ISSUES AND ACTIONS 

THE NATIONAL MAP REPORT

November 30, 2001

Companion Document to “The National Map: Topographic 

Mapping for the 21st Century” dated November 30, 2001

Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program

U.S. Geological Survey

Mail Stop 511

Reston, VA 20192

http://nationalmap.usgs.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

2

CONTENTS

Issues and Actions – The National Map Report............................................. 3

Representative Endorsements of The National Map Vision.......................... 4

General Agreement .................................................................................. 4

Ambitious Vision...................................................................................... 6

A Natural Evolution of USGS Mapping.................................................... 6

Fulfilling the Mission of the USGS/Role of USGS...................................... 7

Impacts of The National Map on the Nation............................................ 8

Representative Concerns and Cautions About The National Map Vision.... 9

Partnerships............................................................................................. 9

Support/Budget........................................................................................ 10

Unattainable Goals................................................................................... 11

Timeline ................................................................................................... 11

USGS Leadership and Coordination......................................................... 12

Similar Efforts Have Been Tried................................................................ 12

General/Other Cautions............................................................................ 13

General Comments ........................................................................................... 14

Title and Preface ............................................................................................... 19

The Needs of the Federal Government, and the Nation, for a Common

Set of Basic Spatial Data.................................................................................. 20

The USGS’s Role in Meeting These Needs.................................................... 21

Changing Needs for Spatial Data, and Opportunities for Meeting

These Needs...................................................................................................... 22

Information Content.......................................................................................... 22

Data Characteristics......................................................................................... 27

Development, Maintenance, and Operations.................................................. 29

Access and Use ................................................................................................. 32

Organizational Issues and Strategies............................................................... 34

Needed Research and Development ............................................................... 40

Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 41
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

3

ISSUES AND ACTIONS

THE NATIONAL MAP REPORT

The following issues and actions were compiled from more than 130 responses to The 

National Map report received after the public comment period that ended in June 2001. n 

USGS reactions to the public comments were assessed in a second, more limited, review 

that ended in October. Commenters represented other Federal agencies; professional 

organizations; State, regional, and local governments; private industry; and universities. 

Numerous comments endorsed The National Map vision and its key components; other 

comments relayed cautions and concerns about the complexity and magnitude of the 

undertaking. The diversity and thoughtfulness of responses on particular issues provoked 

substantial consideration of alternative perspectives on key aspects of The National Map. 

As a result, the report has been modified in significant ways to better explain the goals 

and principal strategies of the vision. The revised report serves as the foundation for 

strategic planning for the Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program of the USGS, and 

as the basis for further exploration of partnership opportunities that are fundamental to 

The National Map implementation.

Although we are unable to respond directly to every commenter, we hope that our 

categorization of the comments and our responses convey the seriousness with which we 

considered every response, and our commitment to the success of The National Map. 

The issues and responses are organized into sections that correspond to the structure of 

The National Map report. The final version of The National Map report was updated to 

incorporate decisions based on the comments received. The report and this document are 

available in Adobe document format (.pdf) at http://nationalmap.usgs.gov. 

DISCLAIMER

Selected endorsements and cautions/concerns are reported in the two following 

sections. These comments represent organizational and individual responses from all 

geospatial community sectors: government (all levels), professional organizations, the 

private sector, and universities. All selections are unedited. Responses marked “C” for 

“Corporate” are those in which the writer stated that he or she was replying on behalf 

of an organization (including government agencies, private corporations, nonprofit 

groups, professional societies, and other professional entities such as State GIS 

councils), or in which the title of the writer indicated that he or she was a principal of 

the organization. Responses marked “I” for “Individual” are responses in which the 

writer stated that their comments were their own and may or may not represent the 

views of the organization with which they are affiliated. When the classification was 

unclear, comments were recorded as “Individual;” these comments may not be the 

official response of or position of the cited organization on The National Map and on 

the issues addressed.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

4

REPRESENTATIVE ENDORSEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL MAP VISION

General Agreement

(I) National Wetlands Research Center, USGS

I find the concept of The National Map very intriguing. Although this is not a new 

concept, the formulation of the idea in a comprehensive fashion is novel, and the attempt 

to take the bold step to implementation is indeed laudable. After 30 years of mapping 

experience, even as I read through the document I found the wheels in my head turning 

with questions of "how can we do this portion, what technology can we bring to play for 

this part, or what will be have to sacrifice to get this part accomplished? This is great 

first step. I hope this report will become an initiative that will build-upon the USGS 

experience and expertise and revolutionize the development and availability of spatial 

data within the nation.

(I) Harvard College Library

You have defined an excellent set of strategic goals that will significantly affect the 

future mapping of the United States. I look forward to the evolution of The National Map

and hope that it increases access to information for an even larger diversity of users.

(I) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

I totally support “The National Map” concept and proposal, and all its many components 

as described in the concept paper. It would, in fact, be difficult not to agree with it, since 

the Office of Coast Survey (OCS) is, literally, doing everyone of these things (mentioned 

by the USGS concept paper) with regard to its bathymetric data, its nautical charts and its 

other products and services, and with virtually the same approaches and uses of 

technology. Things like: rapid updates of data; seamless national digital coverage; 

higher resolution and positional accuracy; print on demand; digital products in various 

forms using vector data; increased reliance on partnerships; consistency and standards; 

integration; variable resolution; change detection with help of the public and private 

sector and/or using satellite imagery, etc., etc. We agree with it all and we are working 

on all of it in the marine areas of the U.S.

(C) New Mexico Geographic Information Council, Inc.

Basically, the whole concept of The National Map is beyond useful, it's incredible! I 

absolutely love the components of seamlessness, currency, and consistency.

(C) Cartographic Users Advisory Council

It is an impressive vision of the future of government mapping and access to cartographic 

information that will have a profound effect on mapping in this country.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

5

(C) EROS Data Center, USGS

Several of us at EDC have reviewed the final draft of "The National Map" and we like it. 

It certainly presents a huge challenge but if successful, the USGS will certainly be the 

leaders in providing basic spatial data of the Nation to our many customers with the 

content and timeframe they so desire today.

(C) Bureau of Land Management

After reviewing The National Map Strategy, we in the BLM are strongly supportive of 

the concept and look forward to participating in its development. Clearly there are many 

issues to be resolved, but we believe that the concept is sound and it will provide sorely 

needed capabilities. We congratulate all involved with the project for preparing a well 

thought and clearly stated case for The National Map initiative.

(C) SouthWest Data Center, Inc.

For the most part the proposal for The National Map is a sound concept and represents a 

significant move in the right direction. A maintainable spatial database of the United 

States and its territories is a logical, desirable and obtainable goal for the 21st century.

(C) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Service strongly supports the notion that a national topographic data set is needed 

that reflects accurate spatial data. This data set should provide seamless, digital coverage, 

and be maintained and readily accessible to all potential users. We also agree that the data 

should be updated to remain as current as possible given financial and technical 

constraints.

(I) Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington

Sounds good. We need to start somewhere, so let's get on with it. Thanks for the efforts 

that have put forth, thus far. Keep it going!

(C) Association of American State Geologists

The Association of American State Geologists (AASG), representing the state geological 

surveys of all fifty states and the territory of Puerto Rico, strongly supports the 

availability of high-quality topographic maps and up-to-date digital spatial data for the 

Nation.

(C) U.S. Census Bureau

The proposal for The National Map is sweeping in scope and vision, leaving few 

concepts untouched. 

(C) Mountain Images

As to vision and objectives, it is all exemplary. You have identified where we would like 

to be in ten years. 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

6

(I) Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources

The vision that the report presents is excellent and worthwhile in all aspects, and is a 

much needed and increasingly over-due modernization of the current national mapping 

data infrastructure.

Ambitious Vision

(C) Six Rivers National Forest, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The National Map is a tremendous and very bold idea as expressed in the first paragraph 

of this section. Do you really believe you can pull it off?

(I) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Map proposal by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an ambitious 

project with genuine merit. The concept is sound and the technology is in development 

to make spatial data accessible from distributed locations. 

(I) U.S. Department of Transportation

I want to congratulate USGS on proposing the development of The National Map. It 

represents a very ambitious plan to improve the quality of and dissemination of national 

and local geospatial data sets.

(C) Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The vision of The National Map is both ambitious and important to the future of the 

geodata community.

(I) Maryland Department of Natural Resources

This is an ambitious project with a far-reaching vision.

A Natural Evolution of USGS Mapping

(I) National Geodetic Survey

This is an idea whose time has come. An integrated, Federal, spatial database, even at a 

partial level of implementation, would be of immense utility. In a sense, this project 

would be as fundamental to our geospatial information infrastructure as the national 

highways are to our transportation infrastructure.

(C) Region 2, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

It is most appropriate that USGS pursue the goal of a nationwide geospatial dataset 

organized into standard themes that is always within days or weeks of being current. It is 

a natural evolution of the realized goal of producing a nationwide standardized set of 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

7

topographic maps.

(C) Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE) believes that the proposed National Map represents a 

logical, necessary, timely evolution in the Federal government’s creation, maintenance, 

and delivery of its most basic geospatial information. The National Map will be of much 

value to DOE. It will clearly be a major asset for the geospatial information community 

at-large.

