Hmm. It sounds like we want the "routability" of the NHD reach-code system with the accuracy and completeness of the Wetland Inventory.
I wonder if there's some "gotcha" in the FWS dataset that would make it inappropriate to use. For example, I see a lot of freshwater areas that are really inundation/flood control areas in my area. It would be difficult for an import to tell the difference between those two things. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Steven Johnson <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm not an expert on either of these data sets, but I know enough to say > that USGS sponsored the development of the NHD, largely to replace the old > digital line graph (DLG) products. NHD serves as a multi-purpose inventory > of surface waters, grouped by watershed. OTOH, FWS sponsored development of > Natl Wetlands Inventory, largely as a basis for habitat suitability. The > data may overlap, but they serve two different purposes/missions. > > SEJ > ---- > "Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans." -Empedocles > > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:12, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wonder if our friends at the USGS know about this data. If they do, >> there must be a good reason why they aren't using it for NHD, since I was >> under the impression that NHD was the authoritative dataset for waterways in >> the US. >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the National Wetlands >>> Inventory: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ >>> At first glance it looks like better-quality data than the NHD for >>> both wetlands and water. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
