Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts

2012-12-22 Thread Russ Nelson
Michal Migurski writes:
 > Ah, good to know. Any idea what the approximate date and importing
 > account were?

"MassGIS Import" somewhere around 10/13/07.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Richard Welty

On 12/22/12 10:39 PM, James Mast wrote:

I personally think that the letter shouldn't be stored in the "ref" tags on the ways as they could 
be considered as an internal designation that just happens to make it onto the route shields.  Maybe the 
letters could be added as an additional tag like "ref:txdot=I 35-V"?  They are so small that nobody 
but the roadgeeks are really going to notice or pay attention to them to be honest.  I mean, do people in 
Texas really say "take the next right @ I-35-V Business"?
you can argue about what the ref tags should contain. as a practical 
matter, data consumers frequently assume that what's in the ref tag (on 
a way, different from ref tag on a route relation) can be rendered as is 
as the text on the highway shield. we need to accept that this is what 
it is and confine the ref tag to those things that are reasonably 
observable by the average motorist. this is why i am hostile, for 
example, to putting NYS reference routes in the ref tag, except for 
those four cases where the reference routes got actual NYS highway 
shields (for the most part, NYS reference route numbers are invisible to 
the normal driver.)


richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread James Mast

I personally think that the letter shouldn't be stored in the "ref" tags on the 
ways as they could be considered as an internal designation that just happens 
to make it onto the route shields.  Maybe the letters could be added as an 
additional tag like "ref:txdot=I 35-V"?  They are so small that nobody but the 
roadgeeks are really going to notice or pay attention to them to be honest.  I 
mean, do people in Texas really say "take the next right @ I-35-V Business"?  I 
highly doubt it.  I mean, I could seriously go around like crazy here in the 
Pittsburgh area (or anywhere else in PA) adding the little "SR " numbers 
into the ref tag that are on small little signs, but I don't. (example of one 
of those signs: http://goo.gl/maps/FFtfy)  And if I do add them, I add them in 
a tag something like this: penndot_ref= (A way with this tag: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171870239), but would have no problems 
changing them all to "ref:penndot=SR " (with or without the "SR" part).  
Those are considered internal route numbers (since they get reused in different 
districts) here. That said Clay, you've might have one of them wrong.  This way 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/155807977/history), you labeled it as 
"I 35-V Business".  However, it's a Business route of I-35W, not mainline I-35 
right there per this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/5161690779/ 
I personally think that the relations are fine as is as that's sensible IMO.  
But I wouldn't also mind if the "route inventory" letters were separate from 
the ref tag in that as well like how I mentioned above.  Especially if routing 
software ever starts using the relations for routes. Also Clay, think how the 
routing software is going to handle this when they give directions, especially 
the speaking GPS's.  I honestly think all of them are going to choke badly on 
the non-standard ref tags with the "-V" in them.  That's why I think my 
suggestion above might be the best way to go for everybody.  Leave the main 
routes in the Ref's, and add the "route inventory" letters into a separate tag 
or just the relation. -James ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts

2012-12-22 Thread Michal Migurski
On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:

> Michal Migurski writes:
>> Also, what's the deal with the Massachusetts TIGER import?
> 
> Massachusetts had already made an improved version of the TIGER data,
> so the decision was made to import that instead.


Ah, good to know. Any idea what the approximate date and importing account were?

-mike.


michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html





___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts

2012-12-22 Thread Russ Nelson
Michal Migurski writes:
 > Also, what's the deal with the Massachusetts TIGER import?

