge to maintain and advocate for the 

construction and use of reliable planetary geoscience map 

products, and to assess the scientific value placed by the community in geoscience map products and processes, the USGS 

Planetary Mapping Group compiled and released a survey of 

planetary geoscience map makers and users (summarized in 

the “Distribution” section below). The survey was intended 

to assess the importance, relevance, and usability of planetary 

geoscience maps within the science community. More explicitly, survey responses were designed to help determine current 

and future needs related to production and use of geoscience 

maps for multiple bodies within the Solar System and to 

ensure that geoscience maps adequately meet the scientific and 

technical needs of the broadest part of the planetary science 

community possible in the short- and long-term. This survey, 

the summary responses, and recommendations provided herein 
Survey Questionnaire 3

are intended to contribute to a larger, more focused effort to 

recognize and promote data processes and products as key to a 

successful planetary exploration strategy by improving the community’s recognition that raw data alone is insufficient to satisfy 

short- and long-term exploration goals. 

The recommendations herein address four audiences: (1) 

the strategic and programmatic decision makers (NASA and 

international administrators of space exploration), (2) scientific 

and technical coordinators and facilitators (USGS Planetary 

Mapping Group, community advisory and working groups), (3) 

planetary geoscience map makers (planetary geoscience mappers), and (4) planetary geoscience map users (planetary science 

community, engineers, program managers, policy-makers, and 

the public). However, specific audiences are not identified per 

recommendation to avoid limiting community-wide improvement and to encourage multiple audiences to contribute to and 

benefit from any recommendation herein. Recommendations are 

purposefully non-thematic to allow for innovative responses and 

action by various audiences. Further discussions and interpretations of the survey results, as well as the range of interpretations 

and resultant recommendations, are strongly encouraged.

Survey Questionnaire

Preparation

The survey questionnaire was designed to capture input 

from respondents who represent the broadest part of the planetary science community that have a self-described interest in 

the production and (or) use of planetary geoscience maps. The 

questionnaire leveraged the approaches taken by past surveys 

and questionnaires that assessed similar use and need statistics 

for terrestrial geologic maps. To obtain a high level of response, 

the questionnaire was designed to (1) take <10 minutes, (2) 

instill a sense that responses would be acted upon, and (3) 

encourage participation through easy interfacing. The survey 

questionnaire was developed through multiple rounds of input 

and review. External review came from community members, 

including the Mapping and Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructure 

Team (MAPSIT) steering committee, and discipline scientists 

who complete geoscience mapping as part of their work, as well 

as those who do not. 

Gathering input from the general planetary science community presents a challenge by making it difficult to ensure that 

all survey respondents, regardless of scientific discipline, understand the definition and use cases of mapping-specific terms 

included within the survey questionnaire. To mitigate possible 

misunderstandings, a section of the front page of the survey 

defined the following terms:

• Geoscience maps—Maps that discretely delineate and 

describe units or terrains using base maps (for example, 

geologic, structural, geomorphological, stratigraphic 

maps).

• Base maps—Derived data products upon which units or 

terrains may be identified (for example, controlled mosaics, digital terrain models, elemental composition).

• Standardized maps—Geoscience maps published by 

USGS that require adherence to cartographic standards, 

conventions, and principles.

• Non-standardized maps—Geoscience maps published 

by other venues (for example, peer review journal, thesis/

dissertation, special issue, book chapter) that are not 

required to, but might, adhere to some cartographic standards, conventions, and principles.

• When not specified, assume that ‘geoscience maps’ 

indicate both standard and non-standardized products.

This document applies the same definition and use cases 

as summarized above. ‘Geoscience maps’ is pointedly used in 

this document because, though ‘geologic’ is used in the Program and Group name, the USGS Planetary Mapping Group 

acknowledges that geologic maps are a subset or group of map 

types under the umbrella of all geoscience maps relevant to 

planetary science investigations.

The questionnaire was organized into five sections with 

a total of 30 questions: (1) a “Respondent Details” section 

consisting of 12 questions, (2) a “Map Scales and Topics” 

section consisting of 3 questions, (3) a “Map Use” section 

consisting of 5 questions, (4) a “Map Access” section consisting of 3 questions, and (5) a “Future Needs” section consisting 

of 4 questions. Only the 12 questions in the first section in the 

survey questionnaire were required. The “Respondent Details” 

section asked for non-sensitive, wholly anonymous details 

about each respondents’ self-identified educational/research 

background and work efforts, specifically type of organization, 

career stage, scientific and (or) technical discipline, funding source, mission involvement, bodies of interest, relevant 

data sets, software services used, and the frequency with 

which maps are made and used. No questions inquired about 

respondent’s personally identifiable information, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual orientation. The “Map Scales and 

Topics” section asked respondents for information regarding 

the range of relative map scales and topics as well as terrain 

types, processes, and environments that are relevant to their 

work, irrespective of the target body of interest. The “Map 

Use” section asked for information about how respondents use 

geoscience maps, what geoscience map elements respondents 

deem important, and how the respondents perceive the role of 

geoscience maps in establishing context on various planetary 

bodies. The “Map Access” section asked for information about 

how respondents locate and access geoscience maps and what 

formats they perceive as most important. The “Future Needs” 

was designed to ascertain how respondents perceive geoscience maps can and (or) should be used to establish and refine 

scientific context, how mapping processes can be improved 

upon, and how geoscience maps can and (or) should support 

exploration goals, including surface science conducted by current and future landed assets. In addition to these five sections, 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

the questionnaire allowed respondents to post optional comments to expand on any topic deemed relevant. To preserve 

anonymity, these responses are not included herein but are 

described and categorized in a subsequent section. The questionnaire, as distributed, is provided in appendix 1. Responses 

per question are provided in appendix 2. Cross-correlated 

questions, as discussed in the following sections, are provided purely as reference information in appendix 3 through 

appendix 7 to support the statistics reported herein (Skinner 

and others, 2018). 

Distribution

The finalized survey questionnaire contained 30 questions 

displayed over 8 web pages (appendix 1). The questionnaire 

was prepared using SurveyMonkey, Inc., an online survey 

development company that specializes in cloud-based survey 

services. This mode of release was selected because it allowed 

users to access the survey anonymously using a variety of 

web-enabled devices. The survey questionnaire was opened 

on Sunday March 19, 2017, to coincide with the Lunar and 

Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), which convenes annually in The Woodlands, Tex. The survey was responded to 26 

times during the week of the LPSC (10% of total responses). 

The survey was then posted to various listserv and social 

media groups on March 27, 2017. It was responded to 199 

times (75% of total) during the following three days, with the 

remaining 40 responses (15%) submitted within the subsequent two weeks. The survey was closed on Thursday May 

25, 2017. The questionnaire was advertised to community 

members via a weblink and QR code printed on business cards 

(distributed at LPSC), as a link in an email to community listservs, and through social media platforms (table 1).

There was neither an intent to identify and then require 

responses from a statistically selected set of members within 

the planetary science community, nor was there an attempt 

to target a specific set of discipline scientists. As a result, it 

is understood and fully acknowledged that the cumulative 

responses represent a “self-selected” set of perceptions about 

planetary geoscience maps by only those people who wanted 

Table 1. Email listserv and social media details for releasing the survey questionnaire. The survey was posted to listserv and social 

media groups on March 27, 2017.

to respond. It cannot be assumed that responses can be applied 

to the entirety of the planetary science community. However, 

reasonable judgements can be made about the importance of 

planetary geoscience maps based on survey responses generally and respondents who self-identify as frequent or occasional map users specifically. This survey was intended to 

capture a range of information about planetary map use and 

future needs where there was previously no such information.

Summary Responses

A total of 265 responses to the questionnaire were 

received. The following is a summary of responses per section 

as well as results from selected cross-correlated questions. 

Readers are encouraged to review the detailed responses to the 

survey questionnaire (appendix 2) as well as results of crosscorrelating selected questions (appendix 3 through appendix 

7). Cross-correlations are indicated with the symbol “×”. For 

example, “Q7 × Q17” means Question 7 cross-correlated with 

Question 17. We identify notable “findings” as first-order 

implications from question responses and cross-correlations. 

