The National Map Customer Requirements:

Findings from Interviews and Surveys

By Larry Sugarbaker, Kevin E. Coray, and Barbara Poore

Open-File Report 2009–1222

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Sugarbaker, Larry, Coray, K.E., and Poore, Barbara, 2009, The National Map customer requirements; Findings from 

interviews and surveys: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1222, 34 p. plus appendixes A, B, and C, 

available only online.
iii

Acknowledgments

This study could not have been completed without the participation of over 2,200 individuals who responded to an invitation for personal interviews or participated in one of the surveys 

conducted by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), the American Society 

for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), or the International Map Trade Association (IMTA). These three organizations initiated surveys so that their constituents could more 

actively contribute to the assessment of requirements for The National Map. They represent a 

cross section of the geospatial user and mapping community professionals and consumers of 

the wide range of products and services that make up The National Map. The authors wish to 

thank each and every one of the people who have participated in the study.

The project management team provided guidance throughout the study and directly 

supported the development of the project plan, the interview questions, and the review of the 

project progress. They responded with a sense of commitment to fully understand the needs of 

our customers, and many of the members of the team gave significantly more than the 5 percent 

of their time that was asked of them. The team members (all of the U.S. Geological Survey) are 

listed below:

Thomas A. Connolly

John P. Donnelly

Mark A. Eaton

David D. Greenlee

Pat Hytes

Helmut Lestinsky

Vicki Lukas

Elizabeth McCartney

Alan M. Mikuni

Mark R. Newell

Partnership Liaisons were the conduits to our customer base, and they worked to identify 

hundreds of customers who could contribute to The National Map requirements study. They 

organized and hosted interview sessions across the country and participated in phone interviews when we were unable to travel to a customer site. The authors are indebted to them, and 

we extend our gratitude and appreciation for this support. Several liaisons spent a significant 

amount of time serving the needs of the project, and we would especially like to acknowledge 

these individuals (all of the U.S. Geological Survey):

Sherry L. Durst

Allyson L. Jason

Carol L. Ostergren

Sheri Schneider

Scott D. Van Hoff

Corey Gurnitz, Inc., provided project design and coordination support. Amy McQuade 

kept the team organized, coordinated 160 plus interviews, and conducted many of the interviews. Her participation in the study was tireless, and we especially want to thank her for helping manage the day-to-day activities of the project.

v

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

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

Background.....................................................................................................................................................1

Project Objectives.................................................................................................................................2

Information Needs Assessment and Data-Collection Activities ..................................................2

Results .............................................................................................................................................................5

Geospatial Base Data Requirements ................................................................................................5

Geospatial Data Layer Ranking ..........................................................................................................5

Geospatial Data Layer Update Frequency........................................................................................5

Geospatial Data Layer Scale and Resolution...................................................................................8

Orthoimagery.........................................................................................................................................8

Transportation .......................................................................................................................................9

Elevation.................................................................................................................................................9

Hydrography ..........................................................................................................................................9

Boundaries.............................................................................................................................................9

Parcels....................................................................................................................................................9

Public Land Survey System...............................................................................................................10

Land Cover...........................................................................................................................................10

Geographic Names.............................................................................................................................10

Structures.............................................................................................................................................10

Other Geospatial Data Requirements..............................................................................................10

Data Quality and Quality Control ......................................................................................................12

Customer Requirements—Online Functionality ............................................................................13

Customer Requirements—Topographic Maps ..............................................................................16

Customer Wishes for The National Map ........................................................................................23

Word Frequency Analysis .................................................................................................................25

Content Analysis .................................................................................................................................27

Data Types............................................................................................................................................27

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

Wishes about Data Characteristics Associated with Data Types..............................................28

 Improvements to Online Presence .................................................................................................28

Key Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................................31

Product Need Awareness .................................................................................................................31

Customer Data Requirements for The National Map ...................................................................31

Topographic Map Product Requirements.......................................................................................33

Next Steps............................................................................................................................................33

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................34

Appendix A. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Structured Interview Guide....................(click here to open separate file for appendixes A–C)

Appendix B. American Society for Photogrammetry and

Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Survey Questions.

Appendix C. Environmental Systems Research Institute

(ESRI) Survey Questions.
vi

Figures

1. Chart showing product and service outputs for The National Map ....................................2

2. Organizational type profile of interview and survey participants

expressed as a percentage of total participants ....................................................................4

3. Maps depicting a county boundary in two locations from different sources ..................14

4. Maps and orthoimage showing contour lines crossing water

features, hydrography not following contour lines, and

hydrography not matching a newer orthoimage...................................................................14

5. Maps and orthoimage showing contour lines that were not updated

to show roadcuts, names over posting other features, and shoreline

data that do not align with the orthoimage shoreline...........................................................14

6. Image showing green tint derived from Landsat satellite data to test the

concept that not all data layers need to meet the same level of precision

on published map products.......................................................................................................22

7. Example showing how topographic maps might have variable feature

content detail...............................................................................................................................23

8. Prototype views of a published topographic map.................................................................24

9. Illustration of proposed data source citation to be included in the legend

of the published topographic map ...........................................................................................25

10. Frequency of top 30 words in “wishes” responses for USGS

structured interview question 16 .............................................................................................26

11. Frequency of top 30 words in “wishes” responses for ASPRS

survey question 12.4...................................................................................................................26

12. Wishes referring to specific data types..................................................................................28

13. Wishes for data characteristics...............................................................................................28

14. Association of wishes for improved data with data characteristics for

top five data types from USGS interview question 16 ..........................................................29

15. Association of wishes for improved data with data characteristics for

top five data types from ASPRS survey question 12.4..........................................................29

16. Wishes for improved online performance for The National Map ......................................30

17. Wishes for easier or more functional interface ....................................................................30

Tables

1. Primary business drivers.............................................................................................................4

2. Participant ranking of base geospatial datasets from the USGS

structured interviews and the ASPRS survey..........................................................................6

3. Participant ranking of base geospatial datasets from the ESRI survey..............................6

4. Average minimally acceptable update cycles to meet business

requirements for base data themes ..........................................................................................7

5. Geospatial data layer historical or archival needs ................................................................7

6. Resolution and scale requirements grouped by local, State, regional,

and national ...................................................................................................................................8

7. Structures data needs by business drivers............................................................................11

8. Other geospatial data requirements from the USGS structured

interviews and the ASPRS survey ...........................................................................................11

9. Other geospatial data requirements from the ESRI survey.................................................12

10. Importance of data quality control program for selected base

geospatial data layers coming from multiple sources .........................................................12

11. Assessment of customer priorities for quality control.........................................................13
vii

12. Customer sensitivity to errors on topographic maps............................................................13

13. Customer ratings of geospatial product and service needs to meet

mission-critical requirements...................................................................................................15

14. Customer ratings of Web services relative to their business requirements ....................15

15. Customer ratings of Web service—ESRI survey ..................................................................16

16. Side-by-side comparison of The National Map (TNM) service usage..............................17

17. New services or capabilities that could be provided by The National Map ....................17

18. Importance of USGS topographic maps to mission-related work

within surveyed organizations..................................................................................................17

19. Use of printed versus digital forms of topographic maps....................................................18

20. Required geospatial data layers to be displayed or printed on

a topographic map......................................................................................................................19

21. Customer sensitivity to data use limits through license restrictions.................................19

22. Response to topographic map production scenarios ..........................................................19

23. Online mapping features for publish-on-demand technology ............................................21

24. Use of different datum and grid lines on older series topographic maps.........................21

25. Customer willingness to pay for a printed topographic map ..............................................21

26. Assessment of customer willingness to use a commercial service

for printing if the print cost were $35 per map sheet............................................................21

27. Customer requirements for special topographic map print media ....................................22

28. Customer satisfaction with topographic map digital product

versus a lithographic print ........................................................................................................22

29. Customer assessment of digital “mark up” capability on a

published map product..............................................................................................................22

30. Customer assessment of variable content on topographic maps......................................24

31. Customer assessment of prototype topographic maps with contours

and shaded relief........................................................................................................................25

32. Customer assessment of prototype metadata detail on a topographic map..........................25

33. Wishes for The National Map .....................................................................................................27

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Conversion Factors
viii

Acronyms

API application programming interface

ASPRS American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

DEM digital elevation model

DLG digital line graph

DLG-3 digital line graph, level 3

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

GeoPDF geo-referenced PDF

GIS geographic information system

GNIS Geographic Names Information System

GOS Geospatial One-Stop

IMTA International Map Trade Association

KML Keyhole Markup Language

LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging

NAD 27 North American Datum of 1927

NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983

NED National Elevation Dataset

NGP National Geospatial Program

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset

NPD National Parcels Dataset

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PDF Portable Document Format (Adobe)

PLSS Public Land Survey System

RSS Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary

TIFF tagged image file format

TIGER® Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing 

 system of the U.S. Census Bureau

TNM The National Map

URL uniform resource locator

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTM/USNG Universal Transverse Mercator/U.S. National Grid

WBD Watershed Boundary Dataset

WGS 84 World Geodetic System of 1984
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to receive customer feedback and to understand data and information requirements for

The National Map (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). This report 

provides results and findings from interviews and surveys

and will guide policy and operations decisions about 

data and information requirements leading to the development of a 5-year strategic plan for the National Geospatial 

Program. These findings are based on feedback from approximately 2,200 customers between February and August 2008. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted more than 

160 interviews with 200 individuals. The American Society 

for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) and the 

International Map Trade Association (IMTA) surveyed their 

memberships and received feedback from over 400 members. The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 

received feedback from over 1,600 of its U.S.-based software 

users through an online survey sent to customers attending the 

ESRI International User Conference in the summer of 2008. 

The results of these surveys were shared with the USGS and 

have been included in this report. 

Background

The National Map (TNM) is a dynamic system of 

geospatial data and map products and services managed by 

the U.S. Geological Survey and a network of Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local partners and other organizations. It is one 

of the main components of the USGS National Geospatial 

Program. Geographic information professionals and public 

map consumers across the country use The National Map

products and services by the thousands every day. Our customers use maps to enhance their recreational experience and 

data services to make lifesaving decisions. Nationally consistent geospatial data enable better policy and land management decisions and the effective enforcement of regulatory 

responsibilities. However, stakeholder feedback on earlier 

versions of The National Map suggested that the future state 

of The National Map would benefit greatly from a more comprehensive set of customer input. The timing for this input is 

critical for the USGS as it formulates the 5-year strategic plan 

for the National Geospatial Program (NGP).

The digital age has fundamentally changed mapping as 

we understood it 30 years ago. Spatial analysis has moved 

from a tabletop exercise to fully automated geospatial analysis 

and scientific modeling. Maps are created today to convey the 

results of analyses that are performed routinely by consumers 

of geospatial services. The role of the USGS as the Nation’s 

primary map producer has shifted toward geospatial services. The demand for geographic information system (GIS) 

products and services is higher than ever, and the demand for 

traditional paper products has rapidly declined. While there is 

a need for map products, a number of questions have arisen 

due to the shift in business paradigms. Who produces maps? 

What information is displayed on a general-use map? How 

current do the data need to be? What geospatial data services 

are needed? What is the appropriate published map scale? Is 

every map custom made and can the user control the content 

and self-select the map center? Is the published map always a 

digital product? 

In the emerging Web 2.0 world, the service provision 

model is shifting. The USGS, while having a long-recognized 

leadership role in mapping, is taking this opportunity to define 

its role as a premier geospatial data and application service 

provider. The shift from maps to geospatial services challenges 

the notion that a general-purpose base map should be the end 

result of the service offerings. For this reason, researchers set 

out to assess customer requirements for the following geospatial data, services, and products:

• Nationally consistent geospatial data

• Quality-assured and integrated geospatial data

• Frequency of update

• Geospatial data delivery services

• Analytical service support through enhanced data

models and other features

• Published (digital) map products

The National Map Customer Requirements:

Findings from Interviews and Surveys

By Larry Sugarbaker,1 Kevin E. Coray,2 and Barbara Poore3

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192.

2

Coray Gurnitz Consulting, Inc., Arlington, VA 22209.

3

U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
2 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

The research broadly addressed a full range of business 

requirements dealing with resource management, hazards 

assessments, emergency response, outdoor recreation, climate 

change, national security, environmental regulation, energy, 

and eight other high-level business functions.

Project Objectives

This customer requirements research project was initiated 

with three primary objectives:

1. Improve our collective understanding of customer 

needs for nationally consistent and quality-assured base 

map data and related geographic information services

2. Receive feedback on topographic map prototype products to support product design and production planning 

requirements

3. Develop recommendations for improving our marketing, product branding, and customer service operations.

The data-gathering activity identified customer requirements for The National Map data and map services (see fig. 1). 

The data and service needs will directly support the development of The National Map 5-year plan. Operational aspects 

of The National Map were not a focus of this study. While 

Figure 1. Chart showing product and service outputs for The National Map (outlined in red); these outputs were the focus of the 

customer requirements research project. Business process, partnership development, and roles necessary to define the data workflow 

within The National Map were not a focus of the research activity. Quad, quadrangle; TBD, to be determined.

customers often wanted to talk about “how” The National Map

would be built, the study team felt that would be too much of 

a distraction from the stated purpose of gathering customer 

requirements. These operational aspects of a functioning 

national map will be addressed after the requirements are 

understood and documented.

The USGS has been actively working on new topographic map product development over the last year. Several 

prototype products have been created, including topographic 

and orthoimage product maps for 7.5-minute quadrangles. 

These are digital geo-referenced Adobe Portable Document 

Format (GeoPDF) files. Several interview and survey questions were developed to guide the topographic mapping activity and to gain initial reaction to the product offerings. The 

researchers successfully gathered these responses to frame the 

overall direction. A followup series of focus group meetings to 

receive detailed responses back from the refined prototypes is 

planned. 

Information Needs Assessment and DataCollection Activities

Interviews were conducted by USGS representatives 

from February to May 2008. More than 200 individuals were 

interviewed across the United States. The interview team 
Background 3

conducted onsite interviews in Alaska, California, Oregon, 

Washington, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Phone interviews were used extensively to reach 

important customers in the Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and 

other States where onsite interviews were not possible. Federal 

agency employees represented 51 percent of the interview 

pool. State and local government participants made up 30 

percent. Other entities such as not-for-profit organizations, 

commercial GIS service providers, and private sector industry 

made up the remaining 29 percent. A copy of the structured 

interview guide can be found in appendix A.