Fulfilling the Mission of the USGS/ Role of USGS

(I) New York State Center for Geographic Information

I am encouraged to see a renewed focus on base mapping as a core activity of the USGS, 

after years of decline and shifts in focus away from this responsibility.

(C) Louisiana Geographic Information Systems Council

We applaud the USGS for its far sightedness and for taking the lead in this endeavor. We 

agree the Nation needs a base map to serve as the foundation for decision making for all 

Americans.

(C) Western Association of Map Libraries

We are very pleased to see USGS take a leadership role in this project. The National 

Map has the potential for bringing a consistency to all geographic information produced 

by the Federal Government. We are intrigued by the ideas put forth therein.

(I) University of North Carolina

The National Map is an impressive vision of government mapping and cartographic 

information access. I appreciate the U.S. Geological Survey taking the initiative to 

expand, update, and maintain the national base map data.

(C) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

NASA’s review of The National Map finds the project to be a worthy national challenge 

for the first decade of the 2lst Century and a great vision that builds and expands on 

USGS mandates. The resulting national database of standard digital map products is 

recognized as a valuable baseline needed to serve a range of critical research and 

application programs.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

8

Impacts of The National Map on the Nation

(I) Colorado School of Mines

I believe the goals of The National Map are excellent and the end result will be a boon to 

academics, scientists, commercial interests, and the general public.

(C) New Mexico Geographic Information Council, Inc.

On behalf of the Executive Board of the New Mexico Geographic Information Council, I 

would like to commend the USGS for the timely and salient vision that is The National 

Map. Although this is such a massive undertaking that it quite literally boggles my mind 

(!), it is probably no less ambitious as was the USGS' goal fifty or so years ago to provide 

complete topographic map coverage of the U.S. at a scale of 1:24,000, and just as doable! 

Perhaps the target year of 2010 is overly optimistic, but hey, we got to the moon in 9 

years! I mention these lofty accomplishments because I believe The National Map can 

and will have an equal or greater impact on our 21st Century society as did the fulfillment 

of these goals on our 20th Century. Having said that, let me tell you that you have the full 

support and a probable future partnership of the NMGIC.

(C) California Geographic Information Association (CGIA)

CGIA applauds USGS for its vision in developing the concept for The National Map, and 

offers its support for The National Map. Tremendous benefits will be realized with the 

ready availability of current, seamless, high-resolution geospatial data. 

(I) Tongass National Forest, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The National Map proposal has the potential to be enormously useful and valuable. This 

is by no means a simple task, and the fact that USGS is endeavoring to tackle it is 

commendable. The document balances the compelling vision with good insight into the 

possibilities and difficulties of achieving it.

(C) Open GIS Consortium

Overall, we support the objective of the USGS to formulate and operationally maintain a 

National Map through broad partnerships with other organizations. We agree that the 

concept of The National Map addresses key areas of basic spatial data that is vital to 

decision-making at the federal, state, and local government levels and for our citizenry. 

We also believe that The National Map is poised to enrich commercial opportunities for 

maintenance and growth of this resource, and to influence US industry prosperity by 

providing opportunity for commercial interests to produce value added information and 

services. This point could not be more profound than in the e-government / business and 

location based services arenas, where reliable spatial information at a national coverage 

level will be crucial to grow intelligent services to meet public and private needs.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

9

(C) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fully supports the main premise of the proposal, 

that current, accurate, and nationally consistent basic spatial data sets are needed by the 

Federal Government as well as many citizens of the country.

(C) Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA supports the overall vision outlined in this document. When implemented, The 

National Map would provide useful data for many EPA business operations.

(C) Federal Emergency Management Agency

This initiative as discussed in the report sounds quite promising, and we foresee many 

benefits that such a database and map will provide. While the project will certainly 

encounter many challenges in its implementation, we commend the USGS for its vision. 

We will be glad to support the efforts as best we can.

REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNS AND CAUTIONS ABOUT

THE NATIONAL MAP VISION

Partnerships

(I) New York State Center for Geographic Information

It is disturbing, for example, to know that the Census Bureau is contemplating a major 

spatial improvement project on TIGER without any involvement from the USGS, and at a 

time when USGS is under increasing budget pressures. The federal agency inequities 

will have a large bearing on the success or failure of the "National Map", and must be 

addressed.

(I) Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

What mechanisms will be used to guarantee that other federal agencies will live up to 

their commitments to The National Map? If across-the-board budget cuts were mandated, 

it would be tempting for some of these agencies to renege on their commitments in order 

to protect what their officials see as core responsibilities.

(I) Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Practically, the barrier is the existing federal, state, tribal and local mapping system. 

Partnering is not going to solve the problem. Each government layer has its own funding 

and responsibilities. Unless there are meaningful funding incentives and penalties for 

acquiring standard data layers from all organizations, The National Map will be nothing 

more than an empty data shell.

It may be a bit of a surprise to USGS but many federal, state, tribal and local 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

10

governments do not need USGS products. Many local government have been quite 

successful at developing and maintaining mapping data which answers their problems 

without any aid from USGS. Digital orthos for example have been procured faster, 

cheaper and at a higher resolution by local governments. In many instances, the ortho 

images are projected into their own county coordinate systems. Try importing and 

reconverting these digital orthos into UTM for example. It is not a trivial procedure. 

Unless there is an incentive or penalty to provide their information in a standardize 

format, The National Map is not going to happen.

(I) USGS (Retired)

My fears are that the logistics for implementation of this program may become clogged 

with budget restrictions, rivalries between Federal and other types of interested 

institutions, and conflicting mapping priorities set by prevailing economic and political 

forces.

(I) Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources

I noticed language in many sections that referred to "federal needs" and "federal 

agencies." As a mapping professional working at the state level, if The National Map is 

to succeed, the requirements MUST address the needs of ALL users. While this may be a 

tall order, without it, this project will not gain and keep the support of non-federal 

agencies.

Support/Budget

(I) Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

I am leery of the Congress’s willingness to support this activity on a regular, consistent, 

and fully funded basis. Recall the senseless cutbacks during the 1980s, and the looming 

tab for old-age benefits. Can a country willing to let its bridges go to pot be trusted to 

maintain its mapping? The current obsession with tax cuts is not at all promising. My 

point here is that officials overseeing The National Map will surely need a series of fallback plans. Moreover, discussion of these priorities should be a part of the current 

review. It makes no sense to assume that everything that needs to be done will be done.

(C) Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin

Funding sources for this initiative are unclear, and obtaining support may prove difficult 

in an environment of diminishing resources.

(I) Coastal and Marine Geology Program, USGS

There is nothing in the document to show the approximate cost of developing The 

National Map. While a visionary document is good, at some level you need to be 

realistic about what it will take to develop this map - and the infrastructure to support and 

improve it is not likely to be cheap!
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

11

Unattainable Goals

(I) Water Resources Division, USGS

Setting a goal of seven days for updates when the average age of the primary topo series 

maps is 23 years old not only severely strains believability, but risks having this dynamic 

vision viewed as a joke. Furthermore, seven-day turn around implies to many that there 

can't be human QA. I think that an update time horizon measured in months would be a 

tremendous improvement, be much more achievable with adequate and believable QA, 

and reasonably address most users needs far greater than the current product line does.

(C) Louisiana Geographic Information Systems Council

Your concept spells out the ideal. However, to accomplish the ideal is the challenge. 

The development of the processes to move forward to include local, regional and state 

data will be critical. Some goals seem to be out-of-reach today, especially the “current to 

within seven days.”

(C) Geospatial Service and Technology Center-Advanced Systems Center, U.S. Forest 

Service

There are obviously some serious hurdles to be cleared in order to reach the goals laid out 

in this report...how to acquire data that is current within 7 days, how to guarantee 

accuracy when data will be coming from so many sources, how to move from a 

cartographic data base to a geographic data base, and then how to make cartographic 

products from geographic data, how to cope with mixed levels of accuracy, resolution, 

and currency, etc. Solving these problems will require new tools, new processes, and 

new ways of thinking. The National Map will be a major undertaking.

Timeline

(I) BAE Systems Mission Solutions 

Is 2010 soon enough to meet needs? Is it provided in a timely manner consistent with 

National NEEDS? Maybe a more aggressive schedule should be considered.

(C) EROS Data Center, USGS

Several of us feel that there are few technology barriers to achieving this plan, however, 

there is concern as to whether consistent, seamless, and integrated content will really be 

there on a national scale and, more importantly, can we wait 10 years to see the "National 

Map". Many of us believe that the timeline must be accelerated, the implementation 

made less elegant, and significant milestones need to be achieved much sooner in order to 

establish credibility and advocacy. There indeed may be significant capabilities or 

accomplishments that will result sooner. It would be nice to see a timeline of how this 

concept is expected to roll-out and what goals we may have 2 years out, 5 years out, 7 

years out, etc.

(C) California Geographic Information Association
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

12

The report first mentions the goal of achieving The National Map by 2010. Given the 

scale of the project, the current economic environment, and the fact that many agencies 

and businesses are operating at reduced staffing levels, is the timeframe realistic? The 

concept requires participation by these agencies who will readily tell you that there just 

isn’t any leeway for taking on additional projects. USGS may need to put forth a 

significant marketing program to educate potential participants of the long-term benefits 

to be gained by contributing to the project.