In subsequent sections, these findings are matched with one or 

more “recommendations” that can be addressed by the planetary science community.

Respondent Details

The first section of the questionnaire requested details 

about the anonymous respondents and was completed by all 

265 respondents (in short, no survey-taker quit the questionnaire prior to finishing this section). This section was designed 

to accumulate specific details about respondent background 

(for example, organization, career stage, funding source) as a 

point of correlation and cross-comparison to later questions.

Responses to question 1 indicate that university/college 

and federal institutions constitute by far the largest organizational groups (75%) whereas the second largest category 

was non-teaching, non-governmental research institutions 

(20%). The stages of career in which respondents reside are 

diverse (question 2) but focus on early, middle, or late career 

Group Platform Members/Subscribers

 (at time of posting)

Planetary Geologic Mapping Community Listserv 118

NextGen Lunar Scientists and Engineers Listserv 146

Lunar-L Listserv 690

Mercury-planet Listserv 105

Young Scientists for Planetary Exploration Facebook 1,795

NextGen Lunar Scientists and Engineers Facebook 120
Summary Responses 5

professionals (69%). Scientific discipline per respondent was 

assessed in question 3 using a “select up to three” question 

that included 11 potential choices (including “other”) that have 

varying use for geoscience maps. This question was designed 

to acknowledge that many scientists self-affiliate with both a 

primary discipline and sub-discipline. There were 488 total 

selections to this question, implying that most respondents 

self-identify with at least two scientific disciplines. Respondents predominately identify geology/geomorphology as their 

primary discipline (71%), with geophysics, GIS, and geochemistry/cosmochemistry/petrology as secondary disciplines. 

The type of work conducted by respondents was assessed 

through a “select up to three” question (question 4), wherein 

the overwhelming work type was “research” (93%), followed 

by “image processing/archiving/dissemination” (24%) and 

“education (university of college)” (21%). The “other” category was selected by <5 percent of respondents. There were 

541 total selections to this question, implying that not only 

do most respondents self-identify with at least two types of 

work but that respondents often perceive their research to be 

critically coupled with educational (university or college) or 

technical expertise (image processing/archiving/planning, mission planning, or instrument/payload concept development). 

NASA is the dominant funding source (72%) for respondent 

work activities (question 5) and 56 percent of respondents are 

specifically involved in missions (planning, operations, and 

(or) research) (question 6). Mars, the Moon, and Earth are the 

most relevant planetary bodies/systems for respondent work 

(question 7), with broad consistency for Mercury, asteroids, 

and outer planet satellite systems at lower levels, based on 

“very relevant” responses. The relevance of data type to 

respondent work efforts was assessed in question 8, with the 

following data types identified as “very relevant”: “topography/DTM” (81%), “orthoimages and image mosaics” (78%), 

and “controlled image mosaics” (70%). Every data type category (except “other”) garnered >80 percent “very relevant” 

or “somewhat relevant” cumulative response, implying that 

respondents favor certain data sets but clearly find value in the 

full range of data. Similarly, respondents find GIS and image 

processing software/services the most relevant (question 9), 

but they value a broader range of services including Planetary 

Data System (PDS) and web-map services. A majority of 

respondents (75%) have a hardcopy USGS map in their office 

or workspace (question 10). Respondents often use geoscience 

maps (62 percent of respondents to question 11) but were less 

likely to have made geoscience maps as by-products or final 

products of their work (35 percent of respondents to question 

12). However, of the 35 percent of respondents who answered 

“often” when queried about creating geoscience maps in their 

work effort (question 11), 94 percent answered “often” when 

queried about using geoscience maps in their work effort 

(question 12). Of the 23 percent of respondents who answered 

“never” when queried about creating geoscience maps in their 

work effort (question11), 25 percent answered “often” and 60 

percent answered “occasionally” when queried about using 

geoscience maps in their work effort (question 12).

FINDING 1: Planetary geoscience maps are used more 

frequently by map makers, though respondents who never 

make maps still use them as a resource for their work and 

value them as critical contextual products. 

Three percent of total respondents reported never using 

geoscience maps in question 12 and were provided an exit 

page to the survey questionnaire (question 13). Therein, 

respondents stated that limiting factors for geoscience map use 

included maps are generally inapplicable to their line of work, 

lack of existing maps relevant to their research background, 

poor access, lack of objectivity, and incompatible formats. No 

respondent, when given an exit page to the survey, used the 

opportunity to provide additional comments (question 14).

Map Scale and Topics

The second section of the survey requested information regarding geoscience map scales and topics as well as 

the types of terrains that are relevant to respondents’ work 

efforts. Respondents indicated in this section that all map 

scales—from local to global—are very relevant to their work. 

However, cross-correlating question 7 (body relevance) and 

question 15 (map scale relevance) (appendix 3), indicates that 

respondents prefer local to regional scales only when hemispheric to global scales already exist. For example, respondents who identify outer planet systems as “very important” 

also identify “hemispheric and global scales” as the most 

relevant whereas respondents who identify the Martian system 

as “very important” identify “local to regional scales” as the 

most relevant. We interpret these responses as indicating that 

local to regional scale geoscience maps become more relevant 

only after geologic and stratigraphic context has been established at hemispheric and global scales. These responses may 

imply that effective and long-lived geoscience mapping efforts 

are those that establish geologic and stratigraphic context at 

smaller scales (larger areas) before progressing to larger scales 

(smaller areas) rather than vice versa or at an arbitrary or selfselected variety of scales. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition 

to the above implication, respondents who study outer planets 

and icy satellites recognize that, in general, there is insufficient 

data for many of those bodies to support local to regional mapping. As such, respondents understand that global products are 

the only viable option.

FINDING 2: Local to regional scale maps are valued 

more highly when hemispheric to global scale geoscience 

maps have already identified broadly occurring units and 

established their spatial and temporal context.

Every map type (except hydrogeologic maps and “other”) 

garnered >75 percent very relevant and somewhat relevant 

cumulative responses, with geologic maps, geomorphologic 

maps, surficial geology maps, and compositional maps having 

90 percent “very relevant” and “somewhat relevant” cumulative response (question 16). Geologic maps had the highest 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

“very relevant” response at 68 percent. There were slight differences in the relevance of map types based on the planetary 

body or system that respondents deemed “very relevant” to 

their work (question 16 × question 7) (appendix 4), particularly regarding an increased relevance of compositional maps 

for asteroids, Mercury, and the Moon. 

FINDING 3: Geologic maps are perceived as the most 

relevant planetary geoscience map type, though geomorphologic, surficial, and compositional maps are also relevant map 

types.

The relevance of different unit, terrain, and (or) feature 

types were assessed in question 17. Respondents identified volcanic, impact-related, stratified, ancient crustal, and 

fluvial/alluvial as very relevant to their work. The relevance 

of these units, terrains, and (or) features is consistent, even 

when cross-correlated with body relevance (question 17 × 

question 7) (appendix 5). With few exceptions, volcanic and 

impact-related terrains were deemed the most relevant for all 

solid surface bodies in the Solar System, though there were 

other units, terrains, and features that were deemed relevant 

depending on the body (table 2). 

FINDING 4: Volcanic and impact-related units, features, 

and terrains are the most widely relevant for solid surface bodies throughout the Solar System, though there are other units, 

features, and terrains that are perceived as relevant on bodies 

that have more diverse geologic histories. 

Map Use

The third section of the survey requested information 

about how respondents use maps, what elements or characteristics they deem important, and how they perceive the role of 

geoscience maps in establishing context for the exploration 

of planetary bodies. Respondents indicated that both USGSpublished and peer-reviewed journal maps are more important 

to their work than maps presented in theses, dissertations, and 

book chapters (question 18). When queried about the importance of various map elements to their work (question 19), 

respondents indicated that maps that are controlled to a standard coordinate system, have objectivity in unit descriptions, 

and apply consistent use of symbols were “very important” 

whereas comparability in map scale and in look and feel were 

“somewhat important”. 

