----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I recently shifted our USGS topographic set to
accommodate superceding additions. The shift
was made by measuring random groups of 100 maps
with calipers, applying the average to the space
available, and calipering the hundred map average
as the shift proceded. The method worked well
and about 90,000 maps were moved quickly and evenly
distributed. The tolerance of our 'average' left
about 2.25 extra inches at the end of the shift.
I am now concerned with future growth. Is it
appropriate to anticipate an even distribution
in the creation of superceding topos by USGS?
Or, should one expect that some individual states/
locals will be more quickly superceded than others?
Thanks! R.Balliot