USGS Leadership and Coordination

(I) Assessor's Office, Ada County, Idaho

I don’t think you can create this for the entire country by 2010. You don’t have the 

organizational infrastructure or leadership to accomplish this. Your “Next Steps” section 

implies some of this, but I think it’s fraudulent to try to sell this project on the basis of 

this draft plan—you need much more detailed plans and time lines. (Of course, if the 

entire country makes this a priority like The Manhattan Project, anything might be 

capable.) 

Does the USGS have the leadership for such an enormous effort? It was a previous 

generation of employees who made the decisions that resulted in creating those 23-yearold 24K topo maps. Who in the USGS today has the vision and the drive to make this 

new effort succeed? I’ve watched your employees in action for twenty years—how many 

have the fire in their belly to make this happen? Please, please, please convince me that 

you have (or can attract) the human resources needed for success.

(I) Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation

The coordination effort to accomplish this is enormous. I do not believe that USGS or 

the Federal Geographic Data Committee can coordinate these activities as they are 

presently staffed. The I-Team activities and the GeoData Alliance are unproven models. 

There are no governing rules to guarantee participation or conformance to standards. 

Coordination activities have been ongoing for approximately ten years with limited 

success.

Similar Efforts Have Been Tried

(C) Federal Emergency Management Agency

We caution that the framework of the concept put forth here is similar to a concept first 

discussed in 1990 by the USGS. The current proposal is less detailed in some aspects 

than the 1990 concept. It is essential that more detail be included with the concept to 

allow interested parties to provide valuable feedback. We encourage the use of the USGS 

Website as much as possible to promote this concept.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

13

(I) USGS

National Map Implementation - how does the USGS plan to implement The National 

Map and how is this truly different from previous endeavors pursued by NMD? Twenty 

years ago NMD had big plans to produce nation-wide digital coverage by converting our 

existing 1:24,000-scale paper maps into DLG and DEM data. This effort is only half 

complete in a very haphazard fashion for DLGs and the resulting DEMs are very coarse 

as previously noted. For the most part, I would classify both of these products as failures 

because they are not widely utilized for base mapping purposes and consequently the GIS 

industry has not produced many tools for using these products. How will The National 

Map address these deficiencies in our digital data and ensure that newer revised data is 

accepted as a standard geospatial product by the American public?

General/Other Cautions

(I) Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

From what I read in the report, I did not see any concrete ideas or solutions that would 

make The National Map goals feasible by 2010! All I read were generalizations. The 

report does not reflect any innovative approaches to developing a truly current, seamless, 

scalable, national database.

It is okay if USGS wishes to take leadership to develop a National Map. However, the 

USGS must first determine if there is a way for the mapping herd to follow.

(I) U.S. Dept. of Transportation

The National Map also represents a very complex structure of partners and a major 

investment in time and resources to accomplish the task - especially given the USGS 

timeframe of ten years.

(I) Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation

This is a very ambitious project. In theory I think this could be a wonderful product. In 

practice I have many doubts whether it can succeed without mandates or legislation. I'm 

not sure if a mandate or legislation would sit well in the state and local communities.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

14

Comments addressing specific topics are organized into two domains: general 

comments that apply broadly to the vision for The National Map and its key concepts 

and (2) comments that address individual components of The National Map report. 

The latter are further organized by headings that correspond to the report structure. 

GENERAL COMMENTS

Issue - clarify the benefits of The National Map to multiple sectors and to whom the 

benefits accrue

Not enough science/community needs.

We acknowledge the Federal-centric focus of the report, but agree that the role of 

local governments and communities in data maintenance partnering is 

fundamental to the success of The National Map. We will change wording of the 

report to better reflect these roles. See “The USGS’s Role in Meeting These 

Needs” and “Organizational Issues and Strategies” in the report.

Need to emphasize societal impact. Current updates, shared maintenance will provide 

positive impact

Benefits to society are addressed through reference to emergency response (for 

example, the vignettes) and economic impacts. No action.

Economic value/merit. A nation with ready access to free or low cost geospatial data for 

all is providing knowledge that stimulates growth.

We will investigate commissioning a study of the economic multiplier of readily 

available base geographic information.

Issue - scope of The National Map

Clarify the role of The National Atlas as part of The National Map.

The National Atlas is a separate compendium of diversified information that can 

be linked to The National Map content that relates to primary series topographic 

mapping and higher resolution, best available data. In addition to being a 

foundation of small-scale general reference information, The National Atlas links 

to numerous specialized data sets that, taken together, provide a synoptic view of 

the interrelationships between diversified socio-economic, physical and other 

phenomena.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

15

The National Atlas is a component of the USGS Cooperative Topographic 

Mapping Program. The National Map is the overarching concept that links all 

USGS Geography activities and products. See “Roles of the USGS” in the report.

The report is too general and not innovative.

The National Map vision is purposefully generalized, but has received widespread 

and enthusiastic endorsement, both within USGS and other sectors of base 

geographic information creators and users. Specific strategic goals, 

implementation strategies, and details of business and technological approaches 

are part of the Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program 5-Year Plan, annual 

program of work, operations concept, and pilot project plans

Involve other agencies.

The National Map vision is heavily dependent on partnerships with other 

government agencies and the private sector to work together to leverage collective 

resources to create, maintain, disseminate, and apply data that will eliminate 

duplicative effort, be mutually beneficial for respective missions and permit 

general access and exploitation. Several agencies have made specific proposals 

for direct and sustained involvement in The National Map based on this vision. 

Examples include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(bathymetric data as part of the elevation theme) and the Bureau of the Census 

(roads and boundaries). Other agencies have committed to be part of the initial 

set of pilot projects that will validate The National Map concepts and pursue 

research issues and business relationships.

Need for alignment with the Federal Geographic Data Committee and National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure.

The National Map will be a contribution to National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

and is a reflection of the mission and mandate of the USGS to provide base 

cartographic data for the Nation. The USGS is committed to using Federal 

Geographic Data Committee and Open GIS Consortium promoted spatial 

information standards (e.g. accuracy, metadata, and data exchange.) The report 

will be modified to reflect this relationship.

There is confusion regarding to what the name, “The National Map,” refers.

The National Map is a digital, Web accessible assemblage of topographic base 

information and derivative standard series maps that align with Federal 

Geographic Data Committee standards. The National Map content shall be 

maintained as up-to-date as is necessary and possible; data for some themes, in 

some areas, will be as current as 7 days and will be maintained through a 

continuous revision process. In this context, The National Map is the domain of 

the USGS Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

16

In addition to this application of The National Map, USGS uses the term to refer 

collectively to the three Geography discipline programs: Cooperative 

Topographic Mapping, Land Remote Sensing, and Geographic Analysis and 

Monitoring. All programs, and other USGS programs, depend on and contribute 

to the availability of The National Map base data content, and link their own 

outputs, such as the results of geographic research, to The National Map as the 

geographic foundation of the USGS enterprise-wide geographic information 

system.

What is The National Map governance model to be?

Working relationships, roles, and responsibilities necessary to execute The 

National Map are being developed. The Cooperative Topographic Mapping 

Program staff is responsible for strategic planning, overall resource coordination, 

and internal and external program coordination and promotion. USGS regional 

staffs are responsible for developing and executing the annual program of work to 

achieve program goals. Cooperative Topographic Mapping is investigating the 

formation of an external advisory group, as a resource to participate in the 

evolution of the strategic plan and goals, to assess progress, and to refine The 

National Map vision. A National Map Implementation Team, or steering 

committee, links the Cooperative Topographic Mapping and regional staffs. 

Partnership representatives will be consulted and included at all levels. 

Role of NOAA and bathymetric data.

Bathymetric data are generated by NOAA who is the appropriate partner to 

maintain these data as a component of the elevation theme of The National Map. 

USGS and NOAA will need to agree on and employ a common model for 

elevation and bathymetric data representation so that land surface and bottom 

surface data are seamless.

If The National Map is the Nation’s general-purpose base map, what about all the other 

spatial information that exists?

The National Map vision is to ensure that there is a foundation of nationally 

consistent, current base information to which other data can be related, either as 

attributes of the base information, additional content within the same themes of 

data, or different themes that are associated through the base geography. An 

example of additional attribute information is ground-based imagery of historic 

structures that might be obtained and maintained by the National Park Service, 

linked to structures represented in The National Map. Examples of associated 

themes of information are US Public Lands Survey System data, parcel ownership 

delineations, population characteristics, and species inventories that are related by 

geographic coordinates and feature associations to The National Map. The key 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

17

objective is to minimize duplication of effort in providing the base map so others 

can devote their resources to data needs specific to their unique missions. 

Also see issues and comments under “Title and Preface.” 

Keep The National Map focus on a core set of data

The National Map core data are orthoimagery, elevation (including bathymetry), 

hydrography, transportation, structures, boundaries, geographic names, and land 

cover. These data align closely with the traditional content of USGS primary 

series topographic maps, although The National Map vision endorses further 

consolidation of content (similar to the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee/National Spatial Data Infrastructure) and incorporation of content 

within other themes (for example, orthoimagery may be the vehicle for providing 

selected cultural information that may have been explicitly shown on USGS 

topographic maps in the past). These issues will be discussed in detail with 

partners and representative customers before specific commitments to data themes 

and feature/attribute content are made.