Question 20 asked respondents whether non-standardized geoscience maps (that is, those not published by the 

USGS) that implement standard cartographic symbol sets and 

formats are “more useful”, “equally useful”, or “less useful” 

than those that do not. Respondents indicated that non-USGS 

published planetary geoscience maps that implement standardized cartographic symbols and formats are more useful 

or equally useful than those that do not in equivalent proportions (43%). Only 14 percent of respondents indicated that 

the implementation of standard symbols and formats makes a 

non-standardized map less useful. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that standardized maps are very important to 

establishing context for the scientific community compared to 

non-standardized maps (question 21).

FINDING 5: Control to standard reference frame, objectivity in unit description, and consistent use of symbols are the 

three most important elements of planetary geoscience maps.

FINDING 6: Standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps are equally valued, though maps that follow cartographic standards are more effective at establishing context for 

the scientific community.

Table 2. Units, terrains, and (or) features per body that respondents indicated were “very relevant” in proportions greater than 

“somewhat relevant” or “not relevant”. Determined by cross-comparing question 7 (body relevance) with question 17 (unit/terrain/

feature relevance).

Body Units, terrains, features (% very relevant)

Mercury Impact-related (74), Volcanic (68)

Venus Volcanic (76), Impact-related (49)

Moon Volcanic (71), Impact-related (69), Ancient-crustal (41)

Mars (including Deimos and 

Phobos)

Volcanic (62), Impact-related (54), Fluvial/Alluvial (50), Stratified (47), Ancient-Crustal (43), 

Aqueously-altered (42), Aeolian (39)

Main belt asteroids Impact-related (65), volcanic (54)

Jovian system Impact-related (68), Volcanic (52), Mass-wasting (44), Ancient-crustal (41), Fluvial/Alluvial (38)

Saturnian system Impact-related (69), Densely-faulted (43), Mass-wasting (43), Ancient Crustal (38), Fluvial/Alluvial (37), Aqueously-altered (33)

Uranian/Neptunian system Impact-related (57), Mass-wasting (45), Stratified (35), Glacial/Periglacial (30)

Pluto (including Charon) Impact-related (61), Mass-wasting (42), Stratified (38), Aeolian (35), Glacial/Periglacial (35)
Summary Responses 7

Question 22 asked respondents whether they agree 

or disagree, along a continuum of 5 choices, that they are 

knowledgeable of and can confidently apply standard geologic 

mapping process. Respondents indicated that they “strongly 

agree” (28%) or “somewhat agree” (37%). “Somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree” garnered 17 percent of cumulative responses. Those respondents who frequently make and 

use geoscience maps self-report as more knowledgeable and 

confident appliers of standard mapping processes compared to 

those who infrequently make and use such products (question11 × question 22 and question 12 × question 22) (appendix 

6).

FINDING 7: Frequent geoscience map users and (or) 

makers are more knowledgeable of standard geologic mapping 

processes, though there appears to be a lack of strong community knowledge related to application of standard geologic 

mapping processes.

Map Access

The fourth section of the questionnaire requested information about how respondents locate and access geoscience 

maps and queried what map formats and resources they deem 

most important. Respondents indicated that standardized 

(USGS-published) planetary geoscience maps are generally 

easier to locate, access, and use than non-standardized (peerreviewed journal maps) (question 23). The high proportion of 

moderate to negative responses regarding the ease of locating, 

accessing, and using both standardized and non-standardized 

maps is notable. 

FINDING 8: Even though standardized geoscience maps 

are easier to locate, access, and use than non-standardized geoscience maps, neither are considered suitably easy to accommodate widespread use.

Respondents heavily favor geoscience maps in digital 

rather than hardcopy format (question 24). Therein, responses 

indicate GIS formats are preferred over PDF formats, though 

both are valued. Only 7 percent of respondents considered GIS 

and PDF map formats to be “not important.” In contrast, hardcopy maps were deemed “very important” by only 18 percent, 

“somewhat important” by 49 percent, and “not important” by 

33 percent of the respondents.

FINDING 9: The community overwhelmingly favor geoscience maps in digital rather than hardcopy format. Therein, 

the community prefers GIS formats over PDF formats, though 

both are valued.

Question 25 asked respondents whether they would find 

a single online location in which to search for and access geoscience maps beneficial to their work. Respondents “strongly 

agree” (77%) that they would find such an online location 

useful, with another 20 percent of respondents indicating they 

“somewhat agree” with this statement. “Neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” and “strongly disagree” cumulatively garnered 3 percent of the responses.

FINDING 10: A single online repository that enables 

map makers and (or) map users to search for and access geoscience maps would be an extremely useful resource.

Future Needs

The fifth, and final, section of the survey questionnaire 

requested information about future needs of the broader 

scientific community as supported by the planetary geoscience 

mapping community and the needs of the geoscience mapping community as supported by the USGS-NASA Planetary 

Geologic Mapping Program. Respondents overwhelmingly 

agree (96 percent strongly and somewhat agree responses) 

that surface science investigations fundamentally rely on the 

spatial and temporal context established and refined by geoscience maps (question 26). 

FINDING 11: Planetary geoscience investigations fundamentally rely on the spatial and temporal context established 

and refined by geoscience maps.

They also overwhelmingly agree (90% strongly and 

somewhat agree responses) that expedited production of 

standardized geoscience maps for areas of high interest and 

(or) relevance would benefit both scientific investigations and 

potential future exploratory mission planning (question 27). 

FINDING 12: Expedited production of standardized 

planetary geoscience maps for areas of high interest and (or) 

relevance would benefit both scientific investigations and 

potential future exploratory mission planning.

Respondents agreed that multi-year geologic mapping 

campaigns that focus on making a series of maps for a particular body at a set map scale would be useful to the scientific 

community (question 28). Responses did not vary depending on respondent’s planetary body of interest (question 28 × 

question 7) (appendix 7).

FINDING 13: Multi-year geologic mapping campaigns 

that focus on making a series of maps for high priority bodies 

and terrains at relevant map scales are perceived as valuable 

future contributions to the scientific community.

Question 29 asked for input on respondent’s likelihood of 

using topical mapping guidance on nine topics. Respondents 

generally indicated they were cumulatively “likely” over “not 

likely” to use mapping guidance for all topics: GIS tutorials 

(65% vs. 13%), GIS templates (58% vs 14%), description of 

map unit templates (54% vs. 13%), method summaries (53% 

vs. 10%), short course in GIS mapping techniques (52% 

vs. 16%), map layout templates (52% vs. 14%), correlation 

of map unit templates (51% vs. 15%), online mapping help 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

boards (49% vs. 11%), and short course in photogeologic mapping (45% vs. 23%). If “somewhat likely” is added to “likely” 

responses, there is strong preference for the full range of mapping guidance.

FINDING 14: Planetary geoscience map makers and 

(or) users want more assistance with making geoscience maps, 

including tutorials, templates, and process documents.

Optional Comments

Question 30 asked respondents to provide any additional 

comments regarding planetary geoscience mapping efforts. 

These responses were optional and, to preserve the anonymity of respondents, were not included herein. 60 respondents 

opted to provide additional comments (23%) with responses 

ranging in length and topic. However, responses broadly fell 

into one or more of four categories:

1. General support of the planetary geoscience mapping 

process and product, particularly for mission support.

2. Testaments on the need for web-based access to GISformatted geoscience maps.

3. Concerns about the difficulty in making standardized 

geoscience map products, especially as related to the 

perceived and perhaps actual high entry bar for new 

mappers.

4. Requests for easily accessible guidance on the preparation of standardized geoscience maps.

FINDING 15: The technical nuances of GIS are limiting 

factors in making standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps for broad-distribution and use by the planetary 

science community.

FINDING 16: The lengthy technical review process for 

standardized geoscience maps inhibits broader participation by 

interested community mappers.

FINDING 17: Planetary missions can benefit from strong 

support by appropriately scaled and themed planetary geoscience maps that implement standards but are also rapidly 

produced.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Seventeen key findings and their associated recommendations are listed below. These recommendations are a direct 

response to interpreted respondent data gathered by the questionnaire and represent various paths forward for the planetary 

science community. They can be addressed by multiple entities 

and initiatives in the community, either in series or parallel.

