Newsgroups: comp.graphics Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!tacitus!clh From: clh@tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen) Subject: Re: WANTED: maps Message-ID: <1991Apr1.215213.26334@tfic.bc.ca> Reply-To: clh@tacitus.UUCP (Chris Hermansen) Organization: Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants References: <1991Mar18.201747.23217@cec1.wustl.edu> <91079.190330UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> <1991Mar22.155204.26170@tfic.bc.ca> <11225@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 21:52:13 GMT In article <11225@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) writes: >In article <1991Mar22.155204.26170@tfic.bc.ca> clh@tacitus.UUCP (Chris Hermansen) writes: [stuff deleted] > >Chris - >What's available digitally for Canada or other countries, and how do you >get it? Decided to post, in case others were interested as well (or saw something in need of correction!). Here (Canada), things are split federally/provincially. The Feds have two programs, one at 1:50,000 and one at 1:250,000. These are handled by Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada; there may be others (Statistics Canada?) that I don't know about. Coverage is spotty in these (especially 1:50,000), although I *heard* that the major problem in the 1:250,000 series is lack of a final QC step. Both series contain planimetric and topographic poop (OK, the topo's just contours). The printed maps look very nice, but I have heard the digital maps have some/many errors. Also, I don't know about toponymy in the digital maps (ie, it may not be there). Finally, I think both series are NAD27. Provinces typically have their own base mapping program at larger scales. For example, BC has two (!) 1:20,000 programs: one by the Ministry of Crown Lands (planimetry, topography, NAD83 - nice stuff, too), one by the Ministry of Forests (old base maps + forest cover - yuck, although this is changing). For what it's worth, BC has about 7,000 such sheets. Crown Lands provides its positional data in a nice, simple ASCII format, while Forests has this attitude that just because they use Intergraph, everyone else should be able to, too. In Alberta, the Land Information Systems Division of Forests, Lands, and Wildlife has a 1:20,000 planimetric + topographic program. East of Alberta, my knowledge gets pretty hazy - I know Ontario has the Ontario Base Mapping Program (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), but I know none of the details. In terms of standards, the Canadian Council on Surveying and Mapping has proposed a set of standards for feature coding and data interchange that look fairly reasonable - we use their feature coding methodology in-house. Unfortunately, *very big egos* tred here, and almost everyone wants his own. There is an ongoing federal shoot-out that is supposed to select a new standard any day now - great, just what we need, another standard! Of course, no one would dream of adopting, say, DLG-3... and what's that, you say? There's a proposed ISO standard??? First thing we've heard about it :-) Outside of Canada, the only (very limited) experience I've had has been in a project we're involved with in the ASEAN countries. To date, there are very few maps in SE Asia, let alone digital ones (and the standards that might be expected to go with them). Mostly, this is a consequence of lack of airborne data (due to military concerns, weather, etc), although a fair bit of RADAR work has been done in Indonesia by Intera (from Calgary, Alberta). Also, both LANDSAT and SPOT pass over just before noon (if memory serves me); at any rate, rather after the day's weather has built up. Finally, TM ground receiving has only recently hit the area, so many extant maps made from satellite imagery were derived from MSS. In general, most of the digital data is satellite based; there is a paucity of "traditional" stuff. Please feel free to disagree, all! Hope this hasn't been too boring. Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 C'est ma facon de parler.