---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:16:35 -0400
From: Omni Resources <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: USGS currentness/version dates (fwd)
Hey folks;
The listing on the web is definitely suspect. According to the USGS the
Currentness date is always the most recent date. Those with version date
newer than currentness dates most likely have them reversed. The
currentness date is the date of last review, regardless of whether the map
required revisions or not.
The USGS contracts web site maintenance with a private company.
Cheers
Russell Guy
Omni Resources
International Map Specialists
At 03:44 PM 8/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:29 -0400
>From: Mark A. Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
>To: MAPS-L <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: USGS currentness/version dates
>
>Have people noticed a fair number of errors in the USGS currentness and
>version dates as published in their online listings? I know it was a
>monumental task to add the extra date field, so not everything could go
>perfectly. For instance, in Nevada there seem to be a lot of quads
>where that they advertise as the currentness date is the date printed on
>our sheet (i.e., our version date); they list a much newer version date,
>which I'm guessing is the *real* currentness date. I think they have the
>two dates mixed around in these cases, but it's tedious if not
>impossible to detect whether there's an error.
>
>Maybe the biggest clue that something is wrong is that I think the ver
>date should be newer only in cases where the map hasn't been
>photoinspected; that is, when the map is published within a few years
>after completion of surveying, and the ver date will be 1 or 2 or 3
>years newer than currentness.
>
>In cases of photoinspected maps, the version date should be *older* than
>the currentness date. Even if it's not indicated that the map is
>photoinspected, if they have a version date 10 or 20 years newer than
>currentness (e.g., Blue Basin, NV, ver=1975, cur=1958), something's
>gotta be wrong (our sheet has 1958 printed on it).
>
>Examples in Nevada might be Alamo (ver80 cur69), Ash Springs (v80 c69),
>Bellehelen (v80 c68), Blue Basin (v75 c58), Blue Diamond (v82 c72), etc.
>In all cases the date actually printed on our map is what USGS lists at
>the older currentness date.
>
>I hate to order replacements to update these quads when I suspect that
>I'll get what we already have. Maybe some of the friendly vendors on the
>list can check the examples I list above; they're probably aware of
>problems if there are any.
>
>Sorry if all this makes your head spin. Any insight is appreciated. Do
>you know if USGS is working on this and is it a generally recognized
>problem?
>
>Thanks,
> Mark
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Mark Thomas / [log in to unmask] / 919-660-5853, fax:919-684-2855
>Economics, Geology, Geography Bibliographer
>Map and GIS Librarian / Public Documents and Maps Department
>025 Perkins Library / Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0177
********************************************************
Russell Guy [log in to unmask]
Vice President
Omni Resources http://www.omnimap.com/maps.htm
International Map Specialists Tel.: 336-227-8300
P.O. Box 2096 Fax: 336-227-3748
Burlington, NC 27216-2096 USA
Past President (1996), International Map Trade Association
Founding Member, Independent Travel Stores Association
********************************************************
|
