Test of concept maps

[maps4gps]

I have uploaded two mapsets to test some concepts.

The Colorado mapset uses the same contour interval for each 7-1/2' quad area that was used on the USGS printed topo quad maps.  This method uses the source data to produce the maximum countour detail without creating lines not supported by the original data resolution.
Land ownership (Federal and Indian) are shown as polygons above the 800' zoom level and as a boundary line when zoomed to 800' and more detailed.  I and some others have found the colored polygon background makes the other map data to difficult to see.  This may or may not be an acceptable comprimise.

The Pennsylvania mapset only includes contour lines where the NED data (the elevation grid data used to construct the contour lines) was created using more current production methods.  The contours created from NED data created using the earlier methods seldom match those on the printed USGS topo quads.  Currently about 12% of the data in PA is of this earlier vintage.

Your comments on these concepts and/or some of the other items I have been including with my previous mapsets would be appreciated.

[-Oz-]

So does that mean only 12% of PA has contour data?

[maps4gps]

88% has contour data, 12% does not.

[-Oz-]

ah; i can see why but honestly think it would confuse the "novice" user.

[Carl.h]

Excellent. 

I'm using Colorado.  On the garmin vista it shows up as green for national forest and sort of a beige for blm, then just the boundry line at 800 ft.   Works great.  In  mapsource forest land is green and blm has greyish diagonal stripes.  Comparing it to geocommunicator the boundries are a little different.  I'm guessing the your topo is more accurate?  The only other thing i could ask for is state land.
But this is really awesome, thanks.  Very good detailed road information. 

Carl 

[maps4gps]

Carl,

   Thanks for the encourgament.

   I used 'park' for NPS & FS and 'tundra' for BLM, etc to distinguish between them.  Possibly OK in Colorado, but this does not work for Alaska.
   I used Federlands from the National Map, but replaced NPS data from an NPS file which was larger (more detailed) than the entire Federlands file.  This produces boundary mismatches between NPS areas and adjoining other Federal lands, but I thought the detail would be worthwhile.
I was not able to fine a single detailed file of FS nor BLM lands.  They might be available by State for BLM, and a search of the FS site has very detailed ownership but is in about twenty thousand 7-1/2' quadrangle files.  Ah!, something for the future.
   I have not found a nation-wide file of State lands - some individual States may have GIS files with this info (did not find any for CO) .  Some are in the Census area landmark file, and others are in the USGS GNIS point file.