FINDING 1: Planetary geoscience maps are used more 

frequently by map makers, though respondents who never 

make maps still use them as a resource for their work and 

value them as critical contextual products.

RECOMMENDATION 1—Resources and support should 

continue to be provided to the planetary geoscience mapping 

community by both USGS and NASA to sustain and advance 

the production of these critical contextual products.

FINDING 2: Local to regional scale maps are valued 

more highly when hemispheric to global scale geoscience 

maps have already identified broadly-occurring units and 

established their spatial and temporal context.

RECOMMENDATION 2A—The planetary science 

community should prioritize making standardized global to 

hemisphere scale geoscience maps for all Solar System bodies 

for which they do not already exist. Specifically, the community should prioritize making standardized geoscience maps 

at global to hemispheric scales of Mercury, Venus, Deimos, 

Phobos, Vesta, Ceres, Europa, all mid-sized Saturnian satellites, 

Pluto, and Charon.

RECOMMENDATION 2B—The planetary science 

community should prioritize making local to regional scale 

geoscience maps of the Moon and Mars at consistent scales 

or within a narrow range of scales (between approximately 

1:50,000 and 1:500,000) to refine existing context and promote 

comparability. 

FINDING 3: Geologic maps are perceived as the most 

relevant planetary geoscience map type, though geomorphologic, surficial, and compositional maps are also relevant map 

types.

RECOMMENDATION 3A—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should either effectively and consistently 

integrate geomorphologic, surficial, and compositional details 

into the preparation of both standardized and non-standardized 

geologic maps or consider, where appropriate, the production 

of separately focused (and titled) geomorphologic, surficial, or 

compositional maps.

RECCOMENDATION 3B—The USGS-NASA Planetary 

Geologic Mapping Program should, where appropriate, consider the technical means by which a wider variety of standardized geoscience maps could be published, including those that 

focus exclusively on geomorphology, surficial deposits, and 

compositional units across various bodies.

FINDING 4: Volcanic and impact-related units, features, 

and terrains are the most widely relevant for solid surface 

bodies throughout the Solar System, though there are units, 

features, and terrains that are perceived as relevant on bodies 

that have more diverse geologic histories.

RECOMMENDATION 4A—In addition to volcanic and 

impact-related terrains, Moon mapping efforts should target 

ancient crustal terrains.

RECOMMENDATION 4B—In addition to volcanic and 

impact-related terrains, Mars mapping efforts should target 
Key Findings and Recommendations 9

fluvial/alluvial, stratified, ancient crustal, aqueously-altered, 

and aeolian terrains. 

FINDING 5: Control to standard reference frame and 

objectivity in unit description are the two most important elements of planetary geoscience maps.

RECOMMENDATION 5A—The planetary science community should prioritize generation of standard reference 

frames for solid surface bodies in the Solar System that do not 

currently have them and should prioritize generation of and 

documentation for controlled local to global scale data sets for 

use in making geoscience map products.

RECOMMENDATION 5B—The planetary science 

community should strive for objectivity in the delineation 

and description of units presented in both standardized and 

non-standardized geoscience maps. Interpretations should be 

clearly separated and be directly supported by unit characteristics and contact relationships.

RECOMMENDATION 5C—Data acquired by new 

missions should adopt and adhere to coordinate systems and 

standard reference frames as defined by the International 

Astronomical Union (IAU). Such adoption and adherence 

critically facilitate the creation, co-location, and widespread 

use of derivative higher-order data products, including geoscience maps. 

FINDING 6: Standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps are equally valued, though maps that follow 

cartographic standards are determined to be more effective at 

establishing context for the scientific community.

RECOMMENDATION 6A—The planetary science community should agree upon and make geoscience maps that 

adhere as closely as possible to a minimum set of cartographic 

standards for non-standardized geologic maps.

RECOMMENDATION 6B—The community is strongly 

encouraged to use existing advisory and working groups as a 

forum to discuss and determine minimum cartographic standards for all geoscience map products, both standardized and 

non-standardized. Once established, the community, in concert 

with the USGS, should offer open database schemas, symbol 

sets, tools, and tutorials needed to make a map that meets 

those minimum cartographic standards.

FINDING 7: Frequent geoscience map users and (or) 

makers are more knowledgeable of standard geoscience mapping processes, though in general there appears to be a lack 

of strong community knowledge related to application of 

standard geoscience mapping processes.

RECOMMENDATION 7A—The process of making, 

reviewing, and publishing the components of a standardized 

planetary geoscience map should be clearly documented and 

made available to the broadest part of the planetary science 

community possible.

RECOMMENDATION 7B—When constructing a 

planetary geoscience map, regardless of publication venue, 

the planetary geoscience mapping community should search 

out resources related to the mapping process. The planetary 

geoscience community should implement the recommendations of these resources whenever possible and should use 

published products as guidance for map compilation.

RECOMMENDATION 7C—The planetary science 

community should ensure that current knowledge regarding 

the construction of planetary geoscience maps is not only 

thoroughly captured but specifically transferred to the broader 

scientific community and to the next generation of scientists 

and explorers.

RECOMMENDATION 7D—University and colleges 

should more broadly consider how to specifically include a 

rubric that captures the historic, scientific, and technical concepts and processes related to photogeologic mapping and the 

creation of planetary geoscience maps at undergraduate and 

graduate levels.

FINDING 8: Even though standardized geoscience maps 

are easier to locate, access, and use than non-standardized geoscience maps, neither are considered suitably easy to accommodate widespread use.

RECOMMENDATION 8—The community is strongly 

encouraged to explore the technical methods by which all 

planetary geoscience maps should be prepared and packaged 

to increase online discoverability and is strongly encouraged 

to enforce implementation of such methods once identified.

FINDING 9: The community overwhelmingly favors 

geoscience maps in digital rather than hardcopy format. 

Therein, the community prefers GIS formats are over PDF 

formats, though both are valued.

RECOMMENDATION 9A—Planetary geoscience maps, 

regardless of publication venue, should be made available in 

GIS and PDF formats.

RECOMMENDATION 9B—Hardcopy prints of planetary 

geoscience maps should be curtailed, perhaps by limiting initial print runs, re-printing maps only when high demand makes 

it necessary, and (or) emphasizing “print-on-demand”.

FINDING 10: A single online repository that enables 

map makers and (or) map users to search for and access geoscience maps would be an extremely useful resource.

RECOMMENDATION 10—The community is strongly 

encouraged to explore the technical, managerial, and financial 

means by which all planetary geoscience maps regardless of 

publication venue could be searched for and accessed in a 

single location.

FINDING 11: Planetary geoscience investigations fundamentally rely on the spatial and temporal context established 

and refined by geoscience maps.

RECOMMENDATION 11A—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should continue targeted investments in 

making and releasing planetary geoscience maps; including, in 

part, by addressing the recommendations presented herein.

RECOMMENDATION 11B—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should continue to make both standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps and acknowledge 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

that each fulfill important, complementary roles in defining 

and refining the geologic and stratigraphic context of solid 

surface bodies in the Solar System.

RECOMMENDATION 11C—The planetary science 

community is encouraged to use and cite the relevant range of 

geoscience maps in peer-reviewed literature, including USGSpublished maps, when establishing context and rationale for 

investigation and (or) presenting scientific results.

FINDING 12: Expedited production of standardized 

planetary geoscience maps for areas of high interest and (or) 

relevance would benefit both scientific investigations and 

potential future exploratory mission planning.

RECOMMENDATION 12—NASA programs and current and upcoming missions are encouraged to work with the 

USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program to fully 

leverage available geoscience mapping resources in making mission-supportive and (or) mission-derivative geoscience maps and expediting the production of standardized 

geoscience maps that directly support the planning of future 

missions.

FINDING 13: Multi-year geologic mapping campaigns 

that focus on making a series of maps for high priority bodies 

and terrains at relevant map scales are perceived as valuable 

future contributions to the scientific community.

