Dan, I do not believe there is yet a state wide source for this information. We, like other companies, have collected the data from DMG as well as county and city sources, then compiled our own state wide data sets for in-house use. - Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Munson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 11:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mapinfo-L > Subject: California(CA) Soil/Liquefaction/MMI Data > > Tim > > Any idea where to get detailed soil, MMI or liquefaction data for CA? > I've > found localized information for the Bay Area & LA, but they're different. > Looking for stuff that covers the whole state, or is at least consistent. > I've looked through the Div. Mines & Geology & ABAG sites, but none of it > is > good state-wide. > > Dan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Warman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Mapinfo-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 2:07 PM > Subject: MI NAD83 and NAD27 > > > > I'm still trying to track down the source of the mismatch between > several > of > > my data sets, and in doing so have generated several new questions: > > > > 1. Does anyone know whether USGS DLGs for California (both the 1:24,000 > and > > 1:100,000 scales) were originally created in NAD83 or NAD27? The > original > > paper quad sheets I've seen (1:24,000) are in NAD27, with a description > in > > the margins of the offset to the NAD83 grid. > > > > 2. Is anyone using the TopoDepot CDs? I've noticed that when I create a > map > > using the NAD27 datum and print it at 1:24,000 along with the 7.5 minute > > quad boundary file from the USGS (which is in "unprojected" lat long), > the > > map elements line up very well with the paper versions of the quad > sheets > > (using the USGS boundary file to align the two maps on a light table). > > However, the same TopoDepot map created in NAD83 shows the > characteristic > > NAD27-NAD83 offset (usually a few hundred feet) from the paper version. > This > > leads me to believe that the TopoDepot software simply changes the > coordsys > > settings, but leaves the actual coordinates the same, i.e. doesn't > actually > > reproject the data. Anyone else seeing this? > > > > 3. Along these same lines, I've received several GIS data sets (in > NAD83) > > from large public agencies in southern California, and these data sets > line > > up with TopoDepot's seemingly erroneous NAD83 maps (see point 2). At > least > > one of these GIS data sets was originally created in NAD27 and later > > "converted" to NAD83, leading me to believe that these public agency GIS > > data sets also not reprojected properly. > > > > I'd love to hear from Cliff Mugnier, the MapInfo-l projection and datum > > demigod, on this one. > > > > TIA, and I promise to write a complete summary when I get to the bottom > of > > this. > > _____________________________ > > Tim Warman > > Geologist & GIS Specialist > > Richard C. Slade & Associates > > North Hollywood, CA > > (818) 506-0418 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put > > "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put > "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
