--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 11:42:36 -0500
From: Iain Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Proposed changes to specs. for Canadian topo sheets (excuse x
postings)
Sender: Iain Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
The following was originally posted on CARTA - the Canadian map users
list. I thought though, it might be of wider interest. I would be
interested in hearing from map users who are familiar with Canada's topo
sheets and your views as to how the existing maps in the 1:50k series in
particular compare with other similar series. I should add that this
program has been severely affected by govt. budget cuts since 1993 (and
prior) and that it now seems unlikely that the conventional final
mapping of the northern Arctic islands will ever be completed according
to the program laid out in the 1960s (which originally called for its
completion by 2000!).
Revision in the populated South is well behind schedule and consumers
have been asked to pay ever increasing prices for increasingly out-dated
products as the efforts of the agency have been channelled into digital
products for high end industrial users of vector products. Meanwhile
the paper product has become a declining poor relation and has suffered
competition from private commercial mapping companies who seem to find
ways around Crown copyright while providing more attractive and up-dated
cultural information in areas of high tourism activity.
iain taylor
[log in to unmask]
By now many of you will doubtless have received a copy of your package
of Canadian NTS materials for the questionnaire on changes to these
sheets in the future. (Michel Cardinal, Centre for Topographical
Information, Products and Client Services Division, 615 Booth St., Room
703, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0E9, Canada.)
I am somewhat confused by this exercise as it seems to be one of those
surveys being done AFTER basic decisions have been made and the user is
invited to comment on the rate and specifics of the changes without
being fully brought into the processes as to why these changes are
necessary and whether other changes should be investigated.
At root, this is really another down-sizing and dumbing-down exercise.
'Change' in this case always means elimination of some item or a
reduction in the degree of specificity of information itself by grouping
it with other material. This net information loss is dressed up in the
questionnaire as "change" without describing what the exercise is really
about.
While it solicits its users of paper maps "concerning *proposed* changes
it wishes to make to its NTS maps" (emphasis mine), it refers on the
first page of the questionnaire to it being "impossible to symbolise
some features" but it does not say why this is impossible. However on
the next page it refers to items that "will no longer be identified".
I suspect what it is saying is that this is now a cost that could be
eliminated and that other ways of collecting the information are not (in
CTI's view) worth it. It does not indicate what steps would have to be
taken to continue to provide the information it is proposing to shed and
whether there might be alternatives. (Such as better cooperation with
the Provinces and other agencies). One suspects that this has much to do
with eliminating field checking and verification rather than a "source
data being changed", although doubtless there have been reductions in
the material available from other agencies.
IT ASKS HOW THESE CHANGES WILL AFFECT "YOUR ABILITY TO USE THE MAP"! I
trust no change will affect anyone's abilities, but if by that they mean
one's use, enjoyment and utility, there will be many who I'm sure will
say that any reductions of map info. are bound to diminish a map's
utility by definition!
Part of the problem in CTI's world view is that major user of NTS maps:
the field geographer, cultural tourist, the genealogical researcher
simply do not show up in their list of potential "recreational users".
If they were asked about the NTS maps they might respond with questions
such as: why is there so much white space on Canadian topos? Why aren't
we ADDING more information on place names (unofficial as well as
official), why aren't there more historical features such as markers,
archaeological sites and special attractions?
Has any international comparison been made between what map users in the
Commonwealth, the US, UK, France, etc. expect and receive when they
spend the considerable sums that buying a NTS sheet now requires?
If CTI were serious about cost reductions, why not consider replacing
the 1:50,000 with all its white space with a 1:125,000 scale without
loss of detail and allow users 4 times the map for the money?
In my view the changes being proposed will almost certainly take place
unless map users respond vigorously. These cuts will cut into the slim
data available on the printed NTS sheet. Some examples for those who
have not yet read or received their package. 'PROPOSED CHANGES':
RE-GROUPING OF BUILDING TYPES
Industrial buildings. The term "industrial " to replace 14 specific
terms now in use. This change will considerably affect cultural and
economic geographers and students from conducting carto. analysis.
Religious buildings. A new conventional sign to replace all Christian
and non Christian places of worship and sanctuary. This change will
reduce the amount of cultural analysis possible on new topo sheets.
Penal Building. To replace 3 existing classes of building.
Lodgings. One label to replace 3 existing classes.
Educational. One label to replace 4 classes of building.
Boundary lines- administrative. 5 classes reduced to 2.
Boundary lines- recreational . 2 classes reduced to 1
Boundary lines- geographical. 4 lines reduced to 3.
No updating of limited access roads, trails and road related features
(such as cuts, etc.) This scarcity and inaccuracy of current
designations explain the popularity of provincial and privately produced
maps in popular hiking and wilderness travel areas of parks that must
now be severely affecting NTS revenues in such areas.
Elimination of features. 14 features proposed to be eliminated such as
flow lines (for streams), traffic circles, fire look-outs, boundary
monuments, water elevations, bench marks, etc.
The net effect of these changes will in my view significantly reduce
the effectiveness and commercial desirability of the NTS and will reduce
its proud record of high standard mapping for one of the largest land
areas on the globe.
We realise that government cuts have reduced the program's new and
revised map production schedules SINCE 1993 but now that the worst of
the stringency has passed I would urge CTI to go back to the drawing
board and look not at how to cut the NTS map information but how to
improve, re-market and rebrand the series. It could be a much more more
influential series if its maps were more up to date, more available and
better packaged (though the new format of the prototype for Owen Sound,
41 A/10 - sure to be a collector's item in itself - is a great
improvement with coloured cover photos of the area, a useful folding
pattern.).
They should have an exercise in international topo map comparison, learn
form the best examples and modify their practices and standards when
necessary. Is it not time for a "super map" series which for popular
areas to give us the best that Canadian mapping can provide? These and
many other ideas should be explored instead of merely going through
another cost cutting exercise in the guise of public participation.
Iain Taylor
Halifax, NS
--- End Forwarded Message ---
|
