. I . NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-2 / X ^ 0F c°, \ SPATES O* *• S FINAL REPORT ON RESPONSES TO GEODETIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE John F. Spencer, Jr. National Geodetic Survey Rockville, Md. March 19 76 l^f^OO NATIONAL OCEANIC AND / National Ocean ■ IUQO ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION / Survey NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS National Ocean Survey — National Geodetic Survey Subseries The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) of the National Ocean Survey establishes and maintains the basic National horizontal and vertical networks of geodetic control and provides government- wide leadership in the improvement of geodetic surveying methods and instrumentation, coordinates operations to assure network development, and provides specifications and criteria for survey operations by Federal, State, and other agencies. The NGS engages in research and development for the improvement of knowledge of the figure of the Earth and its gravity field, and has the responsibility to procure geodetic data from all sources, to process these data, and to make them generally available to users through a central data base. NOAA Technical Memorandums of the NOS NGS subseries facilitate rapid distribution of material that may be published formally elsewhere at a later date. Copies of memorandums listed below are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Sills Building, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22151. Prices on request. NOAA Technical Memorandums NOS NGS-1 Use of climatological and meteorological data in the planning and execution of National Geodetic Survey field operations. Robert J. Leffler, December 1975. 30 pp. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-2 FINAL REPORT ON RESPONSES TO GEODETIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE John F. Spencer, Jr. National Geodetic Survey Rockville, Md. March 1976 # UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Robert M. White, Administrator National Ocean Survey Allen L. Powell, Director CONTENTS Abstract « 1 Introduction 1 Implementation 2 Analysis of responses 2 1. Availability of data and ordering procedures 2 A. Question 1 2 B . Question 2 5 C . Question 7 5 D. Questions 8 and 9 6 2 . Automatic mailing service 7 A. Question 3 7 B. Question 4 10 C . Question 5 10 D . Question 6 , 10 3. Control diagrams and unadjusted data 12 A. Control Diagrams (Questions 10 and 11) 12 B. Unadjusted geodetic data (Questions 12 and 13).. 14 4 . Mark preservation program 15 A. Questions 14 and 15 15 B. Questions 16, 17, and 18 15 5 . Future data products 18 A. Question 19 18 B. Question 20 18 Summary 18 Appendix 1. Questionnaire and information packet 27 Appendix 2 . Summary of replies 37 ill FINAL REPORT ON RESPONSES TO GEODETIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE John F. Spencer, Jr. National Geodetic Survey National Ocean Survey, NOAA Rockville, Maryland ABSTRACT. Prior to the mailing of the geodetic data questionnaires and information packets to every licensed land surveyor in the U.S., there was virtually no information available to the National Geodetic Survey that could be used to evaluate user requirements for geodetic data or to determine surveyor awareness of its avail- ability from this office. This office's evaluation of responses to the questionnaire is contained herein. The results of this evaluation will have considerable influence on the development of programs and priorities by the National Geodetic Survey of the National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. INTRODUCTION The primary mission of the National Geodetic Survey Infor- mation Center (NGSIC) is the collection, publication, and dissemination of geodetic data. To evaluate this program and determine interest within the user public, a question- naire and geodetic data information packet (appendix 1), were distributed to all licensed land surveyors in the U.S. (approximately 36,000). Based on approximately 6,000 responses NGSIC received, we suggest: (1) new programs be developed to respond to surveyor's needs , (2) increased participation in recovery information and mark maintenance assistance will save the National Geodetic Survey time and money, (3) information from this survey will assist the NGSIC in devising an automated system for efficient data dissemination, and (4) follow-up action will be directed toward those areas that were unaware of various NGSIC services. IMPLEMENTATION Mailing began in September 1973, after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The mailings were originally sched- uled over a 24-month period; however, because of high interest in the program, and the enthusiasm of the Information and Distribution Branch, NGSIC , the last mailing was completed October 1974. For its concerted effort in handling these mailings, the NOAA Unit Citation was awarded to the Information and Distribution Branch, NGSIC, and each member of the Branch received a cash award. Appendix 2 contains a list by States, of the units mailed, and the response to the mailing (table 8) . As responses to the questionnaire were received, a computer generated listing of comparative and accumulative statistics was tabulated. (For sample computer listings, see figures 5 and 6, appendix 2.) The evaluation of responses is discussed in the next section. ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES Analyses of responses to the questionnaire are presented under the next five headings and the Summary section. Ques- tions are grouped as they apply to the procedure under discus- sion. Table 1 lists the percentages of "yes" responses by each State to the 20 questions of the questionnaire. 1. Availability of Data and Ordering Procedures A. Question 1. Were you previously aware of data available from NGS? Approximately 73% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 91% from Maryland and minimums of 5 8% from Connecti- cut and New Hampshire (table 1). Analysis based on percentages:* Mean = 73 a s =6.9 (o s , standard deviation) 2o Q = 13.8 *Statistics of questionnaire results are based on percentages of affirmative responses by State; i.e., mean is the average of total collective "yes" , responses by State; the standard devia- tion is a s = ±[Zv 2 /n-l]* 5 , where v is equal to the* number of responses from each State minus the mean; n is equal to 50 (total number States); and £v 2 is the sum of the v's squared for the 50 States . Table l.--Yes responses by States to questions 1 through 20 (in percent) Question no. State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ala. 66 35 45 06** 05 43 22 68 3 4 41 Alaska 7 4 4 i 31 20 10 23 39 71 33 52 Ariz. 77 4 4 28 07 4 26 44 77 3 3 44 Ark. 70 35 43 11 8 41 31 70 24 34 Calif. 8 4 51 38 2 8 16 32 44 75 30 51 Colo. 64 36 34 17 9 45 31 70 34 4 6 Conn. 58** 14** 4 2 09 3 41 17** 48** 30 24 Del. 65 47 4 7 29 12 47 29 71 35 24 Fla. 76 46 4 2 21 12 46 37 7 3 29 40 Ga. 75 37 41 12 7 53 29 67 37 44 Hawaii 65 46 54 08 0** 5 8* 23 65 27 38 Idaho 78 50 28 11 6 44 28 83* 50* 3 3 111. 83 64 64* 37* 17 58* 52* 66 22 53 Ind. 77 51 50 2 4 35* 42 40 73 2 7 40 Iowa 68 47 35 18 7 31 41 65 32 34 Kans. 7 5 4 6 32 17 3 39 34 69 29 53 Ky. 75 40 30 8 5 3 4 29 70 30 41 La. 4 44 4 2 20 10 29 35 67 28 36 Maine 59 25 2 3 9 2 4 3 18 68 28 41 Md. 9 1 * 65* 4 4 14 9 4 33 58 47 37 Mass. 64 33 31 11 5 39 25 62 36 30 Mich. 7 1 43 4 2 14 4 4 33 64 24 38 Minn. 74 41 38 12 3 32 38 65 2 4 38 Miss . 79 53 57 21 14 41 49 79 20 34 Mo. 67 41 39 14 5 38 39 65 33 39 Mont. 79 5 4 38 21 5 4 1 49 72 23 4 6 Nebr. 77 51 56 21 8 38 51 72 33 44 Nev. 76 50 50 2 4 19 48 4 76 19 5 2 N.H. 58** 34 24 17 7 32 19 5 6 24 34 N.J. 61 28 38 8 4 35 21 54 38 27 N.Mex. 6 8 40 37 26 13 34 34 68 32 41 N.Y. 7.3 44 37 18 8 31 2 7 57 27 3 4 N.C. 73 39 34 14 4 52 2 7 6 6 32 27 N.Dak. 71 4 6 43 21 14 21** 43 82 14** 50 Ohio 66 34 31 11 7 28 33 66 27 22** Okla. 71 39 30 18 4 32 40 7 2 32 4 6 Oreg . 74 44 38 19 12 29 38 65 26 36 Pa. 69 46 33 18 7 28 3 5 66 26 37 R.I. 6 7 26 19** 15 19 4 8 26 5 9 2 6 22** S.C. 73 38 27 8 4 4 2 31 69 3 8 36 S.Dak. 71 5 4 39 18 4 32 39 75 36 36 Tenn. 68 31 2 5 8 2 4 2 25 68 42 31 Tex. 79 56 45 26 11 42 46 74 30 4 9 Utah 70 36 36 1 1 11 55 23 7 5 14** 41 Vt. 71 38 27 19 19 44 27 6 9 21 29 Va. 81 48 4 9 16 11 43 41 70 2 8 44 Wash. 76 44 33 17 9 38 35 65 3 36 W.Va. 74 55 35 13 10 35 35 71 4 5 58* Wise. 77 52 44 18 6 36 34 67 32 37 Wyo. 80 41 43 18 11 43 39 77 30 52 Mean of Yes Responses 73 4 3 37 17 9 39 35 68 2 9 39 *Maximum 'Minimum Table 1. — Continued Question no. State 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ala. 39 11 48 53 89 59 91 25 29 20 Alaska 52 33 41 69 89 79* 95 29 34 25 Ariz. 54 33 40** 47 94 68 96 21 40 21 Ark. 46 19 55 61 94 60 94 25 30 36 Calif. 43 36 47 68 92 71 95 35 41 30 Colo. 49 29 57 51 94 56 96 21 39 34 Conn. 67 15 48 44 91 59 94 14 30 29 Del. 6 5 41* 71 59 76** 53 88 6** 29 35 Fla. 50 30 60 58 91 59 94 29 32 23 Ga. 58 24 69 60 95 59 96 19 41 30 Hawaii 77* 27 69 65 92 50 92 15 54 38 Idaho 72 27 78* 72 100* 61 100* 28 39 39 111. 49 37 68 68 98 69 98 39 58* 40 Ind. 49 29 45 70 97 70 97 33 38 26 Iowa 44 24 51 60 92 67 91 30 31 27 Kans. 56 30 56 56 95 61 97 31 24 29 Ky. La. 42 23 49 61 92 62 91 21 38 31 42 32 43 55 88 66 87 19 25 22 Maine 54 23 45 55 90 58 92 19 31 24 Md. 60 35 51 56 93 65 98 33 30 19 Mass. 55 22 51 48 82 53 86 24 34 24 Mich . 32** 27 53 59 95 56 97 28 43 30 Minn. 44 32 44 62 91 71 91 32 38 24 Miss . 