Massachusetts had already made an improved version of the TIGER data,
so the decision was made to import that instead.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts

2012-12-22 Thread Michal Migurski
On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

>> next steps
>> 
>> A few obvious steps stand out, including rendering a national version of 
>> these maps. I'd also love to figure out whether it makes sense to join 
>> forces with Mike Migurski's Green Means Go map.
>> 
>> It'd also be interesting to use a smarter Osmosis command (and the full 
>> history file) to limit the input data to just those ways created by the 3 
>> primary user accounts associated with the TIGER 
>> import:https://github.com/MapQuest/TIGER-Edited-map/blob/master/inc/layer-tiger.xml.inc#L45
>>  (h/t Migurski)
> 
> Joining forces would be fun!
> 
> For the past two days, I've been processing the Full History file into a form 
> that's easier to cope with for a big categorization run. I want to look at 
> the individual nodes, using their associated changesets to pick up on 
> non-import edits that fell through the cracks when I looked only at OSM ways.
> 
> Here's where I'm at now:
>   http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/TIGER-Raster/nodes/


I've updated the page above with a preliminary rendering showing non-TIGER node 
density, preview and full GeoTIFF here:


http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/TIGER-Raster/nodes/non-tiger-uids.jpg

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/TIGER-Raster/nodes/out-full-history-uids-no.tif.bz2

I'm processing the full history planet file a second time now, paying attention 
to just the nodes that make up ways with highway tags, since I'm noticing a lot 
of large non-road imports in this dataset.

Also, what's the deal with the Massachusetts TIGER import? When did it happen? 
The state is conspicuously missing when I use the Mapquest TIGER edits case 
statement:

(case when osm_uid = '7168' -- DaveHansenTiger
and osm_timestamp::timestamp >= 
'2007-08-03'::timestamp
and osm_timestamp::timestamp <= 
'2008-05-04'::timestamp
  then 0
  when osm_uid = '15169' -- Milenko
and osm_timestamp::timestamp >= 
'2007-10-29'::timestamp
and osm_timestamp::timestamp <= 
'2007-12-12'::timestamp
  then 0
  when osm_uid = '20587' -- balrog-kun
and osm_timestamp::timestamp >= 
'2010-03-21'::timestamp
and osm_timestamp::timestamp <= 
'2010-04-08'::timestamp
and osm_version::int < 3 -- maybe someone else 
edited between import and name expansion
  then 0
  else 1 end) as is_touched

(Github currently dead but it's from 
https://github.com/MapQuest/TIGER-Edited-map/blob/master/inc/layer-tiger.xml.inc)

-mike.


michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html





___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Help identifying some objects in Wyoming (cottaer)

2012-12-22 Thread Michael Patrick
> since some weeks I'm doing some mapping by aerial images in USA, south
> east corner of Wyoming. My attention to do so was drawn by the recent
> "Operation Cowboy" event.
>
> Now I stumbled about some objects and was guessing, what their purpose
> may be, and I was directed to this list to ask about.
>
> Examples:
> http://binged.it/TR2kXm
> http://binged.it/TR2EoV
>
> I guess, this are some kind of petroleum wells? Or maybe gas wells?
>

The type is in the following data.


> Maybe even fracking gas wells?
>

(Sigh). Maybe even 'frack-ed' wells, hard to tell because these seem to be
production wells, and the fracking equipment would probably be removed with
hte exploration rig. :-)

See:
USGS "Geodatabase of Wyoming statewide oil and gas drilling activity to 2010
By Laura R.H. Biewick" at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/625/

Datasets at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/625/DownloadableGISdata/

MetaData at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/625/Documentation/WYwells2010.txt
"Abstract: The Wyoming statewide oil and gas wells feature class was
developed to provide a historical perspective of drilling activity for the
Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI).  These data originated
from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), were
processed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and are now available as
online resources in a geographic information system (GIS), a published map
file (PMF), and a PowerPoint slideshow. ... (more)"

Table at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/625/Documentation/Table1.pdf
is helpful.



>
> So my question is, could you confirm this?


The two examples you gave are:

SITEPAD001PAD002
OBJECTID8634286133
APINO23218282321539
COMPANYKERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE LPCHEVRON USA INC
FIELD_NAMEWILSON RANCHWILSON RANCH
LAND_TYPE3011
LAT41.68514841.69028
LON-110.080931-110.10972
WELL_CLASSGG
STATUSPGPG
STATUSDATE2005041319990630
RNFRONTIER
COAL_BEDNN
FORM2STATFLFL
FORM2MON44
FORM2YEAR20102010
wellsymb22
Start20051999
Stop20102010
First_Comp2005022819990525



> And how to map and tag these objects?