RECOMMENDATION 13—The community should 

consider what high priority bodies, regions, and map scales 

would be most beneficial and should investigate proposal and 

funding avenues with NASA program officers to execute these 

campaigns.

FINDING 14: Planetary geoscience map makers and 

(or) users want more assistance with making geoscience maps, 

including tutorials, templates, and process documents.

RECOMMENDATION 14A—The planetary geoscience mapping community should continue to build and make 

available tutorials, templates, and process documents to assist 

those members of the community who want to make planetary 

geoscience maps as part of their research.

RECOMMENDATIN 14B—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should make available relevant templates 

and process documents that improve the transparency of the 

generation and production processes of planetary geoscience 

maps for those members of the community who use planetary 

geoscience maps as part of their research.

FINDING 15: The technical nuances of GIS are limiting 

factors in making standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps that are intended to be broadly-distributed and used 

by the planetary science community.

RECOMMENDATION 15A—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should not only continue to make and 

release standardized and non-standardized map product in GIS 

format but also build and make available GIS tutorials, best 

practices, and process documents to aid the development of 

those products and reduce barriers to using GIS methods. 

RECOMMENDATION 15B—The planetary geoscience 

mapping community should prioritize the inclusion, on an as 

needed basis, of GIS specialists on mapping projects to help 

make GIS-based geoscience maps in a timely and effective 

manner.

FINDING 16: The lengthy technical review process for 

standardized geoscience maps inhibits broader participation by 

interested community mappers.

RECOMMENDATION 16A—The USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program is encouraged to assess 

ways in which the technical review process can be streamlined 

without sacrificing product quality.

RECOMMENDATION 16B—Map makers and technical 

reviewers are encouraged to be intimately aware of the standardized geoscience mapping process and to complete review 

obligations in a thorough and timely manner.

RECOMMENDATION 16C—The process for making standardized geoscience maps, particularly the process 

of technical review and edit, needs to be thoroughly documented, broadly advertised, and made easily available for 

implementation.

FINDING 17: Planetary missions can benefit from strong 

support by appropriately scaled and themed planetary geoscience maps that implement standards but are also rapidly 

produced.

RECOMMENDATION 18—The USGS-NASA Planetary 

Geologic Mapping Program and missions should work more 

closely to ensure that planetary geoscience map products are 

created with specifications that strongly support and enhance 

mission goals in the short- and long-term.

Next Steps

Until now, there has been no modern assessment of the 

planetary geoscience mapping community for the following: 

(1) the investment value of geoscience map products and processes, (2) a future strategy that ensures appropriate prioritization of mapping efforts across all solid surface bodies in the 

Solar System, and (3) an evaluation of whether geoscience 

maps adequately meet the scientific and technical needs of the 

broadest part of the planetary science community possible. 

The findings and recommendations listed in this document 

begin an important community discussion regarding priorities 

for the creation and use of planetary geoscience maps. These 

results, and subsequent, separate discussions, mark an important effort toward filling a void in the aforementioned lack of 

modern assessment of the status and future needs of planetary 

geoscience mapping community. The findings revealed by this 

survey validate the need and usefulness of planetary geoscience map products and highlight areas where the planetary 

geoscience mapping community and the USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program can improve and streamline 

processes and products. The resultant recommendations can 
References Cited 11

help to strengthen the planetary geoscience community and 

to compel modernization in the creation, access, and use of 

geoscience map products. 

The survey results convey a positive return on the investment made by NASA into the USGS-NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program by confirming planetary geoscience 

map products as critical contextual products for the planetary 

science community. The results also identify a set of highpriority data, services, and online searching and accessing 

requirements to inform crucial planning for the future of planetary geoscience mapping. The audiences of this document, 

who are the strategic and programmatic decision makers, 

scientific and technical coordinators and facilitators, planetary 

geoscience map makers, and planetary geoscience map users, 

should all assess both the needs of their individual audiences 

and the actions they can provide in response to the recommendations herein. Each audience is encouraged, individually and 

collectively, to seek opportunities to communicate the value, 

needs, and methodology of planetary geoscience mapping and 

to explore methods of engaging other audiences in response to 

one or more recommendations stated in this document. Innovative and sustained actions are integral to the improvement 

and future trajectory of a geoscience mapping community to 

ensure reliable, relevant, and robust map products are available for use in planetary sciences and exploration efforts.

References Cited

Anderson, R.B. and Bell J.F. III, 2010, Geologic mapping 

and characterization of Gale Crater and implications for 

its potential as a Mars Science Laboratory landing site: 

Mars Journal, v. 5, p. 76-128, https://doi.org/10.1555/

mars.2010.0004.

Grolier, M.J., 1970, Geologic map of the Apollo landing site 

2 (Apollo 11), part of Sabine D region, southwestern Mare 

Tranquilitatis: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-619, 1:25,000 scale.

Hamilton, V.E., Hoehler, T., Eigenbrode, J., Rafkin, S., Withers, P., Ruff, S., Yingst, R., Lim, D., Whitley, R., Beaty, 

D., Diniega, S., Hays, L., Zurek, R., 2015, Mars Scientific 

Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: Mars 

Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG), 75 p.

Hendrix, A.R., Hurford, T.A., Barge, L.M., Bland, M.T., 

Bowman, J.S., Brinckerhoff, W., Buratti, B.J., Cable, M.L., 

Castillo-Rogez, J., Collins, G.C., Diniega, S., German, C.R., 

Hayes, A.G., Hoehler, T., Hosseini, S. Howett, C.J.A., McEwen, A.S., Neish, C.D., Neveu, M., Nordheim, T.A., Patterson, G.W., Patthoff, D.A., Phillips, C., Rhoden, A., Schmidt, 

B.E., Singer, K.N., Soderblom, J.M., and Vance, S.D., 2018, 

The NASA Roadmap to Ocean Worlds: Astrobiology, v. 19, 

no. 1, 27 p., https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.1955.

Loizeau, D., Mangold, N., Poulet, F., Bibring, J-P, Gendrin, 

A., Ansan, V., Gomez, C., Godet B., Langevi, Y., Masson, 

P., and Nuekum, G., 2007, Phyllosilicates in the Mawrth 

Vallis region of Mars: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 

112, 20 p.

National Research Council, 2011, Vision and Voyages for 

Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022: Washington, 

DC, The National Academies Press, 398 p. https://doi.

org/10.17226/13117.

Skinner, J.A., Jr., Huff, A.E., Fortezzo, C.M., Gaither, T., 

Hare, T.M., Hunter, M.A., and Buban, H., 2018, Appendices 

for planetary geologic mapping--program status and future 

needs: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.

org/10.5066/P9PQCENT.

Spencer, E.W., 2000, Geologic Maps— A practical guide to 

the preparation and interpretation of geologic maps (2d ed.): 

Long Grove, Illinois, Waveland Press, 184 p.

Tanaka, K.L., Skinner, J.A., Jr., Dohm, J.M., Irwin, R.P., 

III, Kolb, E.J., Fortezzo, C.M., Platz, T., Michael, G.G., 

and Hare, T.M., 2014, Geologic map of Mars: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3292, scale 

1:20,000,000, pamphlet 43 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/

sim3292.

U.S. Congress, 1992, National Geologic Mapping Act: U.S. 

Congress, 102nd, H.R. 2763.

Varnes, D.J., 1974, The Logic of Geological Maps with Reference to Their Interpretation and Use for Engineering Purposes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 837, 48 p.

Williams, D.A., Yingst, R.A., Garry, W.B., 2014, Introduction—The geologic mapping of Vesta: Icarus, v. 244, p. 

1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.001. 
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Appendixes

The survey questionnaire and summary responses are contained in appendix 1 and 2 respectively. Data pertaining to 

the cross correlation of survey questions (appendixes 3 through 7) are contained in a separate data release. This data 

release can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9PQCENT
Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire 13

Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire

Please take a few minutes to give us your opinion of planetary geoscience maps!

We are working hard to ensure that planetary geoscience maps meet the needs of the broadest part of the scientific 

community possible. Yourresponses will help identify areas of improvement.