The USGS project management team identified candidate 

customers to interview. The customers were grouped by organization type and by known business activities within their 

respective organizations. The objective was to have representative customer groupings across the spectrum of organizations 

served by the USGS. The customer selection was supported 

by the USGS network of State and Federal liaisons who possessed firsthand knowledge of existing and potential future 

customers. USGS liaisons were asked to nominate customers 

who worked in a variety of settings to include field users of 

map products, GIS professionals, and managers. USGS liaison 

regional coordinators compiled these lists and helped prioritize 

customers for the purpose of selecting individuals across the 

United States with broad representation of business activities. 

More than 400 customers were identified through this process. 

Interviewees were asked to select primary business drivers for 

their organizations, and these data (see table 1) were used to 

compile the results tables throughout the report rather than the 

assigned business drivers used to develop the sample customer 

list. The project team established a target goal of 175 customers to be interviewed. When the study was completed, 200 

individuals had been interviewed in over 160 sessions. Some 

organizations had two or three individuals participating in 

the same interview, thus accounting for the higher individual 

count.

The ASPRS and the IMTA conducted surveys of their 

memberships in response to the USGS interview request. 

These surveys were administered by the ASPRS by use of 

an online survey tool (appendix B) and were nearly identical 

to the structured interview guide (appendix A). The overall 

data-gathering activity was greatly enhanced because more 

than 400 members from these two organizations responded to 

the requests for input. The distribution of ASPRS and IMTA 

survey respondents was 35 percent commercial, 18 percent 

Federal, and 15 percent State and local. The remaining 32 

percent of the respondents were distributed across academic, 

nongovernment organizations, and “other” organizational 

types. ASPRS and IMTA survey participants self-selected 

organization type and up to five business drivers for their 

organization. The distribution of response by organization type 

and business drivers is therefore assumed to be representative 

of the organizations’ membership. In the tables that follow, 

the IMTA and ASPRS results are combined. Because the 

ASPRS administered the survey, the tables are all referenced 

as “ASPRS survey,” even though results are from both the 

ASPRS and IMTA memberships.

The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 

developed a short version of the structured interview guide 

and released a 10-question survey to all ESRI customers residing in the United States and attending the 2008 ESRI International User Conference (appendix C). The online survey 

invitation was extended to approximately 8,000 individuals. 

More than 1,600 ArcInfo software users responded to the survey. This was a very significant response rate indicating a high 

level of interest in the subject matter. The ESRI survey participant distribution was composed of 40 percent State and local 

government, 19 percent Federal, and 14 percent commercial. 

The remaining 27 percent were distributed across academic, 

nongovernment, and “other.”

A limitation of the results was that neither the structured 

interviews nor the surveys conducted by other organizations 

directly reached consumer groups such as outdoor recreationists. Commercial service providers and Federal managers who 

work with these groups were interviewed. In addition, while 

national defense needs were addressed, the response pool was 

likely small relative to the customer resource commitments 

in this area. The private sector mineral and forest products 

industries affecting large portions of the U.S. land base were 

also not proportionally represented, although Federal program managers working in these areas were interviewed. The 

graph in figure 2 shows the mix of organization types for the 

structured interviews, ASPRS survey, and ESRI survey. Even 

though there were inherent biases in customer representation 

between the structured interviews and surveys conducted by 

ASPRS and ESRI, the top-tier base data and service needs 

were similar between the groups. The project team felt that 

there was adequate representation across all business and 

organization types. Consumer product and service needs will 

be further assessed in focus group sessions designed to gage 

responses to and interest in specific products such as the topographic map.

Marketing and branding issues were often discussion 

topics during the interviews. The original interview guide 

included a question where the interviewee was asked to 

describe The National Map. Generally, customers could not 

identify many products or services of The National Map. 

Some customers described only The National Map viewer. 

Opinions varied widely about whether or not an older generation printed topographic map was part of The National Map. 

For these reasons, the research team felt that it was better to 

describe The National Map products and service offerings to 

the customers and to structure the questions around specific 

products or services. For example, there were no questions 

like, “Do you use The National Map for....?”. Instead, a 

question was structured to rate how often a specific service 

(like The National Map seamless server) was used or how 

well a customer liked one product compared to a similar 

offering from another provider. These early findings enabled 

the research team to refine the interview guide and to significantly improve the data-collection activities. While the 
4 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 2. Organizational type profile of interview and survey participants expressed as a percentage of total participants. The ASPRSadministered survey had 412 association member participants, the USGS structured interviews were conducted with 200 participants 

(160 interviews), and the ESRI survey was taken by 1,620 GIS professionals.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of Respondents

Organizational Type

ASPRS/IMTA survey

USGS structured interviews

ESRI survey

Table 1. Primary business drivers.

[Primary business drivers as self-identified by interview and survey participants. USGS interview participants could select any number from an established 

list. Note that table is sorted based on USGS interviews. ASPRS and ESRI survey participants could select their top five business drivers. The “total respondents” is equal to the number of responses received for this particular question and may be less than the total number of surveys or interviews. Source: USGS 

interview question 2, ASPRS survey question 5.1, ESRI survey question 2]

Yes Total Yes Total Yes Total

Natural resource and land management 70.6% 108 55.7% 210 48.7% 780 1098 51.5%

Natural hazards assessment and emergency response 66.7% 102 32.6% 123 32.4% 519 744 34.9%

Water quantity and quality 54.9% 84 28.1% 106 32.5% 521 711 33.3%

Ecosystems, biodiversity and resource conservation 52.3% 80 35.5% 134 27.0% 433 647 30.3%

Infrastructure development and maintenance 41.8% 64 43.2% 163 51.8% 830 1057 49.6%

Recreation 38.6% 59 10.3% 39 13.7% 219 317 14.9%

Economic development 34.0% 52 23.9% 90 26.4% 423 565 26.5%

Climate change 32.7% 50 20.2% 76 8.0% 128 254 11.9%

Community development and growth management 32.7% 50 34.2% 129 38.6% 619 798 37.4%

Energy and mineral resources 32.0% 49 24.9% 94 16.9% 270 413 19.4%

Human health and the environment 28.8% 44 8.5% 32 12.3% 197 273 12.8%

Law enforcement 27.5% 42 11.1% 42 20.7% 331 415 19.5%

Agricultural practices 26.8% 41 18.3% 69 8.2% 132 242 11.4%

Geography awareness (education) 26.8% 41 20.4% 77 15.6% 250 368 17.3%

Defense and homeland security 22.2% 34 29.7% 112 16.5% 264 410 19.2%

Regulation of pollutants and other contaminants 22.2% 34 8.0% 30 15.7% 252 316 14.8%

Human services 17.0% 26 5.6% 21 9.2% 148 195 9.1%

Total respondents 153 377 1602 2132

Combined 

sum

Percent 

of total

Primary business activities that use GIS in 

respondent's organization

USGS interviews ASPRS survey ESRI survey
Results 5

interview guide went through multiple refinements during the 

requirements-gathering process, the most substantive changes 

occurred after the first few interviews conducted in February 

of 2008.

A series of questions were asked to gain a better understanding of customer knowledge of The National Map product 

offerings. In some instances, customers were asked to compare 

various Internet services with commercially available services. 

An important aspect of the one-on-one interviews was to 

listen to customers and develop a better understanding of their 

requirements based on what they said about the USGS products and services. Where these needs and insights are not captured in the formal survey responses, the authors have added 

additional commentary based on their notes and observations 

captured throughout the interview process. 

Results

When customers were asked if they needed access to data 

beyond their jurisdictional boundaries, 88 percent of respondents said that they did need data from neighboring jurisdictions or nationally to meet their business requirements. When 

they were asked more specifically how often they needed these 

data, the distribution of need became clearer. The frequency of 

need as depicted by local, State, and national level organizations shows that access to these datasets is needed more frequently by organizations with business needs that are national 

in scope.

Nearly 60 percent of respondents in the structured interviews and in the ASPRS/IMTA surveys said that a topographic 

map was quite important or very important to meeting their 

mission needs (table 18). This question was not specifically 

asked in the ESRI survey, but when asked how important 

digital or printed USGS topographic quadrangle maps were 

to their work, 53 percent of ESRI respondents said they were 

important or very important. Within the ESRI survey, 33 

percent of local government respondents said that they were 

important or very important as compared to 62 percent for all 

others who responded to the ESRI survey.

Geospatial Base Data Requirements

The National Map is defined by a set of products 

and services and eight base data layers. The data layers are 

imagery, elevation, hydrography, geographic names, transportation, land cover, boundaries, and structures. Each of 

these data layers is composed of more than one data type. For 

example, boundaries includes county, city, State, and international boundaries, national park boundaries, and many others. 

These are the data layers that are necessary to support the 

topographic mapping program of the USGS. In many cases, 

the USGS relies on partner organizations to provide the data 

that are ultimately included in The National Map. Regardless of the source, an objective of this study was to identify 

the most important data layers to be included in The National 

Map and to link those directly with customer-defined business 

requirements.

Geospatial Data Layer Ranking

Customers were asked to rate the importance of base 

geospatial datasets relative to their organization’s business 

requirements. This was a forced rating in that customers were 

required to give seven high, seven medium, and six low ratings. With the exception of parcels and the Public Land Survey 

System, the 20 geospatial layers identified are subsets of the 

eight base map data themes currently found in The National 

Map. Customers were asked to rate geospatial base datasets in 

an effort to gage the national importance of these data relative 

to other datasets already included in The National Map. For 

this study, the data layers were subdivided into a refined list 

of 20 base geospatial data layers. While table 2 shows ranking 

from high to low based on the number of “high” designations 

from customers in the structured interview, it is important to 

note that every dataset was ranked high by some customers. 

The ESRI survey participant ranking of base geospatial datasets is shown in table 3. The ESRI survey presented a slightly 

different list of base geospatial data layers; thus, the results 

could not be included in table 2.

Geospatial Data Layer Update Frequency

Customers were asked to identify the minimally acceptable data layer update cycle required to meet their business 

requirements. Depending on the specific business requirement 

and the rate of change within any one data layer, the customer 

needs can be highly variable for even one dataset. Table 4

shows the average response from all customers and represents 

a general need. It would not be appropriate to interpret the 

results to mean that a local government official (or any other 

data steward) could be satisfied with boundary data updated 

on a 3-year cycle for his or her city or county. However, 

the majority of regional or national analysis and mapping 

needs could be satisfied with a 3-year update cycle. Those 

datasets that have a high rate of change, such as parcels and 

transportation, would require a very active stewardship and 

data-integration process. The associated costs of maintaining 

these datasets must be taken into consideration when designing stewardship models and when completing lifecycle costs 

analysis.

Customers need access to historical data to support 

a wide range of business functions. Interview question 12 

focused on requirements for consistent and seamless historical 

spatial data layers to meet a broad set of business needs but 

did not specifically address the needs to meet legal requirements for records retention. Customers were asked to identify 

geospatial data layers that were needed to document historical 

conditions or to meet other requirements. The results depicted 

in table 5 show that there is a wide distribution of need among 
6 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Table 2. Participant ranking of base geospatial datasets from the USGS structured interviews and the ASPRS survey.

[Parcels are not currently part of The National Map base data themes. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 9, 

ASPRS survey question 9.1–9.2]

N Low Med High N Low Med High

Orthoimagery 158 3% 10% 87% 276 9% 11% 80%

Transportation - Public streets/roads 158 7% 17% 76% 271 7% 21% 72%

Elevation 158 7% 20% 73% 275 4% 15% 82%

Hydrography – Surface water 158 8% 23% 70% 268 11% 30% 59%

Boundaries – Civil boundaries e.g. city, county, state 158 14% 31% 55% 266 16% 37% 47%

Parcels 158 24% 28% 48% 268 35% 30% 35%

Boundaries - Public Land Survey System 158 29% 33% 39% 268 28% 33% 40%

Land cover (e.g. vegetation, built, wetlands) 156 23% 41% 36% 267 16% 34% 50%

Geographic names 158 21% 46% 33% 268 24% 43% 33%

Vertical and horizontal control 158 23% 45% 32% 268 19% 25% 56%

Boundaries – Federal and Native American lands 157 23% 47% 30% 261 37% 36% 27%

Structures – selected public buildings such as schools 158 39% 34% 27% 265 26% 45% 29%

Pipelines and powerlines 158 22% 53% 25% 268 37% 36% 27%

Transportation – Other routes e.g. forest roads 155 37% 45% 19% 265 41% 41% 19%

Transportation – Airports 157 42% 42% 16% 263 38% 38% 24%

Springs and wells 157 46% 38% 16% 268 53% 32% 16%

Transportation – Railroads 158 39% 46% 16% 265 31% 44% 25%

Structures – rural areas 158 48% 37% 15% 261 39% 42% 19%

Physiographic feature names (e.g. mountain, valley.) 158 41% 44% 15% 269 43% 33% 24%

Transportation – Trails 157 41% 46% 13% 264 50% 36% 14%

Ranking of base geospatial data layers Structured interviews ASPRS survey

Table 3. Participant ranking of base geospatial datasets from the ESRI survey.

[The ESRI survey presented a slightly different list of base geospatial data layers due in part to the omission of three data layers. In addition, the parcels layer 

was split into public and private to determine if there would be a significant difference in ranking or requirements for this geospatial data layer. For these 

reasons, a side-by-side comparison with data from the USGS interviews and the ASPRS survey was not possible. N, number of participant responses. Source: 

ESRI survey question 4] 

Ranking of base geospatial data layers

5 - very important, 4 - quite important, 3 - somewhat important, 2 - not very important, 1 - 

do not use (Percent favorable = very - somewhat important) Average

Percent 

favorable Total Average

Percent 

favorable Total Average

Percent 

favorable Total

Transportation— Public streets and roads 4.39 85% 1581 4.39 86% 500 4.38 85% 1081

Boundaries— Civil boundaries (city, county, state, international) 4.28 83% 1588 4.15 80% 500 4.35 85% 1088

Orthoimagery 4.25 79% 1571 4.23 79% 492 4.27 79% 1079

Elevation 4.13 78% 1580 3.96 74% 494 4.22 80% 1086

Hydrography— Surface water 4.07 76% 1583 3.85 70% 496 4.18 79% 1087

Utilities (regional and interstate pipelines and power lines) 3.95 71% 1577 4.04 76% 495 3.91 69% 1082

Land cover (e.g. vegetation, built, wetlands, and grasslands) 3.93 70% 1580 3.67 62% 494 4.05 74% 1086

Boundaries— PLSS (section, township, range) 3.89 68% 1576 3.75 64% 496 3.96 70% 1080

Transportation— Railroads 3.77 64% 1579 3.71 63% 496 3.80 65% 1083

Structures— Selected public buildings (e.g. schools, hospitals) 3.74 62% 1575 3.94 73% 497 3.65 57% 1078

Hydrography— Springs and wells 3.69 61% 1556 3.56 58% 490 3.75 63% 1066

Transportation— Airports 3.67 58% 1576 3.62 59% 495 3.69 58% 1081

Boundaries— Federal and Native American lands 3.57 57% 1569 3.02 39% 490 3.82 65% 1079

Physiographic feature names (e.g. mountain, valley) 3.52 53% 1562 3.28 44% 488 3.63 57% 1074

Transportation— Trails 3.51 52% 1568 3.53 55% 493 3.50 51% 1075

Structures— Buildings in rural areas 3.50 52% 1574 3.50 55% 495 3.50 51% 1079

ESRI survey - all 

respondents

ESRI survey - local 

government only

ESRI survey - TOTAL without 

local government
Results 7

Table 4. Average minimally acceptable update cycles to meet business requirements for base 

data themes.