Ummm ... it varies by locale. The pad polygon itself could be classified as
you suggest, but these pads are usually leased from the landowner, so the
entire (this is Wyoming) parcel of several thousand acres wouldn't be
dictated by the 1/2 acre pad, it would be open range, or farm land, or
agriculture. There might be several existing classification depending if it
is Federal BLM, State Public, or private land.


> I would propose to maybe map as a node, tagged as
> man_made:petroleum_well and additionally map the area as
> landuse:industrial?
>

Let me run this up the flag pole ( and I admit I haven't read all the email
archives for all the working groups yet): Rather than re-inventing tagging
schema, would it hurt to look first to see if there is already an existing
one? Like the LBCS Standards of land uses across five dimensions. For local
planning purposes, LBCS calls for classifying land uses in the following
dimensions: Activity, Function, Structure Type, Site Development Character,
and Ownership  https://www.planning.org/lbcs/standards/ . I mean, some
reasonably intelligent people figured out a way to have a unified
nomenclature that fits across the entire United States, and it even matches
some of the other countries.

Lest one say 'it's too complicated, the question "man_made:petroleum_well
and additionally map the area as landuse:industrial/" shows that it is
probably already happening. :-)

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Importing highway surface tags

2012-12-22 Thread Adam Franco
Thank you all for the great feedback and advice! It looks like this project
is potentially feasible but that I have many things to learn and figure out
to make it happen. I'll be in touch after I've figured out how to work with
the VCGI data and then get proper usage permission. Thanks again and happy
holidays!

Best,
Adam

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrew Guertin wrote:

> On 12/20/2012 05:03 PM, Adam Franco wrote:
> > * Has anyone located a good source for state or national road surface
> data?
> > The TIGER data doesn't seem to include surface information as far as I
> can
> > tell.
>
> The VCGI EmergencyE911_RDS file has a field for this. Unfortunately,
> 58773 out of 64302 values (91%) are "Unknown".
>
> The VCGI license doesn't explicitly give the permissions needed for OSM,
> but when I asked to use the town boundaries layer they gave permission.
> (I still need to get around to that...)
>
> > * Is this a project that the OSM community in Vermont, the broader
> region,
> > or nationally (assuming data is available) would support? I'd rather not
> do
> > a lot of work to prepare it if there is no desire for inclusion in the
> data
> > set.
>
> I'd support it.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Richard Weait
Changeset numbers for the edits in question please?  By both accounts
involved.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Clay Smalley
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Just so I'm on the same page...are we adding modifiers to ref=* or
> seperately in modifier=* in the relations?
>

The ref=* tags of the ways were originally e.g. "US 377 Business" and I'm
changing them to "US 377-A Business".
The route relations have separate modifier=* and ref=* tags. The modifier=*
tag will remain "Business" and the ref=* tag is being changed from "377" to
"377-A".

-- 
Clay
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Paul Johnson
On Saturday, December 22, 2012, Martijn van Exel wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Clay Smalley 
> >
> wrote:
> [..]
> >> Sounds like yet another problem brought to us by the letters N and E,
> and
> >> the number 2...
> >
> >
> > bingo.
> >
> > So it's safe to assume the business letters can stay? I don't want hours
> of
> > work deleted again.
> >
>
> They can, but there's unfortunately no guarantees that they will. From
> what I read I agree that the 'business' addition makes sense for the
> ref tag.
>

Just so I'm on the same page...are we adding modifiers to ref=* or
seperately in modifier=* in the relations?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Martijn van Exel
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Clay Smalley  wrote:
[..]
>> Sounds like yet another problem brought to us by the letters N and E, and
>> the number 2...
>
>
> bingo.
>
> So it's safe to assume the business letters can stay? I don't want hours of
> work deleted again.
>

They can, but there's unfortunately no guarantees that they will. From
what I read I agree that the 'business' addition makes sense for the
ref tag.


