Yes, exactly. I know we're all obsessed with computers and stuff, but those guys were damn good at what they did, and shouldn't be underestimated. (Whether the maps are at an appropriate scale is a different issue.)
But there's very little, if any, effort in keeping the quads up to date anymore. All the effort is focused on the national atlas. Darrell On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:02, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com> wrote: > as far as I have seen topo maps they are all from the 70’s or older. usually > the accuracy is pretty good where things haven’t changed since. > > > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > >> On 12/2/13 10:01 AM, Richard Welty wrote: >>> >>> i guess what it comes down to is that the USGS quads are good >>> for topo data but otherwise they're basically historic documents. >> and it turns out the quad that i was interested in, Bash Bish Falls >> on the western CT/MA border, dates from 1958. so the USGS quad >> layer is good for topo and historic info, but it is most assuredly >> not even close to current. >> >> richard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