[Source: USGS interview question 11]

Base geospatial data layer Update cycle

Parcels ≤ 1 year

Transportation - Public streets/roads ≤ 1 year

Boundaries – Civil boundaries to include city, county, state, international ≤ 3 years

Orthoimagery ≤ 3 years

Geographic names ≤ 3 years

Boundaries – Federal and Native American lands ≤ 3 years

Hydrography – Surface water ≤ 3 years

Boundaries - Public Land Survey System ≤ 3 years

Structures – selected public buildings such as schools, hospitals, courthouse ≤ 3 years

Pipelines and powerlines ≤ 3 years

Vertical and horizontal control ≤ 3 years

Land cover (i.e. vegetation, built, wetlands, grasslands) ≤ 3 years

Structures – rural areas ≤ 3 years

Transportation – Trails ≤ 3 years

Transportation – Airports ≤ 3 years

Springs and wells ≤ 3 years

Transportation – Other routes such as forest roads generally closed to public ≤ 3 years

Transportation – Railroads ≤ 3 years

Physiographic feature names (mountain, valley, canyon, plain, etc.) ≤ 5 years

Elevation ≤ 5 years

Table 5. Geospatial data layer historical or archival needs. 

[Side-by-side comparison of results from the USGS structured interviews and the ASPRS survey for base geospatial data layers that are needed 

to meet archival or historical data access requirements. Source: USGS interview question 12, ASPRS survey question 11.2]

Yes Total Yes Total

Orthoimagery 75.7% 103 88.5% 215

Land cover (i.e. vegetation, built, wetlands, grasslands) 51.5% 70 56.4% 137

Parcels 39.7% 54 39.9% 97

Boundaries – Civil boundaries to include city, county, state, international 32.4% 44 35.8% 87

Hydrography – Surface water 30.1% 41 38.3% 93

Transportation - Public streets/roads 27.2% 37 40.3% 98

Geographic names 22.8% 31 31.7% 77

Boundaries – Federal and Native American lands 19.9% 27 17.3% 42

Structures – rural areas 16.9% 23 20.2% 49

Boundaries - Public Land Survey System 16.9% 23 22.2% 54

Elevation 15.4% 21 29.6% 72

Structures – selected public buildings such as schools, hospitals, courthouse 14.7% 20 18.9% 46

Springs and wells 14.0% 19 15.2% 37

Transportation – Railroads 11.8% 16 22.6% 55

Vertical and horizontal control 11.0% 15 33.3% 81

Transportation – Trails 10.3% 14 15.6% 38

Transportation – Other routes such as forest roads generally closed to public 9.6% 13 12.8% 31

Pipelines and powerlines 9.6% 13 21.4% 52

Physiographic feature names (mountain, valley, canyon, plain, etc.) 9.6% 13 15.2% 37

Transportation – Airports 5.9% 8 13.2% 32

Total number of respondents to this question 136 243

Base geospatial data layer Structured interview ASPRS survey
8 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

data layers but that maintaining a few historical data layers, 

such as orthoimagery and land cover, could meet a majority 

of the need. The interview team did not formally capture the 

business activities for historical data; however, the need for 

geospatial data to support analysis of land cover and environmental change was mentioned by many customers during 

informal discussions.

Geospatial Data Layer Scale and Resolution

Interview and survey respondents were asked to rate their 

needs for scale and resolution of different data layers. Results 

shown in table 6 were grouped by local, State, regional, or 

national responsibilities based on the customer’s organization 

type. As might be expected, local organizations rated fineresolution data more highly while national organizations said 

they needed data at a mid scale of 1:24,000 more frequently. 

However, organizations at each level expressed a need for data 

at all scales. While this study did not attempt to assess requirements by region or State, it is likely that a more refined assessment by location would yield a better set of requirements. Any 

national program, therefore, should consider the geographic 

distribution of need based on primary business drivers. It 

was not within the scope of this project to determine detailed 

requirements by location and it is unlikely that the sample size 

would yield significant new insight into the requirements if 

attempts were made to further isolate the analysis to specific 

geographic regions of the country. To further refine the results 

would require sampling customer requirements by local, 

regional, and national levels for a number of business applications. It is important to recognize that local does not always 

mean urban. Local needs can range from urban tax assessment 

to agriculture operations and forest management. Likewise, 

there may be important national level needs to evaluate urban 

conditions. While not statistically significant, an important 

observation made during the study was that resource management operations are trending toward 1:12,000-scale data 

and higher resolution elevation and imagery data acquisition 

programs.

The discussion of geospatial data scale and resolution 

was often influenced by concerns for computing capacity and 

network bandwidth needed to utilize very large datasets. Customers found it difficult to think about the business problems 

they were trying to address apart from these technical limitations that affected work productivity. Conversely, it is important that the USGS not build national datasets at a scale or 

resolution that is affordable if they do not meet the customer 

requirements. This is a significant consideration as the USGS 

continues to plan for the future, knowing that technology will 

continue to improve and that costs to acquire high-resolution 

data should decline with improved technology. 

Orthoimagery

Orthoimagery consistently was cited one of the top 

datasets needed to support geospatial activities regardless of 

the business activity or application level. Although a 1-meter 

national dataset meets a large number of needs, there is also 

a call for 12-inch-resolution data. At 12-inch resolution, a 

significant number of local needs are also addressed. A 3-year 

update cycle is the minimally acceptable update frequency. 

Accessibility of historical imagery was identified as the 

number one data archive need. While the USGS is actively 

archiving historical imagery, there is a need to determine if 

there is a role for The National Map to address some of this 

need in the context of the vision to provide access to seamless 

geospatial base data.

Table 6. Resolution and scale requirements grouped by local, State, regional, and national.

[The expressed needs are distributed across all scales and resolutions. The numeric responses were based on a five-point rating scale, where 5 is very important, 4 is quite important, 3 is somewhat important, 2 is not very important, and 1 indicates that a customer has no need for this resolution or scale data. N,

number of participant responses; Std. Dev., standard deviation. Source: USGS interview question 13]

6 inch 12 inch 1 meter 2.5 meter sub-meter 3 meter 10 meter 30 meter 1:12,000+ 1:24,000 1:63,360 1:100,000

Mean 4.11 4.07 3.00 2.19 3.71 3.02 2.77 2.18 3.95 3.14 1.98 1.84

N 22 22 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Std. Dev. 1.15 1.05 1.20 1.33 1.31 1.30 1.51 1.33 1.46 1.39 1.22 1.06

Mean 3.00 3.42 4.06 2.30 3.32 3.27 3.33 2.67 3.79 3.96 2.40 2.42

N 48 48 48 37 37 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

Std. Dev. 1.20 1.33 1.08 1.27 1.40 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.37

Mean 2.67 3.00 4.00 3.23 3.55 3.23 3.63 3.08 4.09 4.54 3.13 3.50

N 24 24 24 22 22 24 24 24 22 24 24 24

Std. Dev. 1.13 1.22 1.18 1.23 1.47 1.16 1.31 1.41 0.87 0.59 1.08 0.98

Mean 2.89 3.41 3.98 3.19 3.08 3.63 3.96 3.37 3.81 4.02 3.28 3.04

N 54 54 54 52 53 54 53 52 52 53 53 53

Std. Dev. 1.31 1.39 1.22 1.31 1.34 1.17 1.24 1.34 1.03 1.07 1.38 1.34

Mean 3.07 3.44 3.86 2.79 3.32 3.36 3.52 2.91 3.87 3.95 2.77 2.73

N 148 148 148 132 133 148 147 146 144 147 147 147

Std. Dev. 1.29 1.32 1.21 1.36 1.38 1.27 1.40 1.44 1.17 1.20 1.37 1.36

Total

Resolution and scale

requirements

Imagery Elevation Lines and areas (vector data)

Local

State

Regional

National
Results 9

Transportation

The transportation dataset was identified as one of the 

most important geospatial datasets. However, subcomponents 

of the transportation data layer that include airports, trails, 

forest roads closed to the general public, and railroads are 

in the lower one-third of the overall priority ranking of base 

geospatial datasets. Transportation data pose one of the most 

demanding stewardship challenges, given the need for current 

data and the complex array of uses. In addition, there are limited resources available at the USGS to support maintenance 

of transportation data, and customers often asked how the 

Department of Transportation was fulfilling its data stewardship responsibilities required by OMB Circular A–16 (Office 

of Management and Budget, 2002). 

A wide range of options were suggested by customers 

for meeting the need for transportation data. Although highquality commercial datasets are available for public streets and 

highways, customers expressed the need to have unrestricted 

access to the data. Unrestricted access to some commercial 

datasets should not be ruled out as a solution because there 

may be a willingness on the part of commercial transportation 

data providers to make a subset of their data available through 

an unrestricted public use license. Other ideas identified by 

customers included utilizing the updated TIGER® data (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2009) and implementing an active stewardship program with States in an effort to build a sustainable and 

managed transportation dataset for the Nation. Another commonly suggested solution would be to initiate a pilot project 

to test a wiki-based approach to developing an open-source 

transportation dataset. 

Elevation

Quality improvements to elevation data were often cited 

as a high-priority need. Much of the National Elevation Dataset is composed of scanned topographic map contours that 

were converted to 10-meter digital elevation models (DEMs). 

Over time, hydrography and other datasets have been modified 

and no longer align with the elevation. There has also been 

a growing need for very accurate elevation data to support 

resource and land use planning, flood mapping activities, 

particularly in coastal areas, and detailed geological mapping. 

The growing need for a refined national elevation dataset calls 

for stepped up attention in this area. Light Detection And 

Ranging (LiDAR) was often referred to as the logical technology solution to address this need. The business case for a 

national LiDAR program is significantly strengthened when 

one considers the opportunity to improve multiple data layers 

in The National Map, such as refined definition of surface 

water features, land cover (primarily tree canopy), elevation 

models having resolutions of less than 1 meter, and improved 

identification of infrastructure.

Hydrography

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) was

recently completed for 1:24,000-scale coverage over 

the conterminous United States. This was hailed as a major 

accomplishment by customers, and the Web services are used 

more often by interviewed customers than either Geospatial One-Stop or The National Map viewer. The NHD has a 

faithful following, and there is a growing list of value-added 

services that use the NHD. The NHD is also being transitioned 

to a stewardship maintenance program whereby States are 

actively taking on data maintenance responsibilities. In spite 

of these accomplishments, the NHD was one of the datasets 

most often cited as needing better quality control, and the level 

of integration with the National Elevation Dataset (NED) was 

not sufficient to meet analysis or basic mapping needs. When 

customers were asked about the need for other datasets in The 

National Map, watershed boundaries received one of the highest ratings. The NHD will soon include the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), which is under development by a consortium of agencies. Springs and wells, which are part of the 

hydrography theme definition for hydrography, were ranked 

13th in importance out of 20 surveyed data layers.

Boundaries

To better understand the boundaries requirement, customers were asked to rank their need for civil boundaries as well 

as boundaries of Federal and Tribal lands. In the part of the 

survey and interview that included questions on map products 

(see fig. 3), the example was shown where a county boundary 

was represented in two different places. Customers expressed 

the lowest levels of tolerance for this type of error. Civil 

boundaries include boundaries of local to international significance, yet they are all included in one geospatial data layer. 

Consequently, it has been difficult to identify a single reliable 

source for these data.

Parcels

The National Research Council, Committee on Land 

Parcel Databases (2007), concluded that complete national 

land parcel data are necessary, timely, technically feasible, and 

affordable. The committee described the need for a wide range 

of parcel and parcel-related data and made recommendations 

for stewardship responsibilities covering Federal, Tribal, and 

all other publicly and privately owned parcels. In consideration of these findings, a general category for parcel data was 

added to the data layer prioritization questions for geospatial 

base data layers, even though parcels are not part of The 

National Map today. Parcels ranked number 6 out of 20 data 

layers (table 2). Parcel data needs were split into public and 

private lands in the ESRI survey and included in the “other” 

geospatial data layers question. When compared in this way 

to other geospatial data layers that may be considered for 
10 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

inclusion in The National Map, both public and private parcels 

made up two of the top four geospatial data layers. The ESRI 

survey data for “other geospatial data layers” were further 

analyzed to determine what effect local government needs for 

parcel data had on the overall priority. While the local government requirements for parcels were slightly higher, the overall 

importance rating changed very little. Both private and public 

parcel data fell within the top five data layers even when local 

requirements were not considered. Table 9, discussed below in 

this report, shows the results of this analysis and the ranking 

of other geospatial data layers.

The development of a National Parcels Dataset (NPD) 

poses important challenges that must be addressed. For most 

applications, customers require data that are current within 

1 year, the source datasets are distributed across cities and 

counties, and restrictions on access by some local governments must be overcome. Regardless of these difficulties, the 

need is real, and the work to create a national dataset should 

be pursued.

Public Land Survey System

The need for Public Land Survey System (PLSS) data 

fell in the middle of the prioritized list (table 2). The strong 

requirement for Western States to have access to accurate public land survey data is not evident in this ranking, even though 

customers in the West expressed this as a high-level need. 

The interviews (and ASPRS survey) could not be parsed by 

geography, but it was clear in the interviews that the requirement in the Western States was much higher than in the “metes 

and bounds” States of the East. The Bureau of Land Management oversees the development and support of the national 

PLSS dataset. Historically, the PLSS was displayed on the 

USGS topographic maps of 7.5-minute quadrangles. When

The National Map plan was created in 2001, the PLSS was not 

included in the eight base data themes composing the national 

geospatial database. The survey results indicate that this decision should be revisited.

