The proposal was clear that the format will not dictate what form the data
will be in, i.e. D/M/S or decimal degrees. There is a place to put the
source of the data which may itself imply a particular collection method,
but there is not a special subfield for collection method. The source
will give some clue as to the accuracy of the data I would think.
Rebecca
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Subject Coordinates Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Aufmuth
> > Sent: 03 July, 2006 09:43
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [SUBCOOR] The proposal passed MARBI!
> >
> > If we're going to use GPS for authority records, what level
> > of accuracy will be acceptable? Will there be a standardized
> > method of collection? Typical handheld "walmart" receivers
> > greatly vary in their measurements. Elevations in particular
> > can be quite poor. So, who will be generating the authority
> > records and the subsequent coordinates and elevations?
> > Surveyors? GNIS? NGA? Catalogers? Who will be testing the
> > accuracy of the coordinates used?
>
> The question is how important *is* accuracy? That handheld
> Wal-Mart receiver might be +/- 30 meters and a surveyor's unit
> in the centimeters range. Does that really make a difference
> when a patron wants to know the general vicinity someplace is?
>
> Now, these coordinates could be used for other purposes, where
> accuracy might be an issue. However, lets say there is a local
> place of historical significance to your community. It doesn't
> appear in any GNIS database. So are you going to pay a surveyor
> several hundred dollars to give you the coordinates or are you
> just going to send someone to the place with a handheld unit to
> take measurements?
>
> Certainly the answer to that question depends on a number of
> factors. The format should provide information on the collection
> method. When a more accurate method is available, then certainly
> it would be best to record that information or update the originally
> collected information.
>
> The point being, the format shouldn't dictate one collection method
> over another, but provide a place to record the type of collection
> method in addition to the actual coordinates. [in a separate subfield
> from the coordinates, please, which will make machine processing and
> indexing easier]
>
>
> Andy.
>