| the 
and 
GRIP 
more 
oping 
NS 
weak 
nents 
rvey, 
nents 
It is 
nan's 
Irate" 
The 
tn 
dd, to 
ional 
ins of 
sions 
nent, 
even 
d by 
This 
Neen 
ver, it 
ecent 
t. al., 
that 
eying 
ot for 
orror 
GPS 
from 
ional 
t has 
Accuracy 
Example Applications 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
| 0.001 m |Crustal motion, geodynamics. geophysics | 
E_001m |Property surveying, civil engineering | 
[ 701m |Cadastral mapping | 
| 1m |Facilities management for utilities | 
| 10m IMapping. soil and wetland mapping u 
| 100 m |Small scale mapping. National Biological Survey| 
| 1000 m lice flows, global change research | 
  
Table 1: Example applications of spatial data and their corresponding positional 
accuracy requirements. 
been dramatically reduced. It appears 
therefore, that the accuracy of spatial 
data necessary to satisfy growing 
market demands is satisfied by 
technology like that developed at The 
Ohio State University Center for 
Mapping (Bossler, J., et. al., 1994.) 
IMPEDIMENTS TO USAGE 
Standards 
The need for data standards in order 
to effectively use and share data has 
long been recognized (Mapping 
Science Committee, 1990.) The most 
needed standards are content, 
accuracy and transfer standards. 
However, the discussion below 
focuses on transfer standards. 
Federal Responsibility. While it is 
arguable, there is general agreement 
that standards are a federal 
responsibility. However, there still 
seems to be a reluctance to accept 
this idea by some federal, private, and 
professional organizations. It is 
important to note at the onset of this 
argument that the top down (federal) 
development of standards has existed 
for many years, e.g., in the mapping 
arena the 7 1/2’ quadrangle is a (de 
facto?) standards. 
| believe that setting standards may 
well be the most important thing a 
157 
federal agency could do because 
setting standards should be done by 
an objective, unbiased, public 
organization so that no one private firm 
is unfairly favored. Another 
characteristic of an organization that 
sets standards is that it should be 
inherently the organization of “ultimate” 
responsibility, e.g., the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS) is the 
ultimate mapping authority in the U.S. 
A spatial data standard should reach 
as many practitioners as possible, be 
widely available and have the 
potential--at  least--of being 
maintained, changed, and updated 
until it is obsolete. Federal agencies 
have the mandate, scope and visibility 
to accomplish this development. 
These points confirm the assertion that 
spatial data standards should be 
developed and maintained by federal 
agencies. lt goes without saying that 
this should be done in cooperation with 
many other organizations by soliciting 
their views and supplying funding. 
Research. Presently there is virtually 
no enthusiasm in the GIS community 
for the idea that universities--or for that 
matter federal agencies--should 
perform research that fosters the 
development of standards. Research 
on standards was an explicit 
recommendation of the MSC in a 
recent report (Mapping Science 
Committee, 1990) to the USGS, but I 
am unaware of any federal research