Land Cover

Land cover requirements are being met by analysis of 

Landsat data to create seamless coverage of classified land 

categories equivalent to the level 2 Anderson classification 

system; the update cycle is moving from 10 to 5 years. Currently, there are completed analyses for 1992 and 2001. The 

Landsat image base is 30-meter data and has the lowest level 

of resolution of any dataset in The National Map. Land cover 

was ranked number 8 out of 20 base geospatial data layers. 

However, when customers were asked about importance from 

a historical perspective, it received the second highest ranking 

among 20 datasets. In essence, land cover data become more 

valuable over time to understand long-term change and to support analysis of climate change and other important scientific 

and socioeconomic trends. The acceptable update cycle of 3 

years suggests the need to move to a more frequent update 

cycle than the planned 5-year cycle.

Geographic Names

The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) was 

developed by the USGS in cooperation with the U.S. Board on 

Geographic Names. It contains information about the proper 

names for places, features, and areas in the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the territories and outlying areas of 

the United States. There are about 2 million geographic names 

in the system, which also supports the production of maps 

in the USGS. Customers often recognized the importance of 

the Geographic Names Information System as a source of 

high-quality information about named features. Names ranked 

relatively high (upper half) on the list of priority data layers 

(table 2).

Structures

The requirements for data on structures (buildings) within 

The National Map have been the focus of much discussion. 

Overall, customers placed their need for structures data in the 

bottom half when compared to other requirements (see table 

2). Customers ranked public buildings and other critical infrastructure such as hospitals and schools (structures in urban 

areas) higher than structures generally found in rural areas. 

Customers from organizations who listed as primary business 

drivers homeland security, human services, or emergency 

response had a higher need for structures in urban areas than 

did other customers (significant positive correlations shown 

in table 7). Further, table 7 shows that needs for structures 

in urban areas were ranked lower by customers with ecosystems, recreation, water quality, natural resource management, 

climate change, and geography awareness as primary business drivers (significant negative correlations). No significant 

correlations were found between business drivers and rural 

structures. 

While breadth of need may not be the sole basis for 

determining whether or not a dataset should be included in The 

National Map, it is a reasonable criterion to use in determining authoritative source communities and probable sources of 

funding. As such, since structures in general and structures in 

rural areas in particular received some of the lowest rankings of all the base data layers, it could be asked what Federal 

entity should have the responsibility for maintaining a national 

dataset. 

Other Geospatial Data Requirements

USGS interview and ASPRS survey participants were 

asked to rate the importance of geospatial selected data layers 

that are not currently included within The National Map. As 

shown in table 8, all 12 data layers were ranked as “somewhat 
Results 11

Table 7. Structures data needs by business drivers.

[Business drivers correlated with importance ranking for structures in urban areas, listed from highest magnitude positive correlation (that is, higher importance ranking of urban structures) to highest magnitude negative correlations (that is, lower importance 

ranking of urban structures). Customers with business drivers of defense and homeland security (r = .27), human services, or 

natural hazards assessment and emergency response tended to rank need for urban structures higher than customers with other 

business drivers. Conversely, those with drivers of ecosystems, biodiversity, and resource conservation tended to rank urban 

structures lower in importance (r = -.36). Customers with business drivers with insignificant correlations (significance greater than 

.05) suggest no tendency for urban structures to be ranked higher, lower, or average. N, number of participant responses. Source: 

USGS interview question 9, structures, correlated with question 2, business drivers]

Primary business activities Pearson 

correlation

Significance (2-

tailed) N

Defense and homeland security 0.272 0.001 149

Human services 0.215 0.008 149

Natural hazards assessment and emergency response 0.170 0.038 149

Infrastructure development and maintenance 0.099 0.229 149

Community development and growth management 0.058 0.483 149

Regulation of pollutants and other contaminants 0.053 0.523 149

Human health and the environment 0.030 0.718 149

Law enforcement 0.009 0.909 149

Economic development -0.042 0.608 149

Agricultural practices -0.123 0.134 149

Energy and mineral resources -0.155 0.059 149

Geography awareness (education) -0.164 0.046 149

Climate change -0.176 0.032 149

Natural resource and land management -0.196 0.016 149

Water quantity and quality -0.203 0.013 149

Recreation -0.216 0.008 149

Ecosystems, biodiversity and resource conservation -0.361 0.000 149

Table 8. Other geospatial data requirements from the USGS structured interviews and the ASPRS survey.

[Interview and survey participants were given an opportunity to rate data layers that may be needed but that are not currently in The 

National Map. The ratings were recorded on a five-point scale, where 5 equals very important and 1 indicates the data layer is not needed 

or used by the participant’s organization. It is noted that the data from the cooperative project to create and update the watershed boundaries is being incorporated into the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and is now part of The National Map. N, number of participant 

responses. Source: USGS interview question 14, ASPRS survey question 12.2]

Other geospatial data layer Weighted

5 - very important, 4 - quite important, 3 - somewhat important, 

2 - not very important, 1 - do not use Mean N Mean N average

Land use 4.14 144 3.78 232 3.92

Hydrography-watershed boundaries 4.08 151 3.60 228 3.79

Wetlands 3.90 153 3.63 231 3.74

Flood zones 3.85 127 3.43 228 3.58

Soils 3.58 153 3.34 229 3.44

Ground water 3.53 153 3.04 227 3.24

Ecological Units or Systems (bog, wetland etc.) 3.47 152 3.25 222 3.34

Utilities 3.42 153 3.33 227 3.37

Geology 3.38 153 3.07 227 3.19

Biodiversity (species and ecosystems at risk) 3.24 152 2.97 223 3.08

Zoning 3.14 150 2.90 223 3.00

Bathymetry 2.90 153 2.81 228 2.85

Structured interviews ASPRS survey

important” or higher, indicating a high interest for additional 

national data layers. 

The ESRI survey was issued after the USGS interviews 

and the ASPRS survey were completed. There was considerable community interest that emerged for LiDAR data and 

for a national parcel dataset. The earlier USGS interviews 

asked customers to rank parcels against base data layers 

and didn’t specifically assess LiDAR. The interview team 

addressed the question about LiDAR by asking more detailed 

questions about elevation needs. Throughout the interviews, 

customers consistently pointed out the other values of LiDAR 

and wanted to know why they were not asked to rate that 
12 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Table 9. Other geospatial data requirements from the ESRI survey.

[The ESRI survey included additional datasets in the "other geospatial data layer" question and is therefore presented separately. The average score is computed 

from a five-point scale, where 5 is very important and 1 is not important. Percent favorable is determining the percent of “important” and “very important” 

responses selected by the survey participant. Source: ESRI survey question 5]

Other geospatial data layer

5 - very important, 4 - important, 3 - somewhat important, 

2 - less than important, 1 - not important Average

Percent 

favorable Total Average

Percent

favorable Total Average

Percent

favorable Total

Flood zones 4.24 81% 1583 4.35 86% 499 4.19 79% 1084

Parcels— Publicly owned 4.22 79% 1578 4.32 83% 501 4.17 78% 1077

LiDAR - for detailed topography and other mapping activities 4.17 77% 1575 4.11 76% 494 4.20 78% 1081

Parcels— Privately owned 4.16 77% 1577 4.30 81% 501 4.10 75% 1076

Land use 4.15 79% 1571 4.17 81% 493 4.14 78% 1078

Utilities (local water, sewer, electrical, and natural gas) 4.02 73% 1570 4.22 81% 496 3.93 69% 1074

Vertical and horizontal control 3.82 64% 1557 3.95 68% 490 3.77 62% 1067

Ground water 3.82 66% 1563 3.80 67% 491 3.83 66% 1072

Soils 3.76 64% 1568 3.63 60% 497 3.83 66% 1071

Transportation— Other routes such as forest roads 3.76 62% 1567 3.67 60% 492 3.80 63% 1075

Geology 3.75 64% 1567 3.53 55% 491 3.85 67% 1076

Zoning 3.62 55% 1575 3.98 70% 499 3.46 48% 1076

Ecological systems (e.g., oak woodland, swale grassland) 3.43 50% 1555 3.02 36% 484 3.61 56% 1071

Biodiversity (species and ecosystems at risk) 3.33 47% 1556 2.88 33% 484 3.53 54% 1072

Bathymetry 3.13 40% 1545 2.61 25% 476 3.35 48% 1069

ESRI survey - All respondents

ESRI survey - Local 

government only

ESRI Survey - TOTAL without

local government

Table 10. Importance of data quality control program for selected base geospatial data layers 

coming from multiple sources.

[N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 27, ASPRS survey question 16.2]

1 - not very important, 3 - somewhat important, 5 - critically important N Mean N Mean

Quality program for roads 129 4.37 211 4.21

Quality program for hydrography (water features) 130 4.31 210 4.08

Quality program for boundaries 129 4.11 214 4.07

Quality program for contours 129 4.09 212 4.02

Quality program for names of features 129 3.92 213 3.61

Importance of a quality control program Structured

interview ASPRS survey

as a dataset (as opposed to a technology). In addition to the 

inclusion of LiDAR, the ESRI survey also split parcels into 

publicly and privately held lands to see if one parcel type were 

needed more than the other. Local government users were the 

largest user group represented in this survey, and their results 

are also shown separately for comparison purposes in table 9.

Among other geospatial data layers, flood zones, parcels 

(both publicly owned and privately owned), LiDAR, and land 

use all had percent favorable ratings greater than 75 percent. 

Except for LiDAR (76 percent favorable for local government, 

78 percent favorable for others), local government rated 

these items even higher in importance (81 percent or greater 

favorable). Also note that the ESRI total sample shows a less 

than 50 percent favorable importance rating for ecological 

systems, biodiversity, and bathymetry. An analysis of local 

government users compared to all other user groups indicates 

that local government had a lower need for these data layers 

and that their responses had the overall effect of lowering the 

importance ratings.

Data Quality and Quality Control

A series of general data and map quality questions were 

asked in order to understand customer sensitivity to quality 

as it relates to geospatial features and how current, accurate, 

and complete they are in a database (see table 10). In some 

cases, questions were posed in such a way as to force customers to select an answer that required them to make a tradeoff 

decision. This was done in part to help the USGS prioritize 

data improvement objectives while recognizing that obtaining 

high-quality data is a goal for everyone.

Many of the data that come to the USGS are acquired by 

partner Federal and State agencies. When data flow into the 

national database from multiple sources, the need for a unified 

data quality and integration program becomes apparent. Customers were asked to rate how important it is for the USGS to 

implement a quality-control program for selected data layers. 

Although there was not a large rating difference, the transportation data were rated more highly than others. 
Results 13

Table 12. Customer sensitivity to errors on topographic maps.

[Customers were asked to rate acceptability of known errors on maps relative to their business requirements. A lower mean response indicates 

that a customer is more sensitive to errors. Note that the ASPRS survey assigned a 1 to fully acceptable and a 3 to not acceptable. For comparison 

purposes, the values are reversed in this table. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 39, ASPRS survey question 

18.1–21.1]

Positional (coordinates describing the geographic location) accuracy (see table 11) was identified as the most important quality-control issue over attribute accuracy, completeness, and currency. This particular question received a great 

deal of discussion during the structured interviews. Many 

customers did not want to be put in a position of ranking one 

data quality component over another, indicating that they are 

all critically important. There was a view, however, that positional accuracy of features was a core component of a quality 

database and that a maintenance program would more effectively address improvements in the form of new features or 

correction of attributes. It would be difficult to improve overall 

positional accuracy unless it were accomplished through a 

complete data recompilation.

Geospatial integration of data coming from multiple 

sources has long been recognized as a significant issue. While 

integration is considered to be a component of data quality, it 

is also recognized that customers have different sensitivities 

for integration issues related to different data subjects. When 

customers were presented with map images of known data 

errors, they were most sensitive to errors in boundary representations (table 12). The example they were shown was of 

a county boundary from two different sources (fig. 3). Also, 

four examples of elevation contour and hydrography conflicts 

were presented. It was viewed as a more significant problem 

when hydrography and elevation contours did not match (fig. 

4A, 4B). Customers were not as concerned about hydrographic 

features that did not match current watercourses within defined 

stream channels (fig. 4C). Contours that did not match a transportation cut-and-fill feature were found to be more acceptable 

(fig. 5A). Customers were more tolerant of cartographic over 

posting of feature names or shorelines that didn’t fully match 

an orthoimage (fig. 5B, 5C).

Customer Requirements—Online Functionality

The USGS provides a broad range of online geospatial 

services to meet customer requirements. These services range 

from specific data community services for the NHD to access 

to wide-ranging partner datasets through The National Map

viewer and Geospatial One-Stop (GOS). Some of the services 

provide similar functionality, and they range in age from a 

few years old to current releases. A series of questions were 

designed to elicit some very basic answers about customer 

experience with various online services and their need for 

improved services. The questions were intended to get feedback more specifically on The National Map service needs.

A number of questions were asked generally about the 

types of services needed. Additional questions were more 

focused on actual USGS mapping services. Regardless of how 

the questions were asked or what specific service was being 

evaluated, customers almost always valued services that gave 

Table 11. Assessment of customer priorities for quality control.

[Positional accuracy ranked significantly higher than other quality components. N, number of participant responses. Source: 

USGS interview question 36, ASPRS survey question 17.4]

Average Average

1 - highest importance to 4 - lowest importance N Rank N Rank

Positional accuracy of features 115 1.76 198 1.50

Currency (recent date) of features 115 2.63 201 2.68

Completeness of features 115 2.67 198 2.96

Attribute accuracy of features 116 2.79 195 2.76

Structured interviews ASPRS survey Customer priorities for quality control

1 - not acceptable, 2 - can live with it, 3 - fully acceptable N Mean N Mean

Shoreline vector does not align with ortho image shoreline 129 2.02 186 2.55

Offset issues and over posting issues 129 1.78 181 2.35

Misalignments and un-updated contours 130 1.75 168 2.26

Hydrography vector does not match the newer ortho image 129 1.71 172 2.56

Hydrography that does not follow contour lines 129 1.53 181 2.44

Contour lines crossing water features 128 1.52 154 2.26

Boundaries shown differently from different data sources 128 1.45 170 1.92

Sensitivity to feature conflicts found on sample maps Structured interviews ASPRS survey
14 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 3. Maps depicting a county boundary in two locations from different sources. Customers expressed the lowest level of 

acceptance for boundary errors when presented with a number of scenarios.

Figure 4. Maps and orthoimage showing (A) contour lines crossing water features, (B) hydrography not following contour lines,

and (C) hydrography not matching a newer orthoimage. Customers most often expressed that data quality was a concern when they 

observed examples where elevation and hydrography were not properly aligned on a map. While this was a test of cartographic quality, 

the implications for geospatial analysis are significant.