Prepared by the Mapping and Planetary Spatial Infrastructure Team (MAPSIT). Collated responses will be posted on 

the MAPSIT website (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/mapsit) by August 31, 2017.

Terms used herein:

Geoscience maps— Maps that discretely delineate and describe units or terrains using base maps (for example, 

geologic, structural, geomorphological, stratigraphic maps).

Base maps—Derived data products upon which units or terrains may be identified (for example, controlled mosaics, 

degital terrain models, elemental composition).

Standardized maps— Geoscience maps published by USGS that require adherence to cartographic standards, 

conventions, and principles.

Non-standardized maps— Geoscience maps published by other venues (for example, peer review journal, 

 thesis/dissertation, special issue, book chapter) that are not required to, but might, adhere to cartographic 

standards, conventions, and principles.

When not specified, assume that "geoscience maps" indicate both standard and non-standard products. 

Intent and Guidance

Maximum of 30 questions

<10 minutes

Responses are anonymous

Figure 1.1. Cover and instructions to survey questionnaire.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Respondent Details [required]

1. Your organization?

2. Your stage of career?

University or College

Federal institution

Non-teaching, non-governmental research institution 

Private industry

Other

Undergraduate student 

Graduate student

Post-doc

Early career professional 

Middle career professional 

Late career professional 

Other

3. Your discipline? [select up to three]

Atmospheric science

Biology/Astrobiology/Exobiology 

Education

Engineering

Geodesy/Photogrammetry 

Geochemistry/Cosmochemistry/Petrology 

Geographic Information Sciences 

Geology/Geomorphology

Geophysics

Information technology

Other

Figure 1.2. Questions 1 through 3 on the topic of respondent 

career and organizational affiliation.

 4. Your type of work? [select up to three] 

Research

Computer science

Education (primary or secondary instruction) 

Education (university or college)

Image processing/archiving/dissemination

Mission planning

Mission, instrument, or payload concept development 

Public outreach

Programmatic and/or institutional management 

Other

5. Your major funding source(s)? [select up to two] 

NASA programs

Non-NASA U.S. Federal Programs European Space Agency (ESA)

programs

Non-ESA EU Programs

College/University

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Other

 6. Are you involved in active mission planning, 

 mission operations, and/or specific 

 mission-affiliated research?

Yes

No

Figure 1.3. Questions 4 through 6 on the nature of respondent 

work and funding.
Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire 15

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Mercury

Venus

Earth

Moon

Mars (including Deimos 

and Phobos)

Main belt asteroids

Jovian system

Saturnian system

Uranian/Neptunian 

systems

Pluto (including Charon)

Other

7. Relevance of the following planetary bodies/systems to your work? 

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Topography/DTM

Orthoimages and image 

mosaics

Controlled image 

mosaics

Elemental 

composition/Mineral 

maps

Thermophysical property 

map

RADAR

Other

8. Relevance of the following data types to your work?

Figure 1.4. Questions 7 and 8 on the topic of relevant planetary bodies or systems and data types.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

 9. Importance of the following software/services to your work?

11. Frequency that you create geoscience maps

 as by-product or final product for your work?

10. Do you have a hard-copy USGS-publishing 

planetary geologic map in your 

office or workspace?

12. Frequency that you use geoscience maps

 for your work?

Figure 1.5. Question 9 through 12 on the topics of software services and respondent role in use or 

creation of geoscience maps.

Exit Page

Check all that apply

Maps do not have scales that support my work

Maps are not located in regions that support my work

Maps are difficult to obtain

Maps are not objective enough to support my work

Maps are not in a format that is useful to my work

Maps are just not applicable to my work

14. Additional comments?

13. I do not use geoscience maps for my work because:

Figure 1.6. Questions 13 and 14 on why respondents do not use geoscience maps, prompted by a “never” response to Question 12 

(frequency of geoscience map use).
Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire 17

Map Scale and Topics

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Very local scales

Local to regional scales

Regional to hemispheric 

scales

Hemispheric to global 

scales

15. Relevance of the following map scales to your work?

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Geologic maps

Geomorphologic and 

landform maps

Surficial geology maps

Geophysical maps

Compositional maps

Structural maps

Hydrogeologic maps

Landing site and/or 

traverse maps

Other

16. Relevance of the following planetary geoscience map types to your work?

Figure 1.7. Questions 15 and 16 on the topics of map scale and geoscience map types used.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Stratified

Ancient crustal

Aeolian

Aqueously-altered

Mass-wasting

Fluvial/alluvial

Volcanic

Impact-related

Densely-faulted

Glacial/periglacial

Other

17. Relevance of the following unit, terrian, and /or feature types to your work? 

Figure 1.8. Question 17 on the relevance of geologic process to respondent work.

Very important Somewhat important Not important

USGS-published maps

Peer reviewed journal 

maps

Thesis/dissertation maps

Book chapter maps

Conference abstract 

maps

18. Importance of the following geoscience map publications to your work? 

Map Use

Reminder:

Standardized maps—Geoscience maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that require adherence to cartographic

standards, conventions, and principles.

Non-standardized maps—Geoscience maps published by other venues (for example, peer review journal, thesis/dissertation, 

special issue, book chapter) that are not required to, but might, adhere to cartographic standards, conventions, and principles. 

Figure 1.9. Questions 18 through 20 on the importance of map publication source, elements, and the use of non-standardized maps 

that contain standard symbol sets and formats.
Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire 19

20. Non-standardized geoscience maps that implement standard cartographic symbols sets and formats are 

___________ useful than those that do not.

More

Equally

Less

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Consistent use of 

symbols

Consistent preparatory 

methods

Objectivity of unit 

description

Comparability in look 

and feel

Comparability in map 

scale

Control to standard 

coordinate system

19. Importance of the following geoscience map elements to your work? 

Figure 1.9. —continued.

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

21. Relevance of geoscience maps to establishing context for the scientific community? 

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor 

disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

22. You are knowledgeable of and can confidently apply standard geologic mapping processes.

Figure 1.10. Question 21 on the use of geoscience maps to establish context and question 22 on respondent knowledge of map 

standard mapping methods.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Easy Somewhat easy Not easy

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

23. Ease of locating, accessing and using planetary geoscience maps. 

Very important Somewhat important Not important

GIS (vector) format

PDF format

Hard-copy format

24.Importance of the following geoscience map formats to your work? 

Srongly agree Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor 

disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

25. You would find it useful to search for the access geoscience maps in online locations. 

Reminder:

Standardized maps—Geoscience maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that require adherence to cartographic

standards, conventions, and principles.

Non-standardized maps—Geoscience maps published by other venues (for example, peer review journal, thesis/dissertation, 

special issue, book chapter) that are not required to, but might, adhere to cartographic standards, conventions, and principles. 

Map Access

Figure 1.11. Questions 23 through 24 on respondent access to geoscience maps, importance of maps to respondent work and the 

importance of a single, online geoscience map repository.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor 

disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

27. Expedited production of standardized geoscience maps for areas of high interest and/or relevance would 

benefit both scientific investigations and potential future exploratory mission planning. 

Future Needs

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor 

disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

26. Surface science investigations fundamentally rely on spatial and temporal context established and refined by 

geoscience maps.

Figure 1.12. Questions 26 through 29 on topics concerning the future needs of the geoscience map community.
Appendix 1. Survey Questionaire 21

Likely Somewhat likely Not likely

GIS tutorials

Method summaries

GIS templates

Description of map unit 

templates

Correlation of map unit 

templates

Map layout templates

Short course in 

photogeologic mapping

Short course in GIS 

mapping techniques

Online mapping help 

boards

29. Likelihood of using topical mapping guidance.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor 

disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

28. Multi-year geologic mapping campaigns that focus on creating a series of maps for a particular body at a set map 

scale would be useful for the scientific community.

Figure 1.12.—continued.

Parting words

30. Please provide any additional comments regarding planetary geoscience mapping efforts.

Figure 1.13. Question 30 providing respondents the ability to comment regarding planetary geoscience mapping efforts.
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

Appendix 2. Summary Responses

46% 122

29% 78

20% 53

3% 8

2% 4

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Private industry

University or college

Federal institution

Non-teaching, non-govermental 

research institution

Other

Private industry Other

University or 

 college

Non-teaching,

 non-govermental

 research institution

Federal 

 institution

Q1 Your organization?

