----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Michael Fry" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Mary R McInroy" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 11:52:12 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: Forest Service 7.5 minute topos in with USGS
-
Hi Mary!

I looked into this issue a couple years ago when I considered filing our FS 1:24s w/ the USGS 1:24s.
My student assistant and I learned what we could from the USGS Fact Sheet
[http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs09498.html] but still had questions about just exactly
how FS and USGS editions differed before they were merged into a "single edition," and how they
compared to the single edition versions. So, we wrote USGS and rec'd the following reply, which the
author said was safe to pass on. I hope it helps in your decision making...

mf
--
Michael Fry
Map Librarian
University of Maryland

===================================
I am the former co-chair of the USGS/FS single edition standards working group (representing the
USGS). Years ago, the FS obtained copies of our maps and added the information they needed to manage
FS lands (including land that was owned outside the NF boundaries).  Generally, they did not add any
other detail outside the areas of their interest.  During subsequent revisions, they revised these
maps and then, normally only in the areas of their interest.  In some cases, the USGS revised the
entire older USGS map, normally without any extra detail or input from the FS.  So at this point,
there could well have been two versions of the map.

Although the USGS and the FS signed an agreement to begin a joint single edition program in August
1993, I don't believe there were any maps printed until about 1998 or maybe 1999 (the map date on
single edition maps is the more recent year of either the FS correction guide or the revision
imagery; to get a better idea of when the map was prepared, look for the the imprint date above the
Highways and Roads legend caption--this is the year the map was actually printed).

When the agreement was made, the FS had agreed to revise the entire map; however, before any maps
were produced (about 1997 or 1998), they decided only to revise the areas of their interest.  You
can imagine our reaction.  The FS by that time had developed a production method that would generate
film negatives from revised CFF files (something like our DLG files), that they had collected from
their version of the map.  [If the USGS had revised the map since the FS first obtained it, the
information outside the FS areas of interest did not include this revised information.]  Eventually,
we got them to agree to use the more recently revised USGS maps to update their information outside
the FS areas of interest.  Many single edition maps are revised from quad edge to quad edge,
especially those entirely within a NF.  However, many (most?) quads that straddle the NF boundary
are only revised within the NF areas of interest, while the areas outside are just updated to be as
current as the most recent USGS map.  I've been told that some quads have been revised from quad
edge to quad edge, even though that meant revising some areas outside the FS areas of interest.

Unfortunately, there has been virtually no oversight by the USGS on single edition maps, so I don't
think anyone in the USGS can truthfully say how thorough the the FS has been in revising areas
outside their areas of interest.  Because revision is expensive, I am somewhat skeptical that they
have done a thorough job, if, in fact they've done much revision at all.  However, I think they have
been concientious about bringing the areas outside their areas of interest up to the currentness
level of the most recent USGS map.

The FS knows what they are doing and they are good mappers.  These were basically management
decisions that were forced on their production people.  Knowing the economics of the situation, I
can't really fault the decisions that have been made by either the FS or the USGS.  It's just
another one of those unfortunate realities of life that the FS and the USGS has had to try to deal
with over the last several years.

John Conroy
USGS/NSDI Standards Team
NGTOC III/Mid-Continent Mapping Center
1400 Independence Road, MS 523
Rolla, MO 65401
[log in to unmask]
===================================




Angie Cope wrote:
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Mary R McInroy" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: MAPS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 8:52:25 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Forest Service 7.5 minute topos in with USGS
>
>
>
>
> Greetings.
>
> A new student worker picked up on the fact that some outdated 7.5 minute topos coming into the Map Collection from our Geology Library were actually those modified by the Forest Service for specific national forests. We isolated them, and I can figure out which forests they belong to and can even find GPO cataloging for the 7.5 minute national forest topo sets (we have historically cataloged national forest sets under LC, and not kept them with the USGS 7.5 minute sets).
>
>
>
> I now wonder how many other examples of this are lurking in the map drawers of the Geology Library (not my concern yet, as I’ll be on the lookout from now on) and my own Map Collection (definitely my concern).
>
>
>
> A couple of questions-
>
> How do <you all> handle these separate national forest sets?
>
> How horrid is it that some Forest Service maps are in the USGS 7.5 minute drawers? I think the worst part might be that we tossed a USGS map with the same date, assuming they were dups. Although I am hoping issuing dates are different, and we have kept both the Forest Service version and the USGS version.
>
>
>
>
>
> Many thanks for any insights on this, on or off list.
>
> Mary MC.
>
>
>
> Mary McInroy
>
> Reference & Library Instruction/ Map Collection
>
> University of Iowa Libraries Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
>
> (319)335-6247
>
> FAX: (319)335-5900
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]