--
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Clay Smalley
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Friday, December 21, 2012, Clay Smalley wrote:
>
>>
>> What sayest thou, community? I'm honestly tired of edit wars and
>> pointless bickering, and would rather just get this question out of the way.
>>
>
> Sounds like yet another problem brought to us by the letters N and E, and
> the number 2...
>

bingo.

So it's safe to assume the business letters can stay? I don't want hours of
work deleted again.

-- 
Clay
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Paul Johnson
On Friday, December 21, 2012, Clay Smalley wrote:

> In Texas, every business route has a unique letter attached to it. In this
> image from TxDOT, there are a few examples:
> http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/images/Figure%204-2.gif
>
> These are what show on the vast majority of highway signs. They are useful
> for navigation, and and official designation used by TxDOT for identifying
> which city a business route runs through.
>
> A while back, I took the liberty of adding these letters to the ref=* tags
> of these business routes, as well as their relations, to reflect this (e.g.
> ref="US 377A Business" in the example).
>
> Along came an armchair retagger from outside of Texas.
>
> First he claimed that they're not part of the official route number, which
> is not true according to TxDOT's highway designation files, which are
> freely available and easily accessible online.
>

So it sounds like you know the ground truth, and have done your homework.
 Good job.


> But my main problem came when he started removing them without notice
> whenever he made an edit to any of these ways.
>
> He also made a point that I 35E Business which goes through the town of
> Pearsall, Texas is not a business route of the I 35E that goes through
> Dallas. That made sense to me, so I'm going through and retagging all the
> business routes with hyphenation (e.g. ref="US 377-A Business"). But he
> seemed to still have a problem with the business letters existing in the
> data.
>
> What sayest thou, community? I'm honestly tired of edit wars and pointless
> bickering, and would rather just get this question out of the way.
>

Sounds like yet another problem brought to us by the letters N and E, and
the number 2...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


[Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

2012-12-22 Thread Clay Smalley
In Texas, every business route has a unique letter attached to it. In this
image from TxDOT, there are a few examples:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/images/Figure%204-2.gif

These are what show on the vast majority of highway signs. They are useful
for navigation, and and official designation used by TxDOT for identifying
which city a business route runs through.

A while back, I took the liberty of adding these letters to the ref=* tags
of these business routes, as well as their relations, to reflect this (e.g.
ref="US 377A Business" in the example).

Along came an armchair retagger from outside of Texas.

First he claimed that they're not part of the official route number, which
is not true according to TxDOT's highway designation files, which are
freely available and easily accessible online.

But my main problem came when he started removing them without notice
whenever he made an edit to any of these ways.

He also made a point that I 35E Business which goes through the town of
Pearsall, Texas is not a business route of the I 35E that goes through
Dallas. That made sense to me, so I'm going through and retagging all the
business routes with hyphenation (e.g. ref="US 377-A Business"). But he
seemed to still have a problem with the business letters existing in the
data.

What sayest thou, community? I'm honestly tired of edit wars and pointless
bickering, and would rather just get this question out of the way.

-- 
Clay
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


[Talk-us] Help identifying some objects in Wyoming

2012-12-22 Thread cottaer

Hi,

since some weeks I'm doing some mapping by aerial images in USA, south 
east corner of Wyoming. My attention to do so was drawn by the recent 
"Operation Cowboy" event.


Now I stumbled about some objects and was guessing, what their purpose 
may be, and I was directed to this list to ask about.


Examples:
http://binged.it/TR2kXm
http://binged.it/TR2EoV

I guess, this are some kind of petroleum wells? Or maybe gas wells? 
Maybe even fracking gas wells?


So my question is, could you confirm this? And how to map and tag these 
objects? I would propose to maybe map as a node, tagged as 
man_made:petroleum_well and additionally map the area as landuse:industrial?