A. B. C.

Figure 5. Maps and orthoimage showing (A) contour lines that were not updated to show roadcuts, (B) names over posting other 

features, and (C) shoreline data that do not align with the orthoimage shoreline. Customers were more tolerant of contours that have not 

been updated for a transportation feature cut and fill when compared to contour and hydrography conflicts. Cartographic over posting 

and shorelines that do not match an orthoimage were more acceptable than other kinds of errors.

A. B. C.
Results 15

access to geospatial data more highly than viewing or other 

mapping services. More specifically, as shown in table 13, 

when customers were asked to rank geospatial services, the 

need to download data ranked more highly than other services.

Customers were asked to rate a number of services 

offered by the USGS and more generally about their use of 

commercial, State, and local government services. Generally, 

the commercial, State, and local services rated more highly 

than USGS services (see table 14). In the ASPRS survey, 

which has more representation from the commercial sector, 

the USGS seamless server was more often rated as an important service offering than The National Map viewer. It should 

be noted that while the National Atlas of the United States®

(2009) ranked lower than might be anticipated, the target audience for that service is the K–12 educational community and 

casual users who were not represented in this survey.

The interview team was able to ask followup questions 

during the interviews. The National Map viewer rated lower 

than other services because customers found it difficult to find 

the data they needed, and the viewer application was deemed 

to be too slow and difficult to use. The lack of “seamless” 

data was viewed as a major obstacle. For those who were very 

knowledgeable about USGS services, the seamless server 

was often cited as a useful tool. Unfortunately, many people 

did not know it existed. In contrast, customers liked the ease 

of use offered by the commercial services, even though they 

often cited the poorer quality data from some of these services 

as an issue. The user interface and the ability to easily access 

Keyhole Markup Language (KML) services from Google were 

the often cited benefits of this ubiquitous service. In addition, 

the commercial services were viewed as a better venue to 

distribute information to consumer audiences.

The ESRI survey asked GIS users how often they used 

USGS services (see table 15). A relatively small portion of 

the services were used by that user community more than 

occasionally. The ESRI user survey had a larger response from 

the local government community than either the structured 

interviews or the ASPRS survey. As expected, a summary of 

use by local government compared to all other users clearly 

showed a significantly lower use rate of USGS map services 

among local governments.

Customers were asked how often they used various 

USGS services. Table 16 shows a summary of service usage 

for five of The National Map online services. The response 

choices provided in the ESRI survey were slightly different 

from choices given for the structured interview question and 

the ASPRS survey. The ESRI choices were daily, weekly, 

monthly, rarely, and never. The structured interviews and the 

ASPRS survey choices were daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, 

and don’t use. Any usage of these services on a monthly basis 

would be considered significant because customers often 

access USGS data for the purpose of making a copy for use 

Table 13. Customer ratings of geospatial product and service needs to meet mission-critical requirements.

[A higher mean response is more important. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 23, ASPRS 

survey question 15.3]

Selected products and services

N Mean N Mean

Geospatial data file download/transfer service 143 4.43 218 4.37

Web feature service or Web coverage service 144 4.09 214 3.86

Online map viewing service 144 4.01 217 3.71

Pre-formatted digital maps for download and printing 142 3.54 212 3.55

Printed maps 143 3.51 222 3.47

Structured interviews ASPRS survey

5 - very important, 4 - quite important, 3 - somewhat important, 

2 - not very important, 1 - do not use

Table 14. Customer ratings of Web services relative to their business requirements.

[The viewer for the National Atlas of the United States® targets a consumer audience and has received high ratings from 

those groups. Commercial services were preferred by customers primarily because of superior usability and performance. N,

number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 24, ASPRS survey question 15.4]

Web services

N Mean N Mean

Google Maps/Google Earth, Microsoft TerraServer 143 3.81 191 3.76

State map viewer/services 143 3.38 189 3.56

County/city map viewers 144 3.24 191 3.43

Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) 105 3.01 194 2.76

USGS seamless server 137 3.00 209 3.52

Geospatial One-Stop 139 2.58 203 2.89

National Atlas of the United States® 141 2.53 202 2.85

The National Map viewer 139 2.40 186 2.91

Structured interviews ASPRS survey

5 - very important, 4 - quite important, 3 - somewhat important, 

2 - not very important, 1 - do not use
16 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Table 15. Customer ratings of Web service—ESRI survey.

[Customer response average for a selection of USGS geospatial services. The percent favorable response is based on the number of customers who selected 

either daily, weekly, or monthly usage. When compared to other users, local government customers had a significantly lower use of USGS services: Source: 

ESRI survey question 7]

USGS online services - frequency of use

5 - daily, 4 - weekly, 3 - monthly, 2 - rarely, 1 - never Average

Percent 

Favorable Total Average

Percent 

Favorable Total Average

Percent 

Favorable Total

2.20 34% 1558 1.85 19% 496 2.36 41% 1062

The National Map seamless server 2.19 34% 1566 1.82 18% 496 2.36 41% 1070

The National Map viewer 2.15 32% 1569 1.87 20% 500 2.28 37% 1069

Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) 2.13 30% 1561 1.79 17% 498 2.30 36% 1063

National Atlas of the United States® 2.10 29% 1557 1.78 15% 498 2.25 36% 1059

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) viewer 2.04 27% 1555 1.71 15% 494 2.19 33% 1061

Maps on Demand 1.91 21% 1558 1.73 13% 498 1.99 25% 1060

The USGS store 1.88 19% 1560 1.70 11% 496 1.96 22% 1064

ESRI survey - All respondents ESRI survey - Local 

government only

ESRI survey - TOTAL without 

 local government

Geospatial One-Stop

within their respective organizations. The number of respondents from the USGS structured interviews is small because 

this question solicited a more open ended response in all of 

the early interviews. The question was later changed to solicit 

more quantifiable responses.

Customers were asked to rate the importance of new 

services or capabilities that could be considered for future 

generations of The National Map (see table 17). Access to 

historical geospatial data was ranked highly by participants in 

both the structured interviews and the ASPRS survey. More 

detailed information about historical data needs is found in 

table 5. Other highly ranked capabilities included enhancements to national datasets that improved their usability for 

advanced analysis. These included addresses linked to streets 

and structures, permanent identifiers associated with all 

geospatial features, and nationwide transportation routes. A 

primary need to improve data integration includes the requirement to associate data in external datasets to The National 

Map. Each of these capabilities would allow for more effective 

use of online Web services by supporting improved mechanisms to link services. 

Customer Requirements—Topographic Maps

The USGS is developing the capability to update and 

publish new orthoimage and topographic maps. These are 

digital products that are derived from an enterprise database 

composed of eight geospatial data themes to include orthoimagery, transportation, hydrography, elevation, names, land 

cover, boundaries, and structures. A number of approaches 

have been considered for meeting production objectives. 

Generally, the approaches under review require that customer 

input on content completeness, data quality, and production rates be taken into consideration. While it is desirable to 

produce the highest quality maps in the largest numbers, it is 

recognized that a national program of this scope must consider the tradeoffs between these variables to find the most 

cost-effective solution to meet the greatest needs. Customers 

were asked a series of questions about their reliance on maps, 

how they created them, and their utility in the day of advanced 

geospatial systems technology.

Customers were asked how important USGS topographic 

maps were to the mission-related work in their organizations. 

Nearly 60 percent of the surveyed organizations said that they 

were quite important or very important (see table 18). When 

customers indicating that they were somewhat important 

are considered, about 80 percent of all respondents said that 

USGS topographic maps were important to their organizations. The customers interviewed by the USGS said that they 

used the topographic maps as a printed product about half of 

the time (see table 19). The ASPRS survey membership community indicated that field use was a smaller component of the 

overall usage at about 35 percent. Regardless, the printed map 

is still viewed as an important product. A number of questions 

about printing, print format, and printing costs were asked to 

determine how to best respond to this need.

Customers were presented with a list of geospatial data 

layers that could potentially be displayed on a topographic 

map and asked to rate their importance (see table 20). This 

was a nearly identical list to the question that was asked from 

a data perspective earlier (table 5) except that customers were 

asked about their need to have a woodland tint displayed on 

the topographic map rather than the land cover dataset that 

was listed under the list of data types needed to support geospatial analysis in their organizations. These data types related 

to the existing USGS list of map data types found on a printed 

USGS topographic map. 

While the USGS may have a requirement to have access 

to all of these datasets, under the auspices of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB, 2002) Circular A–16, the 

USGS has management responsibilities for hydrography, 

orthoimagery, elevation, geographic names, and land cover. On 

the basis of input from customers on their requirements for map 

content, the USGS priorities could be established to focus 

on those datasets with the greatest defined need. The highest 

priority datasets include transportation (public roads), hydrography, elevation, orthoimagery, geographic names, boundaries 

(city, county, State, international), and the Public Land Survey 
Results 17

Table 16. Side-by-side comparison of The National Map (TNM) service usage.

[List is sorted by the cross sample average, which gives equal ranking to each of the three data collection activities. Structured interview sample of 45 represents 

the number of interviews conducted where this question was asked. Early interviewees were asked a more general question about which services customers 

used. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 5, ASPRS survey question 15.2, ESRI survey question 7]

The National Map seamless 

server 40.3% 35.80% 20.0% 6.7% 11.1% 45 37.8% 30.7% 15.4% 3.5% 254 49.6% 21.1% 9.7% 2.7% 1566 33.5%

Geographic Names Information 

System (GNIS) 37.1% 30.88% 20.0% 6.7% 20.0% 45 46.7% 21.7% 8.8% 4.4% 249 34.9% 19.6% 7.7% 2.5% 1561 29.8%

The National Map viewer 34.0% 33.20% 17.8% 2.2% 6.7% 45 26.7% 31.0% 11.1% 1.6% 252 43.7% 22.2% 7.8% 1.7% 1569 31.7%

The National Hydrography 

Dataset (NHD) viewer 31.6% 27.43% 17.8% 13.3% 8.9% 45 40.0% 19.4% 7.3% 1.2% 247 27.9% 18.6% 6.4% 2.0% 1555 27.0%

The USGS store 26.1% 20.27% 20.0% 2.2% 11.1% 45 33.3% 19.6% 5.3% 1.2% 245 26.1% 15.8% 2.8% 0.4% 1560 19.0%

TNM online services Monthly Weekly Daily Total

percent Monthly Weighted

average

Cross

sample

average Daily N Total

percent

Structured interviews ASPRS survey ESRI survey

Weekly Daily N Total 

percent N Monthly Weekly

Table 17. New services or capabilities that could be provided by The National Map.

[Average rating of new services or capabilities that could be considered for The National Map in the future. Highest rated capabilities included 

access to historical data and a suite of capabilities to link other datasets to The National Map data layers. N, number of participant responses. 

Source: USGS interview question 25, ASPRS survey question 15.5]

Other advanced products, services

N Mean N Mean

Historical geospatial data retention 143 3.69 200 3.53

Nationwide addresses linked to streets and/or structures 145 3.66 210 3.49

Permanent IDs on all features 144 3.61 200 3.09

Nationwide transportation routes 145 3.57 209 3.65

Advanced integrated data models 143 3.45 202 3.39

Mobile device application or mapping services 143 3.42 204 3.25

Application toolkit for value added use of data or services 143 3.15 199 3.08

Geospatial features with cartographic offsets for improved maps 143 3.13 201 3.05

Nationwide transportation mileposts 144 2.79 204 2.76

Citizen volunteer contributions to The National Map 144 2.60 198 2.47

3D fly across the United States 144 2.56 208 2.56

Structured interviews ASPRS survey

5 - very important, 4 - quite important, 3 - somewhat important,

2 - not very important, 1 - not important at all

Table 18. Importance of USGS topographic maps to mission-related work within 

surveyed organizations.

[Response was evaluated on a five-point scale, where 5 was equal to very important use. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 7, ASPRS survey question 8.2)]

N Percent N Percent

59 39.3% 84 29.6%

27 18.0% 82 28.9%

30 20.0% 64 22.5%

21 14.0% 29 10.2%

13 8.7% 25 8.8%

150 284

57.3% 58.5%

3.65 3.60

Interviews ASPRS survey

Total

Percent very or quite important

Mean

Use of digital or printed USGS 

topographic maps

Very important (5)

Quite important (4)

Somewhat important (3)

Not very important (2)

I don't use them (1)
18 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

System (see table 20). In addition, the ASPRS survey of its 

predominantly commercial service sector membership recognized the high level of importance for vertical and horizontal 

control.

The USGS has evaluated a number of commercial datasets for use on published topographic and orthoimage maps. In 

all cases, a license places some restrictions on how the data are 

used or can be made available to customers of The National 

Map. While use of commercial datasets may be a cost-effective way to meet the map publishing objectives, these licensed 

datasets in the enterprise geospatial database carry use restrictions. About half of the customers find these limitations to be 

important or very important issues to their organizations (see 

table 21). If a “somewhat important” response is also considered, then about 70 percent of the customers find these limitations to be problematic. 

While the question was not specifically asked, the 

interview teams learned in the structured interviews that 

customers want to see the same data regardless of the product form in which it is distributed. For example, if the USGS 

publishes a topographic map of an area, The National Map

viewer should be displaying the same data, and the download 

service should distribute the digital data as represented on 

the published map as well. To use data with any restrictions, 

regardless of the product, would mean that the USGS must 

support multiple datasets for the same themes and that the 

common source objective could not be met. This should not be 

interpreted to mean that commercial datasets cannot be used 

in The National Map. It may be possible to acquire data from 

a commercial provider under a public use license that either is 

lower resolution or supports reduced functionality. If a vendor 

is willing to make available some baseline components of 

their data for unrestricted use, there could also be value that is 

derived by the vendor in the form of added services to the user 

community.

Printing technologies for the USGS topographic map 

required that “separates” be created to coincide with each 

color represented on a printed map. For many years, the USGS 

responded to customer requests to reproduce these stable base 

separates to support customer map production and printing needs. Today, color separations can be created from the 

database but more importantly, digital printing processes have 

effectively eliminated this requirement. Customers confirmed 

this assertion by a nearly unanimous positive response to the 

USGS structured interview question 28 about separations. 

A scenario was created to assess the customer priorities 

for quality tradeoffs and topographic map production rates. 