Don’t forget Alaska

Alaska is a critical consideration for The National Map. We recognize that its 

rugged wilderness and large size have driven USGS to a different primary map 

series scale (1:63,360), with selected areas covered at 1:24,000 scale. Renewed 

interest in Alaskan energy resource development has stimulated state funding 

initiatives for new geospatial data. The concepts of The National Map apply as 

well to Alaska as to any other part of the Nation. Specific consideration will be 

given to partnership opportunities and mission requirements to apply these 

concepts to meet unique needs for base geographic information and topographic 

maps in Alaska.

Issue - business plan funding; can USGS afford The National Map and who is going 

to contribute?

There is an existing funding base for USGS topographic mapping. The Cooperative 

Topographic Mapping Program is the largest USGS program, as measured by 

appropriated funding. In addition, our topographic mapping activities have attracted full 

repay or matching funds from other Federal and State agencies. We will honor our 

existing commitments to these partners for data and map products, and we will evaluate 

all additional cooperative opportunities to ensure maximum alignment with The National 

Map. The National Map is a redefinition of the National Mapping Program. We will 

seek to grow the program by leveraging our resources through creative partnerships, in 

fulfilling the USGS role to encourage and stimulate base geographic data creation and 

maintenance. In addition, as the tangible benefits of current and nationally consistent 

information to the Nation are demonstrated by The National Map successes, we hope for 

increased direct funding and indirect support to fully achieve The National Map vision.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

18

Issue – your timelines are unrealistic and/or unachievable.

Is 7-day currentness even possible?

We received many comments on the 7-day criterion. It remains as The National 

Map’s ultimate challenge. We understand that this is not achievable for all 

themes in all areas, given today’s technology and resource constraints. We will 

come as close to 7 days as funding, sources, and technology permit, and we will 

continue to seek to improve currentness in our efforts to meet user needs and 

expectations. We do expect to achieve or approach 7-day currentness through 

innovative combinations of technologies and strategies for some data themes in 

some areas, within the time horizon of The National Map vision document. 

See also “Issue - specify a more realistic currentness expectation” under “DATA 

CHARACTERISTICS” in this document. 

The Nation can’t wait until 2010.

We are starting to implement The National Map on October 1, 2001 through pilot 

projects and reintegration of our individual data programs and map revision 

program. We will use existing data for the initial implementation if that is all that 

is available. During fiscal year 2002, we will commit to partnerships to accrue 

and maintain additional content. We will conduct cartographic research focused 

on tools and methods for The National Map. We understand that USGS must 

make tangible and meaningful progress toward The National Map goals and 

concepts in the next two to three years. We fully understand both that we cannot 

wait until 2010 for this, and that we must look well beyond 2010 to make the 

most intelligent decisions. Clearly, certain capabilities and portions of The 

National Map content will be ready sooner than others, and we will achieve some 

goals (like relinking our data theme programs and the topographic map) sooner 

than others, such as achieving full 7-day currentness for all The National Map

content.

Issue – other general comments

How realistic is the use of volunteers?

This is an exciting possibility. Numerous Federal, State, and local government 

programs rely on volunteers for data collection and maintenance. Volunteerism is 

an American tradition. In 1998, more than 109 million volunteers contributed an 

average of 3.5 hours per week to volunteer activities. Examples of successful 

Federal programs that rely on volunteers are the National Weather Service 

Cooperative Observer Program, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the National 

Park Service Volunteers-In-Parks. Within the mapping discipline, NOAA’s 

Office of Coast Survey has operated a very successful volunteer Cooperative 

Charting Program for more than 35 years and has recently evolved it to an Adopt-
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

19

a-Chart Program. Volunteers form the USGS Earth Science Corps. More than 

2,000 volunteers provide on-site information to assist with topographic map 

revision. At the same time, USGS recognizes the challenges in implementing a 

quality volunteer program, and is committed to maintaining high accuracy base 

geographic information regardless of the data source. We will pursue the 

volunteer concept carefully and thoughtfully. Perhaps certification of volunteers 

through a Web-based self-paced training program can be used; USGS area 

maintenance offices might provide a local interface with the volunteer 

community. A first step may be to certify volunteers to contribute to a Webbased revision notes database in which information about base information 

content changes could be entered and attached to the applicable feature or 

geographic coordinates for validation by local partner government agencies that 

have responsibility for the particular data theme. At the very least, we want to 

learn more about the potential for mass participation in national topographic 

mapping and offer opportunities for involvement where it makes sense.

What’s new about The National Map?

Individually, some of the concepts, business approaches, or technologies may not 

be new. What is new and exciting is the synthesis of The National Map

components, the redefinition of USGS roles and responsibilities for topographic 

mapping, and the commitment to sharing those responsibilities through creative 

partnerships. Future coalescence of technologies also offers some unique 

possibilities to fundamentally change the ways in which data are collected, 

communicated, and applied.

TITLE AND PREFACE

Issue – Clarify the relationship between The National Map and Gateway

Agree. Reword the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, “The USGS’s Role in Meeting 

These Needs” in the report:

Within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), The National Map will be one of 

many data sets accessible through the USGS Gateway portal, and will be the 

organizing mechanism for spatially referenced scientific information as the 

foundation data of an enterprise-wide geographic information system.

Issue – Consider modifying The National Map name – suggestions include adding 

“Topographic” and “Land Characterization.”

The National Map should remain as is – it is short and memorable. However, we do need 

to clarify the domain of The National Map and its applications to (1) topographic 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

20

mapping in USGS, (2) Geography in USGS, (3) all of USGS, (4) the national mapping 

community...see comments on Other/General issues. Within USGS, The National Map

is now used to as the overarching term referring to the aggregation of all Geography 

discipline (ex-National Mapping Division) programs (Cooperative Topographic 

Mapping, Land Remote Sensing, and Geographic Analysis and Monitoring).

Reword the “Preface” in the report:

To meet the needs.....and to which users could tie additional data, to meet their 

individual needs. The National Map concept is the unifying construct that 

incorporates all Geography programs of the USGS: Cooperative Topographic 

Mapping, Land Remote Sensing, and Geographic Analysis and Monitoring. 

USGS will provide the leadership needed to develop and continuously maintain 

The National Map through partnerships between Federal, State, local, and tribal 

governments, the private sector, other organizations, and the general public.

USGS invites partners, customers, and the public to contribute to achieving the 

goals of The National Map. Suggestions can be sent by electronic mail to: 

nationalmap@usgs.gov.

Issue – Update the description of the process used to develop the report.

See changes made to the report.

THE NEEDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE NATION, FOR A 

COMMON SET OF BASIC SPATIAL DATA

Issue – beef up the discussion of the roles of and benefits to non-Federal sectors of 

The National Map and clarify that The National Map must meet the needs of all 

users.

Modify the report to reinforce that the Federal government needs local data. 

Acknowledge that others are increasingly likely to be creating and maintaining data that 

are useful to a national data set. In the second paragraph, insert the words “created and” 

before “used by...” In the same paragraph, current second sentence, delete the words 

“developed to meet Federal needs...”

Issue – emphasize the economic impact of The National Map.

This is an appropriate theme for The National Map. Reword the 2nd paragraph of “The

Needs of the Federal Government...” section:
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

21

The economic multiplier of freely available public domain geographic data is 

substantial. Entire industries are built around these data. Base geographic data 

should be considered and supported as part of the Nation’s infrastructure.

THE USGS’s ROLE IN MEETING THESE NEEDS

Issue – clarify the Federal role.

Clarify the duality of the Federal government’s role in providing a nationally consistent 

and complete set of geographic base data: (1) producer and maintainer where appropriate 

and (2) (and this particularly applies to the USGS role in The National Map) supporter, 

facilitator, encourager and stimulator of the capabilities and activities of all sectors 

including States and local governments. See specific changes in next issue...

Issue – clarify the role of other Federal partners in The National Map

Clearly acknowledge the roles of key Federal partners (e.g., Census, NOAA, USFS, NPS) 

as providers and maintainers of The National Map information such as roads and 

boundaries, bathymetry, National Forest areas, National Park lands. This means backing 

off somewhat of the USGS-centric theme of this section.

Specifically acknowledge that others have lead roles for some data themes. Overall, 

USGS coordinates and advocates a national perspective on the data. The USGS works to 

achieve The National Map strategic objectives through the combined efforts of all 

sectors. USGS takes responsibility for ensuring the availability and accessibility of The 

National Map content (with the exception of bathymetry). In particular, two paragraphs 

need to be reconsidered: (1) the one starting... “Most Federal agencies do not have 

responsibilities to develop or maintain these data.” and (2) the last paragraph... “As the 

Nation’s largest civilian mapping agency..”

Specific rewording of first paragraph:

A common set of current, accurate, and consistent base information that describes 

the Earth’s surface and locates features is the starting point for most geographic 

activities. The National Map will be a composite of continuously maintained 

basic spatial data for the United States and its territories, and will serve as the 

Nation’s topographic map for the 21st century. It will be a data foundation that 

could be extended and enhanced, and to which additional data could be tied 

(Then continue with sentence starting “It would contain...”)

