— 10 — 
  
11. MAP EVALUATION eas 
During the Delft Symposium, the proposal was put forward that the usefulness 
of a map to the user would be improved if an evaluation, preferably in the form e a Fin 
of an internationally agreed upon code number, were to be given on the map, and 
describing its quality in terms of the planimetric and height accuracy and the ap 
completeness of the semantic information. nes 
This proposal was received favourably by mapping agencies in Australia, France, 
Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden and the U.K., most of the agencies IV. QUE 
being moreover interested in cooperating to effect its realisation. 
However, at the same time difficulties were envisaged with the code for 1. Que 
completeness, this being a function of both time and scale i.e. the code would To 
only be standard at the date of compilation and consideration must be given to org 
the importance of the inclusion or omission of specific data in similar map Ger 
scales in different countries. sou 
How 
del 
12, MAP CHECKING PROCEDURES giv 
Another proposal raised during the Delft Symposium recommended that information thr 
be collected on map checking procedures employed throughout the world. The e 10% 
replies to the general questions put forward in this questionnaire indicate that , m gam 
considerable variation is to be found in checking procedures employed, particular- age 
ly with respect to the type of product. The conslusion can therefore be drawn 
that a more detailed questionnaire will have to be designed and distributed in 2f! Gom 
order to collect more useful information on this topic. The 
The percentage of work checked varies from one organisation to another and also Ret 
according to the type of product and the procedures employed. Figures reported ne 
were 10% in South Africa and Sweden and 20% in Mexico. Furthermore, one American p 
compnay checks 100% for completeness and 10% for accuracy. er: 
The question as to who performs the checks seems to depend mainly on the type idi 
of organisation. Government agencies generally check their own work whilst nas 
checks on the work of private contractors is generally decided upon in consult- go 
ation with the client. This may of course be the contractor, the client or an Bg 
independent agency and sometimes even a combination of these i.e. that the gov 
contractor checks the completeness and the client the accuracy, etc. The 
e © two 
Most of the agencies report that the checks are not limited to the final product gy Y 
but included all individual phases of the project. Furthermore, the checks on 
a final product generally include both accuracy and completeness, except in the