Yours sincerely,
Cottaer

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


[Talk-us] Importing highway surface tags

2012-12-22 Thread Michael Patrick
What I am interested in doing is bulk-tagging the surface of roads based on
> public data where no surface tag has been manually set. Before I begin this
> project (and pester my department of transportation for data) I wanted to
> check with the community about the permissibility and feasibility of this
> effort.
>
> A few questions:
>
> * Has anyone located a good source for state or national road surface data?
> The TIGER data doesn't seem to include surface information as far as I can
> tell.
>

TIGER was meant for delineating statistical areas and maintaining those
areas and associated changes over census intervals, and for mailing of the
forms.

Basically since funding for any road work also involves environmental
impacts, the road surface is usually somewhere - but it may not be obvious.
Rather than the roads file it maybe in some maintenance or facilities
dataset. Or the road accidents dataset. Any repository has thems, see
http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/?page=./theme_index/default_content.cfm , but
the attributes in these themes sometimes isn't to obvious.

Mostly it requires some detailed reading of the metadata ( and the
standardsespecially
for
roads ).

See
http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/?page=./search_tools/search_action.cfm&query=theme&theme_id=018-0025and
be sure to page to
http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/?page=./search_tools/search_action.cfm&query=theme&theme=018-0025&layers_startrow=21(
I hate it when they do that :-)

( a partial list)

* TransRoad_PAVCON09 *  Pavement condition data - 2009  VTrans  *
 TransRoad_PAVCON2011 *  Pavement condition data - 2011  VTrans  *
 TransRoad_PAVCON98 *  Pavement condition data - 1998  VTrans  *
 TransRoad_PAVTYP95 *  Pavement type data - 1995  VTrans  *
 TransRoad_PAVTYP98 *  Pavement type data - 1998  VTrans  *
 TransRoad_RDS *  VTrans Road centerlines from 1:5000 orthos and GPS
VTrans
* TransRoad_RDSBASE2000 *  Roadway base materials on VT highways 2000
VTrans
If we look at the metadata for
*TransRoad_RDS :
*

Attribute:
  Attribute_Label: SURFACE
  Attribute_Definition: Road surface type. Roads surface types are
  generally based on VTrans Town Highway Maps, or on regional/local review.
  Attribute_Definition_Source: VGIS Road Centerline Data Standard
  Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Hard surface (pavement)*
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 2
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Gravel*
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Soil or graded and drained earth*
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 5
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Unimproved/Primitive*
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Impassable or untravelled*
Enumerated_Domain:
  Enumerated_Domain_Value: 9
  Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: *Unknown surface type*
  Attribute_Value_Accuracy_Information:
Attribute_Value_Accuracy: SURFACE
Attribute_Value_Accuracy_Explanation:
  *Roads surface types are generally based on VTrans Town Highway
  Maps, or on regional/local review.  Little or no photo
  interpretation was done, but road shapes and distances
  were originally used to assign SURFACE codes.  Some regional
  and local knowledge has been used to update SURFACE
  codes in updated datasets (see the updates listing).
  Legal trails and discontinued roads were all originally
  assigned SURFACE equals 9 (unknown).
  The surface types of some very short roads could not be
  determined from the VTrans maps, especially differentiating
  between gravel (2) and soil (3).  Surface types for these
  arcs were coded 'unknown' (9), or a best judgement was
  made.  The Town Highway Maps are being generated from the
TransRoad_RDS
  data and require public highways to have surface code other than
  9.  The QA/QC process flags highways that don't comform and are
  corrected.*

There are more datsets there dealing with "Roadway widths on Vermont
highways 2000",
"Roadway base materials on VT highways 2000" etc.

Most jurisdictions are attempting to comply with the National/Global
Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI/GSDI). The Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) has been the primary organization sponsoring the development
of National (American) geospatial standards. The latest initiative
sponsored by FGDC is referred to as the Geospatial One -Stop
(http://www.geo -one-stop.gov). The Geospatial One-Stop ini