Specific wording of second and third paragraphs:

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a mandate to provide base topographic 

information to the Nation, including meeting the needs of its own scientific 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

22

programs and those of other Federal agencies. This mission is consistent with the 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, “Coordination of Surveying, 

Mapping, and Related Spatial Data Activities.”

The most widely known form of topographic information is the USGS primary 

series of topographic maps1... (Continue with the rest of the paragraph as is, 

except change “numerous Federal activities” to “numerous government 

activities”)

CHANGING NEEDS FOR SPATIAL DATA AND OPPOERUNITIES FOR 

MEETING THESE NEEDS

Issue – need for a “spatial information management utility.”

This is an implementation issue.

Issue – strengthen technology bullet.

Reword to state: “Technology will continue to evolve, and will provide new ways to 

collect, maintain, access, and use basic spatial data. For example, the convergence of 

personal digital devices, Global Positioning System capabilities, and wireless 

communications is stimulating numerous location-based services that provide access to 

geospatial data by users at remote sites, and will make possible real-time collection and 

update of data by those same users.

INFORMATION CONTENT

Issue – should USGS assemble and maintain a nationally consistent, “reduced 

resolution” The National Map data set that meets needs for complete, alreadyintegrated, internally consistent data and link that data set to the best available 

information for any theme/area?

Although The National Map is based on the “skyline” concept of best available data for 

any given theme and geographic area, other data may be included on a case-by-case 

basis. An example is Landsat data linked to the best available orthoimagery. The 

introductory paragraph for “The National Map” (p. 8) will be rewritten as (deleting

reference to 2010):

The proposal for The National Map sketches the initial concept and way of 

moving forward to meet national needs for basic spatial data. The goal of The 

National Map is to provide a nationally consistent set of integrated, current 

topographic information that supports these needs. The resolution of the data will 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

23

vary depending on geographic area and availability (for example, more detailed 

and accurate elevation data for flood plain or coastal areas). In no case will the 

resolution of the best available data in The National Map be lower than that 

associated with USGS primary series topographic maps of that area.

See also “Issue – will The National Map be staged as a derived data set...” in “DATA 

CHARACTERISTICS” in this document.

Issue – clarify what is meant by “high resolution”. 

The nationally consistent, complete foundation data set of The National Map will contain 

data at no lower resolution than that associated with primary series topographic mapping. 

Lower resolution data sets may be part of The National Map (e.g. The National Atlas of 

the United States ® medium-scale topographic data, 30- or 15-meter Landsat data) as 

appropriate to respond to national needs for these data, or as phased implementations of 

The National Map until nationally complete, consistent, and maintainable higher 

resolution data are available.

The “best available” data in The National Map will vary in resolution depending on 

geographic area (e.g., tighter DEM grid spacing and more rigorous vertical accuracy for 

flood plains), and by availability. See issue above.

Modify the “High-resolution digital orthorectified imagery” bullet under “Information 

Content” to note that Landsat imagery will be part of The National Map data set.

Issue – describe the broader geographic context of The National Map.

The National Map can be thought of as the U.S. component that can be used in 

conjunction with other North American (Mexico and Canada) topographic data, and as a 

component of global data sets (e.g., NIMA). This concept raises other issues, such as 

data copyright and license issues. Defer this concept to future strategic planning.

Issue – acknowledge “remote sensing” tools and sources.

Remote sensing tools and methods are a critical component of The National Map

concept. Add specific reference to “remote sensing” to the definition of orthoimage and 

land cover components of The National Map. For orthoimage, “...aircraft- and satellitebased remote sensing capabilities.” For land cover, “...aircraft- and satellite-based 

remote sensing sources.”

Issue – provide for additional content, specifically bathymetry (this also applies to 

Landsat imagery, see above).

NOAA requested that bathymetric data be part of The National Map vision, and other 

users want a continuous surface data set that extends beyond the shoreline. The 

bathymetric component will be added to “Information Content” with words to the effect 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

24

that NOAA is responsible for this component, to clarify that USGS’ roles - particularly 

guarantor of national data completeness and owner/producer - do not apply to 

bathymetry. Also, incorporation of bathymetry begs the questions of what extent (e.g. to 

the Exclusive Economic Zone boundary – this should be a NOAA decision) and to what 

shoreline (this issue must be resolved between USGS and NOAA and is an 

implementation issue).

Suggested wording:

“High-resolution elevation data, including offshore bathymetric data maintained 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...”

Include a similar change under “Federal Partners” in the “Roles of Partners” section in 

the report.

Issue – be clearer about the role of The National Map insofar as content is 

concerned.

Reword the report to reinforce that The National Map is a foundation data set of features 

with basic attribution that is of general interest and applicability (might give the example 

of roads – include feature ID, name, route number, address range, and class...but not 

surface type, load capacity, width, etc.)...a core of information that is linkable and 

extensible to other data that have a geolocational component (such as DOT data on other 

road characteristics such as accident locations).

See modifications to the paragraph on vector feature data in the report.

Issue – acknowledge need for and commitment to provide metadata.

This is a critical issue. There were more than 22 comments...everyone wants metadata. 

Expand the wording on metadata, including metadata at the feature level where 

appropriate, as a bullet in the Data Characteristics section. Recognize the intent to adhere 

to the Federal Geographic Data Committee specification in the short term and the 

emerging International Organization for Standardization metadata standard in the future. 

Suggested bullet wording:

• Metadata. At a minimum, metadata will meet Federal Geographic Data 

Committee Standards, to document the content and characteristics of The 

National Map data, such as lineage, positional and attribute accuracy, 

completeness, and consistency. Metadata will be maintained at the feature level 

when applicable. The metadata will be published over the Internet, using standard 

Web protocols such as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Clearinghouse, to 

enable users to find and evaluate the reliability and usefulness of data for their 

unique applications.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

25

Issue – provide more detailed definition of The National Map features and 

attributes.

There is a clear relationship with the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s list of 

framework features and attributes, as outlined in the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee’s “Framework: Introduction and Guide – 1997” and its predecessor, 

“Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework – 1995.” Data models 

and more detailed content specifications have been defined for some data layers in 

Federal Geographic Data Committee content standards. The exact content specification 

is an implementation issue and needs to be further developed, then documented in The 

National Map plans and specifications.

Issue – need to track changes at the feature level

Note that vector data need to be assigned unique IDs allowing attribute attachment, 

content extension, and maintenance of change information at the feature object level. 

Add specific reference in the paragraph on vector content... “These data will have unique 

feature identifiers, metadata, and minimal associated descriptive information...”

Issue – acknowledge plan to maintain an archive of historical information.

This applies to both digital data and to primary series maps that predate The National 

Map. Various solutions are possible, but these are implementation issues. Add a 

paragraph under Data Characteristics – another bullet. Note that more than 29 

respondents identified this issue.

Suggested wording:

• Temporal dimension. To facilitate tracking of changes over time, the USGS will 

ensure that The National Map content is permanently archived by retaining 

versions of data sets or feature-based transactional information. Existing paper 

topographic map archives also will be preserved.

Issue – need for a digital visualization of The National Map.

We recognize the need for tools for visualization of data from The National Map. We 

will continue to work with all of our partners, including our colleagues in the private 

sector through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements and other 

mechanisms, to support their development.

Issue – reword description of high-resolution digital orthorectified imagery

Use suggested wording from a commenter: delete “...from which displacements....have 

been removed” and change to “...from which most displacements caused by terrain relief 

and sensor geometry have been removed.”
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

26

Issue – reword description for high-resolution surface elevation data

Use wording from a commenter: “At a minimum, these data will have sufficient detail 

and accuracy to yield contours for primary series topographic maps, to support geometric 

correction of imagery, to support three-dimensional perspective views and fly-throughs, 

and, in areas of subtle relief variation such as flood plains and coastal areas, to support 

hydrologic and other modeling.”

Issue – clarify that vector data are represented by the object model

Modify wording to: “Vector feature data for the themes of...” 

Issue – rely on imagery for the structures information content, except where 

available from partners, or depend on the Bureau of the Census for this 

information.

The report notes that imagery may be used to provide information content such as 

structures, as opposed to extracting and representing structures as features. Decisions 

about needs for, and ways to obtain, structure feature content and associated attributes 

will be based on interaction with partners. The possible role of the Bureau of the Census 

is discussed under “Organizational Issues and Strategies.” Three agencies (FEMA, 

NIMA, and the Bureau of the Census, have specifically identified a need for structures 

feature content to meet their mission needs.

Issue – geographic names content description is incomplete given The National Map

content and partnerships.

Add to description to note that names go beyond U.S. Board on Geographic Names 

content, such as highway and street names (see next issue).

Issue – improvements are needed to GNIS to support The National Map applications

Suggested wording:

Geographic names. These names include those for physical and cultural 

geographic features needed to support the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, and 

other names, such as for highways and streets. Names will be associated with 

their corresponding feature, and the accuracy of names not associated with a 

feature specifically represented in The National Map, such as a locale or a 

ridgeline, will be improved. 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

27

Issue – there is confusion over “ land characterization” data vs. “land cover” 

resulting in concern over the need for and achievability of a common classification 

scheme.