The hypothetical scenario asked the customer to select either 

a high production rate and a corresponding lower quality or a 

lower production rate in exchange for higher quality. Customers were willing to compromise quality if they had the ability 

to identify a subset of the maps that would be created to a 

higher standard. The responses to the structured interviews 

and the ASPRS survey are shown in table 22. For the ESRI 

survey, the scenario provided an option to select lower levels 

of feature richness and integration as a means to improve 

production rates. When asked in this way, 60 percent of the 

customers said that would be acceptable.

The procedures for creating a digital topographic map are 

fully automated and can be implemented either to publish on 

demand or to publish and stage premade maps for download. 

There are benefits and drawbacks to each approach, and a scenario was created to assess customer preferences. While either 

approach is feasible, production planning and database development will be influenced by the approach that is ultimately 

selected for the initial digital rollout product. Customers were 

asked to select either the option to download a premade map 

immediately or the option to create a new map (with the latest data) in 20 minutes. Most customers wanted to have the 

option of doing either, but when forced to make a decision, an 

equal number picked premade and publish on demand. This 

equal split was true for both the structured interviews and 

the ASPRS survey. In discussions during the interview, most 

Table 19. Use of printed versus digital forms of topographic maps.

[Customers were allowed to check multiple uses, and so the detailed responses (N) total more than the number of 

customers who indicated that they used topographic maps. Source: USGS interview question 6, ASPRS survey 

question 8.1]

N Percent N Percent

117 84.8% 247 88.2%

21 15.2% 33 11.8%

138 280

N Percent N Percent

67 48.6% 98 35.0%

45 32.6% 72 25.7%

74 53.6% 138 49.3%

21 15.2% 15 5.4%

Interviews ASPRS survey

Primarily as a printed product

Primarily as a stand alone digital product on a laptop or 

handheld computer

Primarily as a digital product on a laptop or handheld 

computer with additional data display, data entry, or markup 

and editing capability

Other

Use of topographic maps

Use them in one or more ways described in detail below

Don't use topographic maps

Total

Detail
Results 19

Table 20. Required geospatial data layers to be displayed or printed on a topographic map.

[Customers were required to force rank 7 low, 7 medium, and 7 high data layers. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 10, 

ASPRS survey question 10.1]

Low Medium High Low Medium High

Transportation - Public streets/roads 119 6% 9% 85% 254 5% 15% 80%

Hydrography – Surface water 116 4% 19% 77% 250 12% 28% 60%

Elevation 119 6% 23% 71% 251 8% 16% 77%

Orthoimagery 113 25% 18% 58% 256 10% 14% 76%

Geographic names 116 10% 38% 53% 247 22% 41% 38%

Boundaries – city, county, state, international 119 9% 41% 50% 251 17% 36% 47%

Boundaries - Public Land Survey System 117 31% 27% 43% 248 32% 30% 38%

Physiographic feature names (mountain, plain, etc.) 114 33% 34% 33% 250 39% 38% 22%

Boundaries – Federal and Native American lands 118 28% 41% 31% 242 44% 34% 22%

Parcels 116 49% 22% 28% 250 45% 26% 28%

Pipelines and powerlines 117 30% 43% 27% 248 36% 41% 23%

Structures – public (e.g. schools, hospitals) 118 36% 37% 26% 244 35% 40% 25%

Vertical and horizontal control 119 34% 40% 26% 250 32% 23% 45%

Transportation – Other routes e.g. forest roads 119 37% 40% 24% 246 51% 35% 14%

Transportation – Trails 119 35% 44% 22% 246 46% 40% 15%

Springs and wells 117 48% 32% 21% 240 59% 29% 13%

Transportation – Railroads 119 31% 49% 20% 250 26% 46% 28%

Transportation – Airports 118 35% 47% 19% 247 32% 42% 27%

 Vegetation – woodland tint (subset of land cover) 115 31% 50% 18% 251 30% 44% 26%

Structures – rural areas 118 43% 42% 14% 240 54% 34% 12%

Structures – Urban area designation (tint) 117 37% 51% 12% 242 38% 44% 18%

Geospatial data layers displayed on a map

Structured interview ASPRS survey

N

Percent

N

Percent

Table 21. Customer sensitivity to data use limits through license restrictions.

[A “very important” response indicates that any restrictions would be unacceptable for the customer. Source: USGS interview 

question 26, ASPRS survey question 16.1]

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Minimal 13 11.3% 38 18.2%

Not very important 15 13.0% 33 15.8%

Somewhat important 25 21.7% 50 23.9%

Important 27 23.5% 38 18.2%

Very important 35 30.4% 50 23.9%

Total 115 209

Structured interviews ASPRS survey Sensitivity to use (license) restrictions

Table 22. Response to topographic map production scenarios.

[Response to production scenario where customer selected one of three quality-versus-quantity alternatives. N, number of participant 

responses. Source: USGS interview question 29, ASPRS survey question 16.4]

N Percent N Percent

55K quads in 10 yrs (highest quality) 43 37.1% 75 38.7%

55K quads in 3 yrs (lower quality) 20 17.2% 46 23.7%

10K high quality quads and 45K lower quality quads in 5 yrs 53 45.7% 73 37.6%

Total 116 194

Quality versus timeliness tradeoff Structured interviews ASPRS survey
20 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

customers felt that with today’s technology, this choice should 

not be an issue.

A followup question to the publish-on-demand scenario was asked to determine which online mapping features 

would be most important to topographic map users. Five 

basic capabilities were presented as shown in table 23. The 

two most important capabilities identified by customers 

included publishing a map with a user-identified map center 

and picking and choosing geospatial data layers. This result 

is significant in that it suggests that a publish-on-demand 

capability would be more favorably received since staging 

finished maps in a digital repository is not possible if the customer wishes to select the map center. The planned published 

topographic map product will have the capability to support 

layering and printing functions and can be supported as either 

the publish-on-demand scenario or the select-and-download 

approach.

Most existing USGS topographic maps are published on 

the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) and do not have 

full Universal Transverse Mercator/U.S. National Grid (UTM/

USNG) lines. Customers were asked if the change in datum 

and grid lines on newer products would create any operational 

problems for their organizations (see table 24). The concern is 

that users may be confused by multiple grids on a single map 

or older maps showing different grids or that in some situations, coordinate values might be used in one grid system but 

reported in another. This datum change was deemed to be a 

significant problem for about 25 percent of the interview and 

survey participants. The project team hypothesized that this 

was a problem that most significantly impacted the emergency 

response community. While this may be a factor, a more in 

depth analysis indicated that a wide range of organizations are 

potentially impacted by this problem. The change in datum 

and grid representation is not unique to The National Map. It 

is likely that the datum and grid line changes will need to be 

widely communicated through education and outreach by the 

USGS and other organizations because there is no good solution short of republishing every map in existence.

Customers were asked two different questions about 

their willingness to pay for a printed topographic map (see 

tables 25, 26). Currently the costs for commercial printing of 

large (24 inch by 30 inch) documents range from about $25 to 

$35 and higher for special media. The USGS currently offers 

a print-on-demand service for copies of topographic map 

products that are out of print. While the established price to a 

customer is relatively low for the print-on-demand service, it 

is significantly subsidized to be more consistent with the price 

of in-stock, high-volume-printed topographic maps. Customers with professional GIS staff and systems overwhelmingly 

said that they would provide for their own printing needs and 

that a $35 per map price was simply too high. Neither the 

interviews nor the ASPRS survey directly targeted the many 

consumers who use a significant number of topographic maps. 

It is expected that the critical price point for this group would 

also be below $10 (see table 25). An interesting observation 

is that the professionals who responded to the question about 

online functionality (table 23) did not rate home printing or 

maps designed for standard printers very highly. It is likely 

that they either didn’t grasp the significance of the question or 

they felt that their needs could easily be met by internal plotting capability.

Customers have specialized needs for printed products 

(see table 27). While the formal questions asked did not specifically address the business drivers, it was learned through 

discussion during the interviews that printed maps that will 

hold up to the rigors of field use are very important. Desires 

for durability include paper that will not fall apart in the rain 

and ink that will not run or wash out in the sun. Other customers have requirements to maintain archival quality maps, and 

longevity was their primary concern. These organizations generally take care of their own printing needs, and the proposed 

digital product was an acceptable solution for them.

A new geo-referenced topographic map product was 

described to customers as an item that could be distributed as 

a GeoPDF or a tagged image file format (TIFF) product and 

could be downloaded from a map-on-demand Internet application. It would also support the ability to overlay customer data. 

The customer was then asked if a plotted output instead of a 

lithographic print would be an acceptable product to be generated from the digital file (see table 28). A large majority of 

customers indicated that this would be an acceptable product 

and that they were willing to give up the lithographic printed 

paper product. 

One feature under consideration for the geo-referenced 

topographic map product is a “mark up” capability that would 

allow map users to digitally mark maps with attribute or spatial updates. While in the field, a worker could mark updates 

on the map and later display or download these updates to a 

GIS where they could be further utilized to support updates 

or to meet other business needs. More than 75 percent of the 

customers agreed that this was an important or very important 

capability (see table 29). Customers often asked additional 

questions during the interviews because they didn’t fully 

understand either the capabilities or the limits of the new 

functionality. After further discussion, it was apparent that 

there was significant interest but that users needed to be better 

informed about the product.

A green tint representing vegetation has always been a 

recognizable feature of a topographic map. Sometimes, the 

USGS topographic map is referred to as the green map. The 

source of data for the green layer in a modern topographic 

map has been under study, and it is likely that this layer will 

be derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). 

The NLCD is a Landsat satellite derived product and as such 

does not meet the spatial accuracy requirements of a published 1:24000-scale USGS topographic map. Customers 

were shown sample map images (fig. 6) and asked if they had 

requirements for the vegetation layer that would preclude the 

use of these medium-resolution datasets. About 75 percent 

of the customers indicated that this would be an acceptable 

practice, and less than 10 percent indicated that it would not 

be acceptable at all. 
Results 21

Table 23. Online mapping features for publish-on-demand technology.

[N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 31, ASPRS survey question 16.6]

Average Average

1 - highest importance to 5 - lowest importance N rank Min. Max. N rank

Select the area of interest to be the center of the map 111 1.83 1 5 180 2.23

Pick and choose layers to be printed 112 2.04 1 5 177 2.07

Control the print scale 111 2.80 1 5 175 2.34

Select multiple formats such as letter or legal with map frames for each format 111 3.73 1 5 186 3.71

Tile a standard 7.5 minute quad for printing on a home printer 109 4.49 1 5 194 4.18

Structured interviews ASPRS survey Online mapping features

Table 24. Use of different datum and grid lines on older series topographic maps.

[New published USGS map products use different datum and grid lines than shown on older series maps, most of which use the North American Datum of 

1927 (NAD 27). This question assessed how problematic that might be to customers. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 32, 

ASPRS survey question 16.7]

N Percent N Percent

This is a significant problem, preventing mission-critical operations 32 28.1% 53 25.9%

This is a problem, but only in small ways or in unusual circumstances 45 39.5% 92 44.9%

This is not a problem. Our work doesn't depend on printed grids and coordinates 37 32.5% 60 29.3%

Total 114 205

Difficulty using old maps with NAD 27 datum and new maps with Structured interviews ASPRS survey

different datum and grid lines

Table 25. Customer willingness to pay for a printed topographic map.

[Price points identifying customer willingness to pay for a printed topographic map. N, 

number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 33, ASPRS survey 

question 17.1]

N Percent N Percent

$0 60 51.3% 103 50.7%

$10 37 31.6% 72 35.5%

$15 9 7.7% 9 4.4%

$20 6 5.1% 10 4.9%

$25 4 3.4% 1 0.5%

$30 0 0.0% 1 0.5%

$35 1 0.9% 7 3.4%

Total 117 203

Map price and Structured interview ASPRS survey

willingness to pay

Table 26. Assessment of customer willingness to use a commercial service for printing if the print cost were $35 per map sheet.

[N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 34, ASPRS survey question 17.2]

N Percent N Percent

Yes, this is a good option for me 7 5.8% 15 7.2%

No, my organization could print these in-house and we usually would 100 83.3% 160 76.9%

No, we seldom or never use printed maps 13 10.8% 33 15.9%

Total 120 208

Willingness to pay a vendor such as FedEx Kinkos $35 for a 

typical 24" x 30" map product

Structured interview ASPRS survey
22 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 6. Image showing green tint derived from Landsat satellite data to test the concept that not all 

data layers need to meet the same level of precision on published map products. Source: USGS interview 

question 40, ASPRS survey question 22.1.

Vegetation and urban “tint” image on left was created from the National Land Cover Dataset 

medium-resolution data. The photo and topographic map images are for reference only.

Table 27. Customer requirements for special topographic map print media.

[Customer requirements for special print media to include dimensionally stable paper and waterproof inks. N, number of participant 

responses. Source: USGS interview question 35, ASPRS survey question 17.3]

N Percent N Percent

Not important at all 27 22.9% 40 19.3%

Not very important 29 24.6% 70 33.8%

Somewhat important 43 36.4% 59 28.5%

Very important 19 16.1% 38 18.4%

Total 118 207

Need for printed maps on special media Structured interviews ASPRS survey

Table 28. Customer satisfaction with topographic map digital product versus a lithographic print.

[Customers agreed that a digital product was an acceptable alternative to a lithographic print. N, number of participant responses. Source: 

USGS interview question 37, ASPRS survey question 17.5]

N Percent N Percent

Completely satisfied with this approach 71 59.7% 91 45.3%

Generally satisfied with this approach 36 30.3% 87 43.3%

Somewhat satisfied, I occasionally need lithographic prints 9 7.6% 15 7.5%

Dissatisfied, I need lithographic prints regularly 3 2.5% 8 4.0%

Total 119 201

Proposal to discontinue lithographic printing in 

favor of digital product

Structured interviews ASPRS survey

Table 29. Customer assessment of digital “mark up” capability on a published map product.

[Customers liked the concept of a digital “mark up” capability on a published map product but were unsure of how they would fully 

utilize this functionality. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 28, ASPRS survey question 17.6]

N Percent N Percent

Very important feature, I would use it regularly 45 38.1% 72 36.0%

Important feature 51 43.2% 81 40.5%

Only somewhat important feature 19 16.1% 38 19.0%

Unimportant feature, I would seldom use it 3 2.5% 9 4.5%

Total 118 200

Digital "mark up" support on published map Structured interviews ASPRS survey
Results 23

A number of topographic map production scenarios are 

under consideration at the USGS, thus prompting a question 

about feature richness on published map products. Two graphics (fig. 7) were shown to customers where one showed the 

name and airport runway configuration, and the other simply 

showed an airport symbol and the name. The question also 

indicated that pipelines, powerlines, springs, and wells may or 

may not be shown on published maps. About 60 percent of the 

respondents to both the structured interviews and the ASPRS 

survey responded favorably to the idea that content may vary 

from map to map (see table 30). During interviews, however, some customers felt strongly that some features such as 

hospitals and police stations should be represented uniformly 

on all maps. In addition, customers wanted to be assured that 

there was a long-term plan for bringing all maps to a uniform 

standard.

