CONCLUSIONS 
There is good evidence to show that many are dissatisfied with 
the ISPRS specification in those areas which have been 
highlighted in this investigation. Some voting in favour of 
the status quo admitted that the ISPRS specification was 
unsatisfactory in some areas. Support for the specification 
came mainly from academics and government establishments 
whilst those favouring the RICS version came from the third 
world and commercial organisations. The exception to this 
pattern is in Section 2.2.1 where a small majority wanted the 
2 year period between metric camera calibrations. 
It is therefore concluded, in the light of experience 
supported by the results of the questionnaire that the wording 
of Sections 2.1.1, 2.2.3 and 4.2.2 in the RICS specification 
should replace the wording in the existing ISPRS specification 
and the existing wording in ISPRS at Section 2.2.1 be 
retained. 
REFERENCES 
Debate 1979 Photogrammetric Record (9) pages 739-756 
Meier H K 1984 Progress by Forward Motion Compensation 
by Zeiss Cameras. International Archives 
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 25 
(1) pages 194-203. 
Specification 1985 ITC Journal 1985 - 1, pages 53-56 
Worton F J 1978 Editorial. Royal Photographic Society of 
Great Britain, AERNEWSLETTER No.10 July 
1978 
162