Modify the description of the land characterization data component to reference land 

cover, and not land characterization. 

Suggested wording:

Land cover information. These data classify the land surface into categories such 

as open water, perennial ice/snow, evergreen forest, and high density residential 

according to a pre-selected scheme. The data satisfy the need for nationally 

consistent content for topographic mapping applications. Land cover data are 

developed from a combination of aircraft- and satellite-based remote sensing 

sources, supplemented by ground truth information.

DATA CHARACTERISTICS

Issue – specify a more realistic currentness expectation. 

Modify the unqualified 7-day currentness expectation. Also see “Issue – your timelines 

are unrealistic” under “GENERAL COMMENTS.”

Delete the last sentence in the “Currentness” bullet in the report and insert the following:

Currentness will vary depending on the data theme, local characteristics (for example, 

rate of change), user requirements, source availability, technology, and resources.) Data 

expected to be significantly more current during the near future include imagery, 

elevation (depending on the applicability of new remote sensing technologies), and 

features for which surrogate indicators of change are available (such as construction or 

occupancy permits).

Issue – the term “seamless” needs to be defined more precisely.

Replace the second bullet under “Data Characteristics” with:

Seamlessness. Features will be represented in their entirety, and not interrupted 

by arbitrary edges such as 7.5-minute map boundaries.

Issue - separate variable resolution and variable completeness.

We need to address both, but define as two separate characteristic bullets. Remove the 

words “...and completeness...” from the “Variable resolution and completeness” bullet 

title.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

28

Reword the “Variable resolution” bullet text as:

Data resolution, or pixel size, may vary among imagery of urban, rural, and 

wilderness areas. The resolution of elevation data may be finer in flood plain, 

coastal, and other areas of low relief than for areas of high relief. A tool to 

generalize data of varying resolution within a specified geographic area will be 

provided. Reduced-resolution, internally consistent representations may be precomputed and stored, or generated on the fly, depending on the complexity of the 

data and size of area selected.

Add a new bullet, “Completeness,” to address the concept of comprehensive (i.e., 

inventory) coverage for a theme, as opposed to representative (i.e., sample) content:

Data content will include all mappable features (as defined by the applicable 

content standards for each data theme and source). Content will not be 

generalized (e.g., features deleted or aggregated) as may be required for graphic 

representation. Tools will be provided to support data generalization and 

symbolization for graphic display. 

Issue – clarify the data integration approach and expectations

Modify wording of the “Consistency and integration” bullet to explain that vertical 

integration involves more than simply bringing separate themes to the same projection 

and datum:

Content will be delineated geographically (that is, in its true ground position 

within the applicable accuracy limit) to ensure logical consistency between related 

features. For example, the terrain surface will be accurately depicted by the 

combined elevation and hydrography data, such that streams and rivers 

consistently flow downhill and each structure will be located correctly relative to 

other local features such as roads and other buildings.

Issue – will The National Map data be staged as a derived data set (i.e., 

preprocessed) or will data integration and other processing required to produce 

standards digital data and map products be accomplished on demand?

The ultimate goal for The National Map is that delivery of derivative data and 

topographic maps that comply with The National Map be accomplished on the fly for the 

best available data, each time any user defines a unique geographic area and content 

need. These processes are to be software-based and transparent to the user, such that the 

delivered products are internally consistent in content, accuracy, vertical alignment, 

symbolization, and other characteristics. However, the knowledge to fully automate 

these processes does not exist today, and is not likely to be available to the full spectrum 

of The National Map users for some time. Therefore, it is necessary that the USGS, or 

other partner in The National Map, employ a combination of methods to bring source 

data into national compliance. This may be done most efficiently by preprocessing data 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

29

to a standard product. The USGS and its partners will conduct cartographic research into 

the search, identify, extract, validate, reformat, generalize, edge match, vertical register, 

and symbolize functions required to provide an automated, on-demand approach as soon 

as is practical.

Issue – Address both absolute and relative accuracy.

Add the following sentences at the end of the “Variable positional accuracy” bullet:

Actual positional accuracy will be reported in conformance with the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee’s “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standard.” 

Relative accuracy will be achieved through attention to logical consistency and 

data integration.

Issue - Address the common reference system and datum as an independent 

characteristic

Remove the sentence “The coordinates for.....referencing system” from the “Variable 

positional accuracy of spatial data.” bullet:

Add a new bullet covering spatial reference systems:

Spatial reference systems. The coordinates for spatial data in The National Map

will be based on defined horizontal and vertical datums, and encoded in a defined 

coordinate system. Tools will be provided to integrate data that are mapped using 

different datums and referenced to different coordinate systems, and to reproject 

data to meet user requirements. 

Issue – How will verification and uncertainty be represented?

Add in the “Metadata” bullet under “Data Characteristics” (see rewording under “Issue –

acknowledge need for and commitment to provide metadata” in the “INFORMATION 

CONTENT” comments):

...”lineage, positional and attribute accuracy, completeness, and consistency...”

DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS

Issue – will The National Map have provisions for an archive?

Comments expressed concern for an archive for The National Map. An archive should 

support change analysis studies and a variety of other applications that require historical 

data. We will support an archive for The National Map, provide snapshots of The 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

30

National Map, and include a feature-based versioning strategy as appropriate. See “Issue 

– acknowledge plan to maintain an archive of historical information” under 

“INFORMATION CONTENT” in this document.

Issue - what is the relationship between the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

and The National Map?

Comments reflected confusion with respect to the relationship between National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure and The National Map. The National Map will be a contribution to 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure and is a reflection of the mission and mandate of the 

USGS to provide base cartographic data for the Nation. See “Issue – scope of The 

National Map” under “GENERAL COMMENTS” in this document.

Issue – what steps will USGS take to assure a standard level of quality and 

document the source of data included in The National Map?

Numerous comments were received that expressed concern for the quality of data in The 

National Map. Some comments indicated that the USGS should institute a certification 

process for data in The National Map. Particular concern was expressed regarding data 

provided by volunteers. The suggestion was also made to publish a spatial data reliability 

report on data contributed by partners and volunteers. It was also suggested that the 

USGS implement a publicly accessible feedback file for The National Map to register 

users opinions about the usefulness, quality, content, and other characteristics of The 

National Map. 

We recognize the importance of assuring a high standard of quality for the data in The 

National Map. The USGS is committed to providing a certification and quality 

assurance/quality control process for The National Map. We do recognize both the 

complexity and the magnitude of this issue and remain committed to data quality. We 

will consider the suggestions for reliability reporting and a feedback mechanism as 

implementation plans are developed. Also see “Issue – other general comments” under 

“GENERAL COMMENTS” in this document. 

Issue – what data standards will be used in the building of The National Map?

Comments generally reflected concern that USGS use widely accepted standards in the 

development of The National Map and specifically referenced Federal Geographic Data 

Committee and Open GIS Consortium standards as being useful. We agree. This will be 

addressed in forthcoming implementation plans. The USGS is committed to using 

industry-accepted standards from the International Organization for Standardization 

geographic information standards (principally ISO/TC 211), American National 

Standards Institute geographic information system standards (principally from NCITS 

L1), Federal Geographic Data Committee data content and framework, and Open GIS 

Consortium protocols consistent with the direction provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget Circulars A-16 and; A-119. Also see “Issue – acknowledge 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

31

need for and commitment to provide metadata” under “INFORMATION CONTENT” in 

this document.

Reword the 4th paragraph of Development, Maintenance, and Operations:

Computing and telecommunications technologies will allow a number of options 

for sharing responsibilities. The National Map may develop as a networked, 

distributed collection of databases, operated by public or private sector 

organizations, that, as data stewards, agree to provide basic spatial data that meet 

common standards and levels of service. While the data archive may be 

distributed among many sites, the data in The National Map will appear seamless 

to users. The National Map will follow relevant national and international 

standards that are supported by industry. 

Issue - how will metadata be addressed for The National Map?

Comments on this issue highlighted the need for metadata at the feature level including 

information such as the agency making an update, the source of the information, and 

date/time stamping. The USGS recognizes the value of feature-level metadata and 

plans to implement these concepts in The National Map as appropriate. Metadata serves 

as an efficient way to identify the agencies that contribute data to The National Map. 

USGS plans to preserve each contributing agency’s identification. Other methods of 

identifying and crediting contributing agencies will also be pursued. Also see “Issue –

acknowledge need for and commitment to provide metadata” under “INFORMATION 

CONTENT” in this document. 

Issue – will The National Map be implemented as a centralized or distributed 

collection of data?

Comments reflected confusion as to whether The National Map will be housed and 

disseminated by USGS or on a distributed network managed by many supporting 

organizations. The National Map will be implemented on a distributed network. The 

report states in the 4th paragraph under “Development, Maintenance, and Operations” that 

“The National Map may develop as a networked, distributed collection of 

databases.....While the data may be distributed among many sites...”

Issue – has the USGS developed an implementation plan for The National Map?