While a topographic map is assumed to have some representation of elevation or topographic relief, there are many 

ways to display this on a map. Customers were presented with 

four options (fig. 8) that might be used in future topographic 

map products and asked to identify their preferred standard 

display preference. In both the structured interviews and the 

ASPRS survey, there was a strong preference for the two 

examples that displayed the contour lines (see table 31). Customers felt that the option to see shaded relief with elevation 

“bands” was pleasing to look at but was not sufficient to serve 

the need to have contours on the map. The example in figure 

8 that shows land cover combined with topographic relief was 

difficult to interpret for some people who participated in the 

interviews.

Today, geospatial data come from many sources, and the 

map publication date, while important, is a poor indicator of 

the currency of the underlying datasets. For any individual 

dataset, the definition of “current” can be highly variable as 

well. The example metadata reference diagram (fig. 9) was 

presented to customers to get their feedback on the need for 

metadata detail to be included on a published map (see table 

32). Customers liked the source reference for each data layer 

but felt that at a minimum, there should also be a date associated with each data layer and that there should be a uniform 

resource locator (URL) listed where more complete information might be obtained. The need to store publication-relevant 

metadata online presents a new challenge for The National 

Map because only the current data layer metadata are maintained today. This requirement would indicate that a metadata 

rollback capability is necessary so that the metadata as of 

the publication date could be generated on demand. Alternatively, the full date-specific metadata could be published in the 

GeoPDF topographic product file but could not be maintained 

by the USGS in a central repository. 

Customer Wishes for The National Map

To help plan a path for the evolution of The National 

Map, respondents to the USGS structured interviews and 

the ASPRS survey were asked “If you had three wishes for 

NEW The National Map features, layers, or other functionality within the next three to five years, what would you wish 

for?” (USGS interview question 16, ASPRS question 12.4).

Responses for this question were in free-form text, and so 

analysis was limited to simple tallies by response type. No 

additional statistical analysis could be completed. In the ESRI 

survey, only one wish was asked for, and respondents were 

Figure 7. Example showing how topographic maps might have variable feature content 

detail. In this example, the airport runway may or may not be displayed depending on 

whether or not the data existed in the enterprise database. Source: USGS interview question 

41, ASPRS survey question 22.2.
24 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 8. When customers were presented with prototype views of a published topographic map, they most often picked 

one of the two lower image samples. Published contours were common to these two examples and were cited as being 

important for a topographic map. Source: USGS interview question 42, ASPRS survey question 23.1.

Table 30. Customer assessment of variable content on topographic maps.

[Customers were asked to respond to the idea that some maps would be published with more features (or data layers) than others. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview question 41, ASPRS survey question 22.2]

N Percent N Percent

4=Very acceptable 24 19.8% 36 18.3%

3=Acceptable 52 43.0% 83 42.1%

2=Not very acceptable 35 28.9% 64 32.5%

1=Not acceptable at all 10 8.3% 14 7.1%

Total 121 197

Percent favorable (rating 3+4) 62.8% 60.4%

Some topographic maps would be more Structured interviews ASPRS survey

feature rich than others
Results 25

Word Frequency Analysis

A text processing engine was used to determine the most 

frequent words used in each set of responses, leaving out common words such as “and” and “the.” Word frequency analysis 

is a preliminary step in categorizing responses. Important 

ideas may take the form of value statements; for example, 

they may include the word “better.” These ideas can indicate 

respondents’ attitude but may not fit into a precise category. 

The word “data” figures very prominently in both the 

USGS interview (see fig. 10) and ASPRS survey (see fig. 11) 

datasets. This result correlates with similar results, discussed 

above, on ranking which online services (see table 13) are 

most important to meet customer business needs. Also quite 

frequent in both datasets are the words “maps,” “imagery,” 

and “resolution.” The USGS interview text contains many 

more prominent words relating to institutions, for example, 

“USGS,” “TNM,” and “Census,” and also words related to 

data access, for example, “needs,” “access,” “service,” and 

“available.” In the ASPRS dataset, “data” predominates, but 

not as strongly as in the USGS dataset. More specific datasets 

are mentioned (“elevation,” “parcel”) in the ASPRS data, and 

there is an emphasis on accuracy and currency rather than 

accessibility. The differences in the distribution of words 

between the two datasets likely reflect the differences in the 

population samples of respondents, as the USGS interviews 

were heavily weighted toward Federal, State, and local government employees, while the ASPRS survey drew responses 

predominantly from the commercial and academic sectors. 

These word frequency analyses will help guide questions for 

Figure 9. Illustration of proposed data source citation to be 

included in the legend of the published topographic map. Customers requested more detail to include the edit date for each layer 

and expanded online metadata with URL published on the map. 

Source: USGS interview question 43, ASPRS survey question 24.1.

Table 32. Customer assessment of prototype metadata detail on a topographic map.

[A significant number of customers felt that more metadata detail must be printed on the map and that full metadata 

need to be accessible for the published map product. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS interview 

question 43, ASPRS survey question 24.1]

Table 31. Customer assessment of prototype topographic maps with contours and shaded relief.

[Customers strongly preferred topographic maps with contours over maps that only displayed shaded relief. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS 

interview question 42, ASPRS survey question 23.1]

First choice Second choice

N Percent N Percent Percent (N) Percent (N)

Combination of shaded relief and contours 49 39.5% 41 34.5% 54.7% (70) 45.3% (58)

Contours on digital topo 36 29.0% 34 28.6% 54.6% (59) 45.4% (49)

Shaded relief with elevation color bands 22 17.7% 21 17.6% 44.1% (26) 55.9% (33)

Draping the imagery and line features over a 3-D relief model 9 7.3% 12 10.1% 32.4% (11) 67.6% (23)

Combination of drape with contours (no figure available) 8 6.5% 11 9.2% 49.2% (32) 50.8% (33)

Total 124 119

Structured interview ASPRS survey

First choice Second choice Customer preference for published topography 

and relief

N Percent N Percent

Too much detail 1 0.8% 2 1.0%

Just right 52 43.7% 137 69.5%

Not enough detail 66 55.5% 58 29.4%

Total 119 197

Customer preference for metadata 

detail on published map

Structured interview ASPRS survey

asked to elaborate on reasons behind the wish, making those 

data more time consuming to evaluate (ESRI question 10). 

With this difference in question format, the ESRI wishes are 

not directly comparable with responses to the USGS structured 

interviews and ASPRS survey, and there was no additional 

analysis on ESRI question 10 done for this report.
26 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 10. Frequency of top 30 words in “wishes” responses for USGS structured interview question 16.

Figure 11. Frequency of top 30 words in “wishes” responses for ASPRS survey question 12.4.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

 Alaska

boundaries

areas

seamless

historical

meter

available

parcel

lidar

ortho

faster

download high orthoimagery

roads

features

land

accurate

use

national

better

resolution

elevation

current

layer(s)

map(s)

imagery

data

Word Usage Frequency ASPRS Survey

0 50 100 150 200

higher

good

seamless speed

lidar

NHD

base

areas

census

web transportation

access

USGS

elevation

local Google

national

available

TNM able/ability imagery

boundaries

current

better

scale/resolution service(s) need(s)

layer(s)

map(s)

data

Word Usage Frequency USGS Interviews
Results 27

further sector focus groups. In addition, the structured interviews were normally filled out by the interviewers, and so 

some consistency in word usage likely occurred, whereas the 

ASPRS online survey results were completed by the survey 

participants.

Content Analysis

The content analysis aimed to discover common categories of wishes in the textual answers to the question. Because 

each respondent could have made up to three wishes, there are 

more responses than USGS interview or ASPRS survey participants. The USGS interviews produced 430 individual wishes; 

the ASPRS survey, 314. These wishes (see table 33) could be 

divided into three broad areas—(1) data of a particular type 

(such as elevation), (2) general characteristics of data (such as 

resolution or accuracy), and (3) improvements to the online 

presence of The National Map (such as speed). Historical data 

were considered a characteristic rather than a data type. Less 

than 10 percent of the responses in each survey were classified 

as “other,” as they dealt with metadata, digital raster graphics, 

and printed topographic maps (USGS structured interviews 

N=37; ASPRS survey N=19). These responses are not a focus 

of this analysis. Frequently a single response contained more 

than one idea; for example, a respondent who wished for better elevation data might cite a particular resolution or update 

frequency. Each of these cited ideas was coded individually, 

and, in some cases, wishes were cross referenced between 

wishes about data types and wishes about data characteristics 

from the same respondent.

Data Types

Datasets or data layers that were specifically mentioned 

in wishes for the future mirrored the top categories of data 

appearing in the answers to the question “Please rate the base 

geospatial data layers in order of importance relative to your 

organization’s business requirements (USGS interview question 9; ASPRS survey question 19).” The highly rated datasets were orthoimagery and imagery, elevation, hydrography, 

transportation, parcels, and land use, with transportation being 

more highly rated in the USGS interviews than in the ASPRS 

survey and land use and land cover being rated lower (fig. 

12). These results are somewhat misleading for the elevation 

Table 33. Wishes for The National Map.

[Distribution of wishes (total more than 100 percent). N, number of participant wishes. Source: USGS 

interview question 12, ASPRS survey question 12.4]

N Percent N Percent

Data type 229 53% 215 66%

Data characteristics 226 53% 156 50%

Web site function/interface 184 43% 76 24%

Future wishes Structured interviews ASPRS survey

category because LiDAR could have been combined into the 

elevation category, making elevation the most requested data 

category. LiDAR has other important uses besides elevation 

(extraction of building footprints and vegetation, for instance), 

and so it is categorized below as a separate layer. There were 

a number of unique types of data mentions (such as biomass, 

3-D layers), that did not fit easily into any category. Those 

were omitted from figure 12.

Data Characteristics

In the content analysis, responses about desired characteristics for data (fig. 13) were divided into seven categories: data 

integration and data sharing, seamless data that can be clipped 

out of a dataset and downloaded by a customer, scale or resolution of data, accuracy of data, currency or update frequency 

of data, need for historical data, and data consistency—referring to standardized data across the Nation. 

For the USGS interviewees, the most important future 

characteristic cited was data integration. Respondents referred 

to integration not just among different data themes in The 

National Map, but also among data from different organizations whether at Federal, State, or local levels. A typical 

remark from the USGS interview was “full data integration - if 

pulling Census, PLSS, etc. info - the data should be vertically 

integrated and not just thrown together.” While integration 

of themes for which the USGS is a steward may be a highly 

desirable goal for the USGS to achieve in the next 3 to 5 years, 

integration of data from other organizations will be more 

difficult to manage. The ASPRS survey respondents did not 

mention data integration as often; scale and resolution and currency were more highly valued. A typical comment was “High 

resolution imagery refreshed every year.” The difference in 

responses to the same question in the USGS interviews and the 

ASPRS survey, particularly on the integration question, likely 

reflects the difference in respondent demographics. Federal, 

State and local government employees who have worked with 

the USGS and who participated in the structured interviews 

conducted by the USGS may be more familiar with data sharing and data integration objectives that have been a focus of 

The National Map partnership programs.
28 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 12. Wishes referring to specific data types. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS 

interview question 16, ASPRS survey question 12.4.

Figure 13. Wishes for data characteristics. N, number of participant responses. Source: USGS 

interview question 16, ASPRS survey question 12.4.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Percentage

Characteristic

Wishes for Data Characteristics:

USGS Structured Interviews and ASPRS Survey 

Structured interview (N=226) 

ASPRS survey (N=156)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Percentage

Data Type

Wishes Referring to Specific Data Types 

USGS Structured Interviews and ASPRS Survey

Structured interview (N=212)

ASPRS survey (N=199)

i

Wishes about Data Characteristics Associated 

with Data Types

The top five datasets mentioned in each group of 

responses were compared to the top three desired data characteristics in each group. For participants in the structured interviews, scale/resolution (fig. 14) was critically important for 

orthoimagery and elevation. In the ASPRS survey responses 

(fig. 15), scale was important for elevation, but currency was 

slightly more important for orthoimagery. In both sets of 

responses, currency was most important for transportation.

 Improvements to Online Presence

Usability and increased functionality of the online mapping system are important to users, particularly for the group 
Results 29

Many respondents from both the USGS structured interviews and the ASPRS survey mentioned that The National 

Map of the future needed to be more like online commercial 

mapping applications such as Google Maps and Google Earth 

or Microsoft products:

interviewed by the USGS (42 percent of all answers). The 

responses to both surveys were categorized as follows: ease 

of use, which included Web site usability, navigation, and 

improvements to the online map; speed; comparisons to commercial online mapping sites such as Google; and a desire for 

accessible Web services (fig. 16). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage

Data Type

Integration

Scale

Currency

Wishes for Improved Characteristics for Top Five 

Data Types: USGS Structured Interviews

N

N

N

N

N

Figure 14. Association of wishes for improved data with data characteristics for top five data types 

from USGS interview question 16.

Figure 15. Association of wishes for improved data with data characteristics for top five data types 

from ASPRS survey question 12.4.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage

Data Type

Currency 

Scale

Accuracy

N

N

N

N

N

Wishes for Improved Characteristics for Top Five

Data Type: ASPRS Survey
30 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Figure 17. Wishes for easier or more functional interface. Source: USGS interview question 16, 

ASPRS survey question 12.4.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Percentage

Interface Function

Wishes for Easier or More Functional Interface:

USGS Structured Interviews and ASPRS Survey

Structured interview (N=97)

ASPRS survey (N=58)

Features--we need open APIs; we need RSS or an 

open API that we can build applications on top of it. 

We do this with Google, but we’d rather have it as a 

government source to do API and have gold standard 

is very important.

This is an area where the USGS could provide a critical 

service because of its reputation for data you can trust (“gold 

standard”). As one of the USGS interviewees remarked, the 

USGS has a reputation, a brand: “it must be right because 

USGS is showing it.” As to The National Map of the future, 

many talked about the ability to port data to other devices, to 

Figure 16. Wishes for improved online performance for The National Map. Source: USGS interview 

question 16, ASPRS survey question 12.4.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Ease of use Speed Comparison 

to 

commercial

Web 

services

Percentage

Improvements

Wishes for Improved Online Presence for

The National Map:

USGS Structured Interviews and ASPRS Survey

Structured interview (N=184)

ASPRS survey (N=74)

National map and seamless should be the same 

thing, i.e. from a design perspective, Google Earth 

front end and its speed is what it should be. That 

front end is phenomenal and all understand it.