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Figure 2.1. Responses showing a majority of respondent work 

based in university, college, or federal institutions (question 1).

2% 5

14% 38

13% 34

18% 49

38% 100

13% 35

2% 4

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Undergraduate student

Post-doc

Graduate student

Early career professional

Middle career professional

Other

Late career professional

Q2 Your stage of career?

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Undergraduate student

Post-doc

Graduate

student

Early career

 professional

Middle career

professional

Other

Late career 

 professional

Figure 2.2. Responses indicating stages of career in which 

respondents reside (question 2).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 23

6% 16

4% 11

9% 23

7% 18

9% 24

14% 37

21% 56

71% 189

23% 62

3% 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Atmospheric science

Education

Biology/Astrobiology/Exobiology

Engineering

Geodesy/Photogrammetry

Geochemistry/Cosmochemistry/Petrology

Geographic Information Sciences

Geophysics

Geology/Geomorphology

Information technology

Other 16% 43

Total Respondents: 265

Atmospheric science

Education

Biology/Astrobiology/

Exobiology

Engineering

Geodesy/

Photogrammetry

Geochemistry/Cosmo

chemistry/Petrology

Geographic Information

Sciences

Geophysics

Geology/

Geomorphology

Information technology

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q3 Your discipline? [select up to three]

Figure 2.3. Respondents area of discipline as chosen through a selection of up to three choices (question 3).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

93% 247

6% 16

1% 2

21% 56

24% 63

21% 55

14% 37

12% 32

8% 20

5% 13

Total Respondents: 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Research

Computer science

Education (primary or secondary instruction)

Education (university or college)

Mission planning

Image processing/archiving/dissemination

Public outreach

Mission, instrument, or payload concept development

Other

Programmatic and/or institutional management

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q4 Your type of work? [select up to three]

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Research

Computer science

Education (primary or

secondary instruction)

Education (university

or college)

Mission planning

Image processing/archiving/

dissemination

Public outreach

Mission, instrument, or payload

concept development

Other

Programmatic and/or

institutional management

Figure 2.4. Respondents type of work as selected through three options (question 4).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 25

72% 192

4% 11

5% 12

5% 12

21% 55

7% 19

21% 55

Total Respondents: 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

NASA programs

ESA programs

Non-NASA U.S. Federal Programs

Non-ESA EU Programs

Other

College/University

NSF

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NASA programs

European Space Agency

(ESA) programs

Non-NASA U.S.

Federal Programs

Non-ESA EU Programs

Other

College/University

National Science

Foundation (NSF)

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q5 Your major funding source(s)? [select up to two]

Figure 2.5. Respondents source of funding (question 5).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

56% 148

44% 117

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES

Yes

No

RESPONSES

Yes

No

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q6 Are you involved in active mission planning, mission operations,

and/or specific mission-affiliated research?

Figure 2.6. Respondent involvement in active mission planning, operations, or affiliated research (question 6).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 27

26%

63

25%

59

11%

26

12%

29

15%

26

23%

57

39%

94

38%

93 244

16%

38

39%

93

45%

108 239

40%

98

38%

94

23%

56 248

51%

130

31%

79

18%

47 256

69%

178

20%

51

11%

29 258

23%

57

34%

84

42%

104 245

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL

Venus

Mercury

Earth

Moon

Mars (including Deimos and Phobos)

Main belt asteroids

30%

73

44%

105 241

31%

74

44%

106 239

25%

59

64%

150 235

31%

74

57%

134 237

18%

31

67%

116 173

Jovian system

Saturnian system

Uranian/Neptunian systems

Other

Pluto (including Charon)

PLANETARY BODIES/SYSTEMS

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Venus

Mercury

Earth

Moon

Mars (including Deimos

and Phobos)

Main belt asteroids

Jovian system

Saturnian system

Uranian/Neptunian systems

Other

Pluto (including Charon)

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q7 Relevance of the following planetary bodies/systems to your work?

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

Figure 2.7. Relevance of planetary bodies or systems to respondent work (question 7).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

81%

211

15%

40

4%

11 262

78%

205

18%

46

4%

11 262

69%

180

22%

56

9%

23 259

45%

115

46%

118

10%

25 258

33%

83

51%

126

16%

39 248

29%

74

52%

131

18%

46 251

18%

29

44%

70

38%

60 159

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL

Topography/DTM

Orthoimages and image mosaics

Controlled image mosaics

Elemental composition/Mineral maps

RADAR

Other

Thermophysical property map

DATA TYPES

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q8 Relevance of the following data types to your work?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Topography/DTM

Orthoimages and

image mosaics

Controlled image

mosaics

Elemental composition/

Mineral maps

RADAR

Other

Thermophysical

property map

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

Figure 2.8. Relevance of data type to respondent work (question 8).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 29

67%

173

21%

55

12%

32 260

56%

146

33%

87

11%

29 262

39%

101

45%

115

16%

42 258

63%

167

26%

69

11%

28 264

VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT TOTAL

GIS

NOT IMPORTANT

PDS servers

Web-map services

Image processing (for example, ISIS, ENVI)

SOFTWARE/SERVICES

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GIS

Planatary Data System

(PDS) servers

Web-map services

Image processing

(for example, ISIS, ENVI)

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q9 Importance of the following software/services to your work?

Very important Somewhat important Not important

EXPLANATION

Figure 2.9. Importance of software and services to respondent work (question 9).

75% 200

25% 65

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES

Yes

No

RESPONSES

Yes

No

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q10 Do you have a hard-copy U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-published planetary geologic map in

your office or workspace?

Figure 2.10. Presence of hard-copy USGS-published planetary geologic map in respondent workspace (question 10).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

35% 94

42% 111

23% 60

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Often

Never

Occasionally

Often

Never

Occasionally

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q11 Frequency that you create geoscience maps

 as by-product or final product for your work?

Figure 2.11. Frequency of geoscience map creation by 

respondents (question 11).

62% 163

35% 93

3% 9

TOTAL 265

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Often

Never

Occasionally

Often

Never

Occasionally

Answered: 265 Skipped: 0

Q12 Frequency that you use geoscience maps

 for your work?

Figure 2.12. Frequency of geoscience map use by 

respondents (question 12)
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 31

0

0%

0

2 2

100%

1

100%

1

2

100%

2

1 1

100%

7 7

100%

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Maps do not have scales that support my work

Maps are not located in regions that support my work

Maps are difficult to obtain

Maps are not objective enough to support my work

Maps are not in a format that is useful to my work

Maps are just not applicable to my work

REASON

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Answered: 9 Skipped: 256

Q13 I do not use geoscience maps for my work because:

Figure 2.13. Respondent response and reason for lack of geoscience map use (question 13)

64%

156

27%

66

9%

22 244

75%

184

22%

54

2%

6 244

58%

142

37%

91

4%

10 243

55%

132

36%

86

10%

24 242

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL

Very local scales

Local to regional scales

Regional to hemispheric scales

Hemispheric to global scales

MAP SCALE

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very local scales

Local to regional scales

Regional to hemispheric scales

Hemispheric to global scales

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

Answered: 246 

Q15 Relevance of the following map scales to your work?

Skipped: 19

Figure 2.14. Relevance of map scale to respondent work (question 15).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

68%

166

29%

70

3%

8 244

63%

152

33%

80

5%

11 243

63%

152

31%

74

7%

16 242

37%

89

52%

126

11%

27 242

46%

110

48%

114

7%

16 240

32%

76

51%

123

17%

41 240

16%

39

38%

89

46%

109 237

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL

Geologic maps

Geomorphologic and landform maps

Surficial geology maps

Geophysical maps

Compositional maps

Structural maps

Hydrogeologic maps

35%

83

41%

98

25%

59 240

12%

18

34%

49

54%

78 145

Other

Landing site and/or traverse maps

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

MAP TYPES

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Geologic maps

Geomorphologic and

landform maps

Surficial geology maps

Geophysical maps

Compositional maps

Structural maps

Hydrogeologic maps

Other

Landing site and/

or traverse maps

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

Answered: 246 Skipped: 19

Q16 Relevance of the following planetary geoscience map types

to your work?