Many of the comments made implementation suggestions. The report deliberately is 

focused on the vision for The National Map and is not intended to be an implementation 

plan. All suggestions will be considered as the 5-year plan for the USGS Cooperative 

Topographic Mapping Program is developed and maintained, and as detailed 

implementation and annual work plans are prepared. 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

32

Issue – what is the plan for handling updates to The National Map?

Commenters suggested that automatic notification about changes be delivered to users 

who are interested in specific content and/or geographic area coverages of The National 

Map. A spatial subscription service was envisioned such that users might sign up on a 

Web page to receive this information via e-mail. This is a good suggestion that we will 

consider in planning the implementation of The National Map.

ACCESS AND USE

Issue – will The National Map be in the public domain?

Comments reflected a very strong and widespread desire to have The National Map

content in the public domain. As the role of private industry grows in providing and 

maintaining data, and in providing tools and applications of The National Map, concerns 

rise about the public’s ability to freely (i.e.. without restrictions) access and use the data. 

Our intention is for The National Map content to be in the public domain, and to be 

accessible over the World Wide Web at low or no cost. Unrestricted access to The 

National Map is of vital importance for emergency and disaster response given the wide 

variety of agencies that have requirements for immediate access to these data. To assure 

access for these critical needs, The National Map will be designed with redundant 

servers, sufficient bandwidth, and 24x7 operational support. 

Reword the 2nd paragraph of “Access and Use” in the report:

The USGS is committed to assuring that The National Map content remains in the 

public domain and is made accessible over the World Wide Web through multiple 

Web-based services, including an image service (Web mapping), feature services 

(data streaming in support of location-based services and metadata browsing), and 

data extract (feature access and spatial data transfer). All services will use 

industry-supported, open standards-based protocols, as appropriate, to allow these 

data to be accessed freely and readily, for maximum utility to all users. 

Unrestricted and immediate access to The National Map is of vital importance to 

public and private organizations for emergency and disaster response. To assure 

access for these and other critical needs, The National Map will be designed with 

redundant servers, sufficient bandwidth, and around-the-clock operational 

support. In cases where rights to data are held by private organizations, the 

negotiation of unlimited distribution and use rights will be required.

Issue - how will interoperability with other USGS disciplines and agencies be 

accommodated?

Modify the 2nd paragraph of “Access and Use” (see “Issue – will The National Map be in 

the public domain?” above) to note that The National Map will be accessible through 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

33

multiple Web-based services, including an image service, feature service, and data extract 

service. These services will be provided using industry-supported open, standards-based 

protocols, as appropriate.

Issue – will USGS continue to support the paper topographic map?

Comments reflected a consistent requirement for the paper topographic map. There was 

concern expressed that USGS continue to support the traditional 1:24,000-scale 

topographic map series and provide newly revised maps to Federal Depository Libraries 

at no cost. The USGS is committed to support the production of paper topographic maps. 

The provision of these maps over time will transition from the traditional process to one 

in which maps are generated directly from The National Map. The USGS will ensure 

that the content, accuracy, and graphic quality of the maps will be maintained throughout 

any technological and business method transitions. At no time in this transition will we 

abandon support for the hard copy map user. We recognize the importance of the Federal 

Depository Library Program and will continue its support through The National Map.

Also see “Issue – what steps will USGS take...” under “DEVELOMMENT, 

MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS” in this document.

Issue – methods by which paper topographic maps should be printed.

Libraries and some USGS business partners who sell maps urge that the current high 

quality of printed USGS topographic maps be sustained and that a stock of paper maps be 

maintained. They added that current “print on demand” technologies do not provide the 

quality needed by their customers and clients, and that they can not support the 

operational and maintenance costs of print-on-demand technologies (such as kiosks). 

Other comments noted that the rapid update of information anticipated in the report 

would require printing of only very small press runs and that the burden of maintaining a 

stock of tens of thousands of unique printed maps with frequent replacement, would be 

excessive.

The USGS now provides hard copy maps both through a print-and-warehouse approach 

and, through partnerships with the private sector, through print on demand at kiosks. The 

National Map vision of continuous update does not mean that paper maps stocked at a 

warehouse will be reprinted to reflect every change. Print-on-demand methods can meet 

the need for extremely current hard copy maps. The USGS will use its experience and 

work with its partners and customers to implement the best blend of technologies that are 

affordable and available to a wide range of map users. In this way, we will continue to 

provide hard copy maps that meet diverse user requirements, generated from the digital 

data in The National Map.
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

34

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

(INCLUDES “ROLES OF THE USGS” AND “ROLES OF PARTNERS”)

Issue - clarify The National Map roles and relationships with ongoing activities and 

organizations.

The most frequent requests for clarification of USGS’ roles involved interfaces with the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Office of 

Management and Budget Information Initiative (I-Teams), the GeoData Alliance, and 

State GIS councils.

The relationship between The National Map and organizations and activities mentioned 

by reviewers range from those which are commonly known in the spatial data community 

and have been in existence for years to those which are relatively new and still emerging. 

Clearly, the broad National Spatial Data Infrastructure and the activities of the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee are quite well known and USGS has been a participant in 

these activities. The National Map is an USGS initiative and is within its scope and 

mission. The National Map concept fits within the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

goals for providing basic map category data to the spatial community while eliminating 

duplication through coordination and partnerships. The USGS has been an active 

participant in Federal Geographic Data Committee activities and this will continue. The 

implementation of The National Map will be closely coordinated with the activities of the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee. Also see “Issue – scope of The National Map” 

under “GENERAL COMMENTS” and “Issue – what is the relationship between the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure and The National Map” under “DEVELOPMENT, 

MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS” in this document.

Suggested wording for the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure” bullet in Appendix 1:

The National Spatial Data Infrastructure provides the context for developing and 

maintaining basic spatial data. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure is the 

technologies, policies, and people necessary to promote sharing of geospatial data 

throughout all levels of government, the private and non-profit sectors, and the 

academic community. The goals of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure are 

to: (1) reduce duplication of effort among agencies, (2) improve quality and 

reduce costs related to geographic information, (3) make geographic data more 

accessible to the public, (4) increase the benefits of using available data, and (5) 

establish key partnerships with States, counties, cities, tribal nations, academia 

and the private sector to increase data availability. Under Executive Order 12906, 

the Federal Geographic Data Committee coordinates the Federal Government’s 

development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure encompasses policies, standards, and procedures for 

organizations to cooperatively produce and share geographic data. The 17 

member Federal agencies of the committee cooperate with organizations from 

State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and the academic 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

35

community to develop the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The USGS 

participates in the committee, and leads several of its activities. The National 

Map concept aligns with the goals of, and is one of several USGS activities that 

contribute to, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

I-Teams are an example of how USGS Area Maintenance Offices will operate with 

consortia.

Reword the 2nd sentence under “State, regional, and local partners” to read:

“...and regional consortia, such as State geological surveys, State GIS councils, or 

Implementation Teams, which coordinate...”

Add the term “I-Team” to the Glossary:

Implementation Team (I-Team) – a collaborative group organized to build 

portions of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure for a geographic area, such as 

a State or region. Participants may include local, State, Federal, and tribal 

organizations, private sector companies, and other organizations. A team 

prepares a comprehensive plan for compiling, maintaining, and financing a spatial 

data infrastructure for a geographic area. The planning includes alignment of 

participants’ needs and resources, identification of participants’ responsibilities, 

and development of milestones. Planned activities must adhere to National 

Spatial Data Infrastructure principles, and include the development, testing, and 

use of standards.

Issue – have the Bureau of the Census provide stewardship for structures.

A partnership with the Bureau of the Census for structures was proposed in the original 

draft report. In its comments on the report, the Bureau of the Census offered a 

partnership on roads and boundaries. Bureau of the Census staff note that, under Title 13, 

they may not provide information about individual structures because of privacy 

concerns. The USGS is working with the Bureau of the Census on some projects that 

allow USGS access to structures data before the data are processed for Census purposes.

Issue – will privacy issues make reports of events such as utility hookups 

unavailable to Area Maintenance Offices?

The USGS recognizes the growing concern about privacy issues relating to information 

about individuals. We also recognize the responsibilities of organizations and companies 

to protect the rights of individuals when private information is served among business 

partners. As legislation and practices relating to what constitutes public records versus 

what is private information evolve in our information society, The National Map will 

seek and use only those records that are public or for which specific access permission 

has been given. Only those public records that contribute to the information content of 

The National Map will be considered. 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

36

Modify wording under “State and regional partners” to note that Area Maintenance 

Offices will develop business relationships needed to access public reports of events. 

Eliminate “utility hookups” as example of area maintenance offices receiving report of 

events.

Issue – The National Map should rely on data (as-is) made available by partners and 

not require that source data be based on an imposed specification.

The approach described in the issue is preferred, assuming that the goals for information 

content, data characteristics, and efficiency of The National Map can be achieved. The 

description of commonly-needed content and characteristics will be useful to help 

achieve the described approach, as will be research on data integration and increased 

adoption of open technologies, standards, and processing methods.

Issue - concern about the quality of data contributed by volunteers.

