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. >