--- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:58:30 EDT From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: commercial repackaging <fwd> Sender: [log in to unmask] " Should the taxpayers have to pay twice for federal or any other government information? I say NO public accessible library should pay for information, in any format, that has already been paid for in full." Among other problems, this attitude assumes that government published information is of the highest possible quality. That simply isn't so. Government cartographers do their best, I'm sure, given their budgets and their understanding of the market that they are working to serve. But many "government" mapping products are of very low quality. As a prime example, take a look at the nearly ubiquitous dataset known as ETOPO5. The fact that this is a "digital" product released by US government agencies has lent it credibility that it does not deserve. Doubt it's bad? Take a look at the "Bahama Bank" in ETOPO5. This is a region that has been known and mapped for nearly five centuries, yet the errors in ETOPO5's description of that area are huge. Private cartographers almost invariably produce better map products because they have usually have a smaller set of customers to satisfy. These private map products are almost always based on government originals, but they are not merely cases of re-selling data and thus "cheating" cartographic consumers. -Frank E. Reed Chicago, IL --- End Forwarded Message ---