This remark from the USGS interviews epitomizes the 

tone of many of these answers. Not only are these commercial 

systems seen as speedier and easier, Google and Microsoft, 

through their open application programming interfaces (API), 

have given users the ability to interact directly with geospatial 

databases and create their own maps rather than using premade products that might not meet their specific needs:
Key Findings and Recommendations 31

achieve a “mobile national map.” This functionality would not 

only aid hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts who depend on 

accurate topography, but it would provide a platform for the 

collection of scientific data for integrated studies in the field 

via mobile devices.

To get a more nuanced picture of usability issues, the 

large category “ease of use” was broken down and compared 

between the USGS structured interviews and the ASPRS survey responses (fig. 17). The new categories were performance 

of the interface or map, ease of use (not specified), download 

in formats not currently supported, more features (for example, access to analytical tools), easier download, a customizable viewer or map, and fewer bugs.

In peripheral remarks, most of those interviewed by the 

USGS indicated that they value the role of the USGS as a 

national data integrator and would like ongoing opportunities 

to provide input to the future development of The National 

Map.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Twelve key findings and recommendations are listed 

under three headings in this section.

Product Need Awareness

1. Need for nationally consistent data.—A large majority (88 

percent) of all customers from the USGS interviews and 

the ASPRS survey said that they need data from neighboring jurisdictions or nationally to meet their business 

requirements. This result demonstrates the role and unique 

niche of The National Map to meet the need for nationally consistent, seamless, and integrated geospatial data. 

Addressing this need is critically important to the longterm success of the USGS National Geospatial Program. 

The program should continue to embrace a partnership 

model to facilitate access to the most current and highest 

quality data. Survey results indicate that data-integration 

needs would be better achieved with participation from 

Federal, State, and local data stewards. Additionally, 

research and development activities should be focused on 

technologies that dramatically improve data-integration 

capabilities and customer access to these datasets.

2. The National Map awareness and brand recognition.—When asked, customers were unable to describe or 

list products and services of The National Map. Further, 

there was uncertainty as to how FGDC, Geospatial OneStop (GOS), the National Atlas of the United States®, 

and other USGS services were related to The National 

Map. Customers expressed frustration over the vast array 

of services that were difficult to navigate through. In 

some instances, customers were finding broken links and 

services that are no longer relevant. It is difficult for many 

customers to know the differences among a DLG (digital 

line graph), a DRG (digital raster graphic), a GeoPDF 

scanned topographic map, and a next-generation GeoPDF 

image map. Similar situations are found with the various 

online viewer services. The USGS geospatial product 

lines need to be clearly identified, and external communications, marketing, and branding of USGS National 

Geospatial Program services need to be improved. Recent 

improvements to The National Map Web site, the addition 

of the Product and Services Directory (Newell, 2008), 

and the ongoing development of the online viewer for The 

National Map are making significant advances toward 

meeting this need.

Customer Data Requirements for The National 

Map

3. Geospatial framework data priority needs.—The highest 

priority datasets are imagery, elevation, public streets and 

roads, surface water, civil boundaries, parcels, land cover, 

geographic names, Public Land Survey System, vertical 

and horizontal control, and Federal and Native American 

land boundaries. All of these datasets received a high 

rating by at least 30 percent of all customers surveyed. 

Limited funding for The National Map should be directed 

to these highest priority datasets. Detailed data requirements should be developed for each of these data types in 

accordance with the OMB A–16 supplemental lifecycle 

guidance (currently in draft, Office of Management and 

Budget, 2008). Data layers such as trails, springs and 

wells, and rural area structures that received a lower priority rating were rated highly for specialized applications. 

For example, structures in rural areas are very important 

to emergency responders. Many of these lower priority 

rating datasets also enhance The National Map published 

topographic map product. The USGS should rely on 

partner contributions through improved coordination and 

standards setting activities by the FGDC and as outlined 

in the OMB A–16 directive to meet these needs without 

spending National Geospatial Program funds on lower 

priority data layers.

4. Geospatial data beyond framework layers.—USGS 

customer interview and ASPRS survey participants were 

asked to rate the importance of geospatial data layers that 

are not currently included within The National Map. All 

12 data layers were ranked as “somewhat important” or 

higher, indicating a high interest for additional national 

level data layers. Prompted by this question were many 

requests to expand the scope to include more than the 

eight geospatial base data layers managed under the 

umbrella of The National Map today. A procedure is 

needed to evaluate and make decisions about adding, 

dropping, or modifying content of data layers. Currently, 

existing layers evolve over time to incorporate new 
32 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

geospatial components. For example, watershed boundaries are being added to the NHD, effectively adding a 

new feature to The National Map. There are implications 

for long-term data lifecycle costs, and The National Map

program priorities need to be taken into consideration. 

While this action was endorsed by the NHD community 

and would likely be viewed as a good direction by all parties, a process for making this type of decision within the 

community for The National Map would receive broader 

customer and partner support. 

5. Geospatial data scale and resolution.—The discussion 

of geospatial data scale and resolution was often influenced by concerns for computing capacity and network 

bandwidth needed to utilize very large datasets. Customers found it difficult to think about the business problems 

they were trying to address apart from these technical 

limitations that affected work productivity. Conversely, it 

is important that the USGS not build national datasets at a 

scale or resolution that is affordable if it does not meet the 

customer requirements. This is a significant consideration 

as the USGS plans for the future, knowing that technology will continue to improve and acquisition costs for 

high-resolution data may decline with improved technology. As the needs change and the data acquisition costs 

drop, organizations are trending to higher resolution and 

more accurate data to meet their needs. While this observation cannot be validated by our survey results, interview 

discussions and responses to the wishes for The National 

Map revealed this to be a significant trend. The geospatial 

data lifecycle plans need to address customer requirements for improved scale (accuracy) and resolution.

6. Geospatial data quality.—Positional accuracy was 

identified as the most important quality-control issue 

over attribute accuracy, completeness, and currency. 

Customers did not want to be put in a position of ranking 

one data quality component over another, indicating that 

they are all critically important. There was a perspective, 

however, that positional accuracy of features was a core 

component of a quality database and that a data steward 

(such as a State partner) could more effectively address 

improvements in the form of new features or correction of 

attributes. The overall positional accuracy of The National 

Map could be significantly improved if the imagery, 

elevation, and vertical and horizontal control (and possibly the land survey) data layers could be modernized 

with current high-resolution data. These “foundational” 

data layers would then serve as the Nation’s base for 

integrating and improving the quality of other data layers. 

If these foundation data are to be the building block of 

future generations of The National Map, a data content 

specification needs to be developed, and an assessment 

should be completed to determine the capacity of partner 

organizations to contribute data to The National Map that 

will meet these requirements. Where gaps exist, plans 

should be developed to address the shortcomings. 

7. Geospatial data update requirements.—The majority of 

regional or national level analysis and mapping needs 

could be satisfied with a 3-year update cycle. Exceptions include transportation and parcels, which need to 

be updated annually, and elevation data, which can be 

updated as infrequently as every 5 years. Those datasets 

that have a high rate of change, such as parcels and transportation, would require a very active stewardship and 

data-integration process. The associated costs of maintaining these programs must be taken into consideration 

when designing stewardship models and when completing 

lifecycle costs analysis. Data stewardship programs for 

national datasets should adhere to these requirements, and 

the topographic map product to be derived from the enterprise database should be republished on a 3-year cycle. 

This would be a dramatic improvement over the average 

27-year age of a published topographic map today. Consideration should be given to a publish-on-demand model 

where any customer can create a topographic map from 

the latest enterprise database.

8. Geospatial data historical retention.—The results show 

that there is a wide distribution of need for historical 

geospatial data but that maintaining a few historical data 

layers could meet a majority of the need. Imagery and 

land cover were rated significantly higher than other data 

layers for their historical value. While land cover did not 

receive one of the highest ratings as a base geospatial data 

layer, it should be noted that over time, this data layer 

increases in value for certain applications. For this reason, 

the benefits analysis of a land cover mapping program 

should consider the value of these data for historical documentation as well as the intrinsic value for current land 

planning and management activities. Printed maps have 

acted as the archive media in the past. These existing print 

products should be scanned and maintained as a readily 

available digital archive. An evaluation of current archive 

procedures (for the purpose of historical retention as 

opposed to backup and recovery) should be completed.

9. Data use restrictions.—Most customers felt that The

National Map data should be publicly available without 

license restrictions. If commercial datasets are used in The 

National Map products or services, the data should be 

publicly available under the terms of a public use agreement. The National Geospatial Program should assess 

the feasibility and associated costs of acquiring currently 

available commercial data through a competitive acquisition process that would result in a public use license 

which holds no restrictions on dataset use by either 

the USGS or customers who use data services of The 

National Map.

10. Web services.—Regardless of how the questions were 

asked or what specific service was being evaluated, 

customers almost always valued geospatial data access 

services more highly than Web viewing or map prod-
Key Findings and Recommendations 33

ucts. The National Geospatial Program should continue 

to acquire high-quality data through State and Federal 

partnerships and expand data integration and data quality 

assurance activities within the program. Because customers place a high value on nationally consistent and 

integrated data, the data-delivery services must be more 

responsive to customer needs. Specific product services 

such as Web viewing and topographic map publishing are 

also important to a large customer base. A focus on data 

will also result in lower production costs for these other 

valued services because they will not have to absorb or 

incur the costs of making data improvements within the 

respective service offerings.

Topographic Map Product Requirements

11. Need for a topographic map.—Nearly 60 percent of 

respondents in the structured interviews and in the ASPRS 

survey said that a topographic map was quite important or 

very important to meeting their mission needs. While GIS 

professionals everywhere expressed a high need for the 

data, it was the lack of readily available, current, and standardized published products that frustrated field managers, emergency responders, and others. Requirements for 

published content have changed, and customers expect to 

have improved capabilities to generate custom USGS map 

products.

12. Topographic content, publishing schedule, and quality.—

Customers expressed a willingness to accept a tradeoff in 

content richness, production schedules, and cartographic 

quality represented on a topographic map. While customers understood that the enterprise databases had variable 

data quality, they were less likely to accept data quality 

tradeoffs in order to achieve feature-rich content or high 

production rates. Further evaluation of the productionready topographic map product is recommended to validate the suitability of the new topographic map product 

for specific business applications. Customer focus group 

workshops would provide timely feedback to the topographic map production team. Because the production 

design incorporates an iterative improvement process, 

feedback can be taken into consideration immediately for 

the next production cycle.

Next Steps

The results of the research on customer requirements 

identified a set of high-priority data, services, and online 

viewing requirements to inform planning activities for future 

versions of The National Map. The findings above that focus 

on customer requirements and priorities for data layers (findings 3, 4, 6, and 8) provide some general design direction 

for The National Map. Specifically, there should be a goal 

to significantly improve positional accuracy consistent with 

the needs of our customers. This goal would require modernizing and improving geospatial content positional accuracy 

of at least imagery and elevation. The geodetic control data 

should be evaluated for its suitability to support this requirement. Further, imagery and elevation data were in the top four 

priorities across samples (finding 3), and imagery is the first 

priority across samples for historical needs (finding 4). These 

modernized and improved layers should form the foundation 

of The National Map. In turn, this foundation will enable the 

integration and improvement of other data layers.

All four of these data-centric findings (including finding 

6 concerning data beyond framework layers), suggest that in 

addition to the foundation layers, the layers most important 

to customers are transportation, boundaries, hydrography, 

and parcels. In every question, these layers were within the 

top six priorities. Further, when asked about their wishes for 

The National Map, customers’ wishes with regard to data also 

mirrored this same priority list: imagery, elevation/LiDAR, 

hydrography, transportation, parcels, and boundaries. 

The findings begin an important public discussion to set 

program priorities for The National Map. Further, the findings strongly point to The National Map as a geospatial base 

data framework for the Nation. Consumers of these geospatial 

services will use nationally consistent base data with their 

own services to create products like disaster response maps, 

task orders, trail maps, mortgage foreclosure forecast maps, 

flood inundation maps, resource management plans, census 

field maps, and topographic maps. The participation of State, 

Federal, and private sector partners will be critical to the 

successful creation of unified services that span the levels of 

government and use that is envisioned. 

The research team is grateful for the many hours spent by 

our customers sharing their aspirations for improvements to 

The National Map. The feedback that was received has already 

had a profound effect on our operational program. All of the 

base datasets are being improved, but limited funds are being 

focused on the highest priority datasets. The new topographic 

map product will focus on quality and higher production rates 

and less on full content. The National Map viewer is receiving a major overhaul and when released, it will have fewer 

data layers but will feature national coverage of seamless data 

layers and improved system performance. Maybe the most 

important findings were the needs to stay in touch with our 

customers, to improve our product messaging, and to assess 

the changing business requirements on an ongoing basis. 

John Wesley Powell testified before Congress on December 5, 1884. He advocated for the creation of a United States 

map. In that testimony, he said “A Government cannot do any 

scientific work of more value to the people at large, than by 

causing the construction of proper topographic maps of the 

country.” The digital age equivalent of the Powell mapping 

expedition is urgently needed! 
34 The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys

Office of Management and Budget, 2002, Coordination of 

geographic information and related spatial data activities 

(revised edition): Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

rewrite/Circulars/a016/a016_rev.html.

Office of Management and Budget, 2008, Geospatial line of 

business, OMB Circular A–16 supplemental guidance: 95 

p. (Draft guidance of December 10, 2008, endorsed by the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee available at http://

www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/A-16-supplemental-guidance-endorsed-dec08.pdf.)

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, TIGER® [Topologically Integrated 

Geographic Encoding and Referencing system], TIGER/

Line® and TIGER®-related products: available at http://

www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, The National Map: U.S. Geological Survey database at http://nationalmap.gov/index.

html. (Accessed August 31, 2009.)

References Cited

National Atlas of the United States®, 2009, National Atlas of 

the United States®: available only online at http://nationalatlas.gov. (Accessed September 28, 2009.) (The atlas includes 

maps and data layers from more than 20 Federal organizations.)

National Research Council, Committee on Land Parcel 

Databases, 2007, National land parcel data; A vision for 

the future: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 

172 p., available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.

php?record_id=11978#description.

Newell, M.R., 2008, The National Map product and services 

directory: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3065, 

4 p., available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3065/.