One of the major roles of the USGS is to ensure data quality of The National Map. The 

USGS recognizes that using volunteers to contribute to The National Map will require 

training and constant monitoring to ensure data quality. One of the roles of Area 

Maintenance Offices will be to establish quality assurance procedures to ensure the 

quality of data from all sources and from all partners, including volunteers. Also see

“Issue – general comments” under “GENERAL COMMENTS” and “Issue – what steps 

will USGS take to assure a standard level of quality and document the source of data 

included in The National Map” under “DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND 

OPERATIONS” in this document.

Modify wording under “Partnerships with the Public” in the report:

“These persons will be trained through a virtual “volunteer academy.” Area 

Maintenance Offices will interact routinely with volunteers to ensure adequate 

training and data quality. To support...”

Issue – the report needs specific information on how the organizational 

infrastructure and governance model will work to implement The National Map.

Specific details that were requested include: 

how will conflicting priorities among multiple partners be resolved?

how will data consistency among contributors be ensured?

how will The National Map be funded?

how will administrative support be provided (e.g., legal, funding)?

how will partnership commitments be ensured?

how will budget be coordinated?

There are many specific questions about how The National Map will function and what 

types of partnerships will be developed. Concurrent with the review process for the 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

37

vision report that defines The National Map concept, the USGS has prepared a 5-year 

plan for the Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program, including an operations 

concept. In addition, annual work plans will be developed and periodically assessed to 

ensure that major milestones are achieved. Pilot projects are being conducted to 

demonstrate and test The National Map concepts. Several partnership proposals have 

been received and are being evaluated. The USGS will organize its resources to focus on 

activities that contribute to the goals of The National Map. As procedures are established 

and planning documents written, they will broadly communicated. The USGS plans to 

include partners in The National Map effort to define these procedures and to establish 

implementation plans.

Also see “Issue – scope of The National Map” and “Issue – business plan funding; can 

USGS afford The National Map and who is going to contribute” under “GENERAL 

COMMENTS” and “Issue – has the USGS developed an implementation plan for The 

National Map” under “DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS” in 

this document.

Issue – heavy dependence on cooperative partnerships and reliance on existing data 

from private industry, result in an unbalanced program.

Commenters are concerned that the availability of current base geographic information 

would tend to be higher in highly populated or developed areas that are rich in data 

sources and resources. Areas with lower partnership interest or commercial data 

opportunities would receive little attention and low priority.

The USGS is responsible for ensuring that The National Map provides map data for the 

entire country. Program planning for The National Map will address a balance between 

those areas with greater partnership and commercial potential with those areas that have 

little or no interest. The USGS will review its data holdings to determine areas of 

insufficient mapping or inadequate data for The National Map. The Cooperative 

Topographic Mapping business plan needs to define a strategy to achieve currentness 

goals by balancing funding priorities between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” The 

USGS will include in its strategy initiatives to seek additional resources and to create 

partnerships to address this imbalance.

Issue – data quality.

There was concern from many comments regarding the data quality of The National Map. 

Furthermore, it was suggested that the USGS establish certification processes for The 

National Map content.

To ensure the data quality of The National Map, the USGS will continue its strong role in 

standards development, including support of the ISO/TC 211, the NCITS L1, the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee and the Open GIS Consortium. The USGS will also 

establish a quality assurance program to assist and certify data providers, and validate 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

38

data acquisition and maintenance processes. The USGS will also review contributions to 

The National Map from all sources.

Add to the 1st paragraph under “Roles for the USGS”:

“The USGS also will ensure the quality of The National Map data through 

standards development, by devising and implementing quality assurance 

procedures, and by promoting process certification criteria for content providers.”

Issue – how will the USGS ensure that participants of The National Map meet their 

commitments?

The success of The National Map will depend in large part upon sustained support from 

USGS leadership, the Department of the Interior, the Administration (e.g., the Office of 

Management and Budget and other Executive Branch agencies), and the Congress. The 

Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program is built on a foundation of funds 

appropriated specifically for topographic data and map production and maintenance. To 

fully meet the objectives of The National Map, the USGS budget must be leveraged 

through partnership agreements for data production, maintenance, archive, and 

distribution. If a partner in The National Map can no longer fulfill its agreement, the 

USGS will seek other participants to fulfill the void. Lacking any alternatives, the USGS 

will modify its operating plan to address and prioritize unmet requirements, and will 

provide content through contracted or in-house production. This is in agreement with the 

USGS role as “guarantor of national data completeness, consistency, and accuracy.”

Although the review draft of The National Map report discussed the possibility of 

seeking a legislative initiative, patterned on the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping 

Act, to clarify Federal responsibilities and to support partnerships with State, regional, 

local, and academic organizations, this topic requires considerable further discussion and 

validation within the USGS, the Department of the Interior, and the Administration 

before any concrete actions are undertaken. 

Issue - the report lacks detail on academic roles and research areas.

While there is only one sentence that addresses the role of academic partners, it is clear 

that the implementation of The National Map concept depends on solving critical 

research issues in the field of cartography, geography, and information science. More 

detail is discussed in the “Needed Research and Development” section and specific topics 

are outlined in Appendix 2. Funding mechanisms are also suggested in Appendix 2.

Reword the “Academic and library partners” section:

“...USGS will work with universities by ...”

Reword the “Private industry partners” section:
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

39

“The USGS will partner with private organizations...for broad public access, for 

research on cartographic technologies and issues, and to develop open technology 

and processing standards...”

Reword the 2nd paragraph under “Needed Research and Development” section:

“...Appendix 2 contains a partial list of topics that require investigation.”

Issue – USGS reaction to partnership offers. 

The participation of all interested parties is welcomed. The agencies and the specific data 

sets listed in The National Map vision report are highlights of possibilities for a national 

program. The USGS will consider all further agency recommendations for partnering on 

The National Map for specific data sets and/or other business relationships. The key 

criterion will be: does the partnership adhere to and further the concepts on which The 

National Map is built? 

Under “Federal partners” change “...Bureau of the Census (roads and structures)...” to 

“...(roads and boundaries)...”

Also see “Issue – provide for additional content, specifically bathymetry” under 

“INFORMATION CONTENT” and “Issue – scope of The National Map” under 

“GENERAL COMMENTS” in this document.

Issue - The National Map vision report sounds like a top down approach instead of a

bottom up one for data development, incorporation, and maintenance.

The USGS recognizes that the most current, accurate, and complete high resolution data 

that can contribute to the goals of The National Map are often developed and maintained 

by local, State, and regional authorities. Therefore, the USGS is interested in and expects 

to develop partnerships to incorporate local data into The National Map. Access to local 

partnerships may be through established State and regional consortia or directly with 

local entities, whichever is most appropriate. Area Maintenance Offices will be the 

principal conduit for developing and sustaining these relationships.

Reword the “State and regional partners” section in the report to:

“...strengthen coordination with State and regional consortia to develop 

partnerships with State, county, city, local, and other organizations for high resolution 

data for The National Map.”

Issue - clarify the role of private industry in supplying data.

The USGS will seek existing data that satisfies the concepts of The National Map. When 

existing data are not available or useful, USGS will seek data from other sources 

(including the commercial sector), such as through contracts for data production with 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

40

private industry. All data in The National Map, regardless of source, must support public 

domain dissemination and application requirements. In addition, The National Map may 

provide links and pointers to other data, including data produced, enhanced, packaged, 

and sold by private industry.

Issue - clarify the role of libraries, including support for the existing network of 

Federal Depository Libraries.

The USGS recognizes the importance of the national network of public and university 

libraries as a mechanism to provide access to The National Map content and derivative 

maps. As The National Map evolves, the USGS will continue to consult and support the 

library community to ensure that users have access to current data and topographic maps. 

The USGS also will work with libraries to research issues of information archive and 

access relating to The National Map. 

Change the section heading “Academic partners” to “Academic and library partners.”

Add text under the heading “Academic and library partners:”

The USGS will continue to rely on the Federal Depository Library Program as a 

vehicle for ensuring public access to The National Map and for feedback about 

geospatial information needs. The USGS also will work with the library 

community on issues relating to information archive and distribution of The 

National Map.”

Issue – clarify the domain of USGS’ role as a producer of data for The National 

Map.

Reword the section “Roles of the USGS,” item 5:

(5) owner and data producer of content for The National Map when no other 

suitable and verifiable source for those data exist.

NEEDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Issue – is the USGS open to partnering on R&D activities?

Comments from agencies indicate that much research needs to be done to develop 

technologies that will meet the needs of The National Map. Technology and other 

research and development topics are also being pursued by other agencies that expressed 

support for cooperation with USGS. We were encouraged by the number of 

organizations expressing interest in partnering with USGS in order to avoid duplication 
Issues and Actions

The National Map Report

41

of effort and achieve better collective support for The National Map. The USGS actively 

seeks research partnerships to address topics such as those listed in Appendix 2.

NEXT STEPS

Bullets were added to the report to address activities to: (1) plan for a review of The 

National Map concept by the Mapping Sciences Committee of the National Research 

Council, (2) plan for the operation of the USGS Cooperative Topographic Mapping 

Program to implement The National Map, (3) implement data stewardship 

responsibilities, (4) identify the role of commercially-produced data, and (5) seek and 

secure funding to encourage partner data maintenance and dissemination activities.