Figure 2.15. Relevance of geoscience map type to respondent work (question 16).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 33

42%

101

39%

94

18%

43 238

39%

94

42%

100

19%

46 240

31%

74

32%

77

37%

87 238

32%

77

33%

79

34%

82 238

33%

79

46%

109

21%

49 237

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL

Stratified

Ancient crustal

Aeolian

Aqueously-altered

Mass-wasting

38%

91

32%

77

29%

70 238

61%

146

31%

74

9%

21 241

60%

146

33%

81

7%

16 243

25%

59

48%

114

27%

63 236

29%

70

36%

85

35%

83 238

12%

17

42%

59

46%

64 140

Fluvial/alluvial

Volcanic

Impact-related

Densely-faulted

Other

Glacial/periglacial

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

UNIT, TERRAIN, AND/OR FEATURE

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Stratified

Ancient crustal

Aeolian

Aqueously-altered

Mass-wasting

Fluvial/alluvial

Volcanic

Impact-related

Densely-faulted

Other

Glacial/periglacial

Answered: 245 Skipped: 20

Q17 Relevance of the following unit, terrain, and/or feature 

types to your work?

Figure 2.16. Relevance of unit, terrain and (or) feature type to respondent work (question 17).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

62%

149

34%

83

4%

10 242

57%

137

41%

100

2%

5 242

11%

25

62%

148

27%

65 238

17%

40

64%

154

19%

46 240

11%

25

63%

150

26%

63 238

USGS-published maps

Peer reviewed journal maps

Thesis/dissertation maps

Book chapter maps

Conference abstract maps

GEOSCIENCE MAP PUBLICATIONS VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT TOTAL

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)-published maps

Peer reviewed journal maps

Thesis/dissertation maps

Book chapter maps

Conference abstract maps

Very important Somewhat important Not important

EXPLANATION

Answered: 243 Skipped: 22

Q18 Importance of the following geoscience map publications to your work?

Figure 2.17. Importance of geoscience map publication type to respondent work (question 18).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 35

58%

140

33%

80

9%

22 242

47%

112

43%

102

10%

25 239

67%

161

29%

69

5%

11 241

34%

80

50%

120

16%

38 238

34%

81

48%

116

18%

43 240

71%

173

24%

58

5%

11 242

TOTAL

Consistent use of symbols

Consistent preparatory methods

Objectivity of unit description

Comparability in look and feel

Comparability in map scale

Control to standard coordinate system

VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

GEOSCIENCE MAP ELEMENTS

Responses

Very important Somewhat important Not important

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Consistent use of symbols

Consistent preparatory methods

Objectivity of unit description

Comparability in look and feel

Comparability in map scale

Control to standard coordinate system

Answered: 244 Skipped: 21

Q19 Importance of the following geoscience map elements to your work?

Figure 2.18. Importance of map elements to respondent work (question 19).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

43% 104

43% 103

14% 35

TOTAL 242

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

More

Equally

Less More

Equally

Less

Answered: 242 Skipped: 23

Q20 Non-standardized geoscience maps that implement standard cartographic symbols 

sets and formats are ___________ useful than those that do not.

Figure 2.19. Respondent evaluation of standard cartographic symbols in non-standardized geoscience 

maps (question 20).

88%

211

11%

26

1%

2 239 1.13

39%

92

59%

137

2%

5 234 1.63

VERY RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

MAPS

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant

EXPLANATION

Q21 Relevance of geoscience maps to establishing context for the scientific community?

Answered: 240 Skipped: 25

Figure 2.20. Relevance of geoscience maps to respondents in establishing context for scientific community (question 21).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 37

28%

68

37%

90

18%

44

8%

20

9%

22 244 2.34

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

Responses

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 244 Skipped: 21

Q22 You are knowledgeable of and can confidently apply 

standard geologic mapping processes.

Figure 2.21. Evaluation of respondent confidence in applying standard mapping processes (question 22).

46%

111

43%

105

11%

26 242 1.65

8%

20

57%

137

34%

82 239 2.26

EASY SOMEWHAT EASY NOT EASY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

MAPS

Responses

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Standardized maps

Non-standardized maps

Easy Somewhat easy Not easy

EXPLANATION

Answered: 242 Skipped: 23

Q23 Ease of locating, accessing, and using planetary geoscience maps.

Figure 2.22. Respondent evaluation of geoscience map accessibility (question 23).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

69%

166

23%

56

7%

17 239

46%

109

47%

113

7%

17 239

18%

43

49%

118

33%

78 239

VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT TOTAL

GIS (vector) format

PDF format

Hard-copy format

MAP FORMAT

Responses

Responses

Responses

Very important Somewhat important Not important

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GIS (vector) format

PDF format

Hard-copy format

Answered: 241 Skipped: 24

Q24 Importance of the following geoscience map formats to your work?

Figure 2.23. Importance of map formats to respondent work (question 24).

77%

186

20%

47

2%

5

0%

1

1%

2 241 1.28

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

Responses

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 241 Skipped: 24

Q25 You would find it useful to search for and access geoscience maps in one online location.

Figure 2.24. Respondent preference towards a single online repository of geoscience maps (question 25).
Appendix 2. Summary Responses 39

68%

161

28%

65

3%

8

0%

1

0%

1 236 1.37

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

Responses

Somewhat agree

Neither agree 

 nor disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 236 Skipped: 29

Q26 Surface science investigations fundamentally rely on spatial and

temporal context established and refined by geoscience maps.

Figure 2.25. Respondent evaluation of geoscience maps as fundamental to surface science investigations (question 26).

63%

150

27%

65

8%

18

0%

1

1%

3 237 1.49

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

Responses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

EXPLANATION

Answered: 237 Skipped: 28

Q27 Expedited production of standardized geoscience maps for areas of high interest and/or relevance

would benefit both scientific investigations and potential future exploratory mission planning.

Figure 2.26. Respondent evaluation of expedited production of standardized geoscience maps (question 27).

58%

138

31%

73

8%

19

2%

4

1%

3 237 1.57

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

Responses

Somewhat agree

Neither agree

 nor disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answered: 237 Skipped: 28

Q28 Multi-year geologic mapping campaigns that focus on creating a series of maps

for a particular body at a set map scale would be useful for the scientific community.

Figure 2.27. Respondent evaluation of multi-year mapping campaigns for particular planetary bodies and map scales 

(question 28).
Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs

65%

148

22%

51

13%

30 229

58%

132

29%

66

14%

31 229

54%

123

34%

77

13%

29 229

53%

121

37%

85

10%

23 229

52%

120

31%

72

16%

37 229

52%

119

34%

77

14%

32 228

51%

116

34%

78

15%

35 229

49%

109

40%

90

11%

25 224

LIKELY SOMEWHAT LIKELY NOT LIKELY TOTAL

GIS tutorials

GIS templates

Description of map unit templates

Method summaries

Short course in GIS mapping techniques

Map layout templates

Correlation of map unit templates

Online mapping help boards

45%

104

32%

74

23%

52 230

Short course in photogeologic mapping

USE OF TOPICAL MAP GUIDANCE

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Responses

Likely Somewhat likely Not likely

EXPLANATION

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GIS tutorials

GIS templates

Description of map

unit templates

Method summaries

Short course in

GIS mapping techniques

Map layout templates

Correlation of map

unit templates

Online mapping

help boards

Short course in

photogeologic mapping

Answered: 232 

Q29 Likelihood of using topical mapping guidance.

Skipped: 33

Figure 2.28. Likelihood of respondent use of topical mapping guidance (question 29).
Menlo Park Publishing Service Center, California

Manuscript approved February 12, 2019

Edited by Phil Frederick

Layout by Kimber Petersen
Skinner and others—Planetary Geologic Mapping—Program Status and Future Needs —Open-File Report 2019-1012

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191012