51 4 3 61 73* 93 74 97 41* 21 21 Mo. 41 24 49 60 89 63 91 29 33 25 Mont. 38 36 54 62 92 77 90 33 31 18 Nebr . 56 23 56 69 97 67 97 26 36 26 Nev. 43 31 62 45 83 52 93 24 19 26 N.H. 46 12 56 34* * 90 63 92 15 37 24 N.J. 58 10 51 41 84 50 86 32 27 27 N.Mex. 50 32 40** 60 85 63 87 24 32 24 N.Y. 42 24 49 54 86 59 88 25 37 29 N.C. 64 25 59 54 91 59 91 21 34 23 N.Dak. 32** 21 46 57 89 71 93 39 29 25 Ohio 39 19 40 50 82 58 83** 13 28 25 Okla. 57 30 49 52 93 65 94 22 24 26 Oreg. Pa. 45 36 45 59 86 64 91 31 36 26 51 26 46 57 89 63 91 22 30 27 R.I. 63 19 48 52 89 52 89 19 15** 11** S.C. 61 15 52 41 90 53 92 14 36 30 S.Dak. 50 29 46 71 93 71 89 36 21 36 Tenn. 62 8** 55 49 90 67 95 15 36 25 Tex. 42 35 52 57 90 64 94 34 31 27 Utah 59 27 70 61 95 66 95 16 55 41* Vt. 46 23 40** 54 90 60 92 17 35 27 Va. 53 25 60 47 91 49** 93 27 42 28 Wash. 49 30 49 66 84 62 89 36 42 31 W . Va . 55 23 61 61 97 68 97 26 35 29 Wise. 42 23 55 69 92 72 94 32 37 32 Wyo. 59 34 50 61 93 70 95 27 23 16 Mean of Yes Responses 51 27 53 57 91 62 93 26 34 27 'Maximum 'Minimum Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine exceeded the -2a s ; Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio exceeded the -o s . Therefore, it is assumed the northeastern sector of this country is the one most unaware of the data availability from NGS. These States should be given highest priority on follow-up contracts, which are now in the planning stages . B. Question 2. Were you aware of how to order these data? Approximately 4 3% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 65% from Maryland and a minimum of 14% from Connecticut (table 1) . Analysis based on percentages: Mean = 43 °s = 9.6 2a s = 19.2 3a s = 28. 8 Connecticut exceeded the -3a s ; Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee exceeded the -o s . There- fore, it is assumed the northeastern sector of this country is the most unaware of how to order these data from NGS. This is in agreement with the replies to question 1. However, the important factor to be inferred from the answers to this ques- tion is that the comparison of the mean values of questions 1 and 2 shows approximately one-half of the users who know of data availability from NGS really understood how to order these data. By enclosing the geodetic data information packet with the questionnaire, it was anticipated that most of the users of these data would understand the NGS ordering system. How- ever, additional contacts with the users of geodetic control are planned, primarily through the NGS mark maintenance engineers, State advisors, and mobile field parties. C. Question 7. Were you familiar with the 30' quad system of ordering data? Approximately 35% of all land surveyors answered yes with the maximum of 52% from Illinois and the minimum of 17% from Connecticut (table 1) . Analysis based on percentages: Mean = 35 a s = 8.5 2o q = 17.0 Connecticut exceeded the -2a s ; Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, Massa- chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah exceeded the -o s . These results are fairly consistent with the results of question 2. The comparison of mean results of questions 2 and 7 shows that 4 3% "thought" they understood how to order data whereas 35% "actually" understood how to order data using the 30' quad system. Here again, the information packet enclosed with the questionnaire explained the 30 ' quad system, and the results are evident by the responses to ques- tion 8. D. Question 8. Do you find the 30' quad system acceptable for ordering? Approximately 6 8% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 8 3% from Idaho and a minimum of 4 8% from Connecticut (tables 1 and 2) . Analysis based on percentages: Mean =68 a s =6.8 2o s = 13.6 Connecticut and New Jersey exceeded the -2a s ; Maryland, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island exceeded the -o ? . The inference to be gained from these statistics is in direct rela- tionship with the 30' quad conversion program of the geodetic control data. The horizontal and vertical control data for the above States have not both been converted to the new system. Conversely, Idaho and North Dakota exceeded the +2a s ; California, Mississippi, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming exceeded the +a s . The horizontal control of these States has all been converted to the 30' quad system and, with the excep- tion of Mississippi and Nevada, all of the vertical control data have also been converted. The status on July 1, 1975, of conversion to 30* quad publi- cation systems for vertical and horizontal control data is depicted in figures 1 and 2, respectively. The comparison of mean results of questions 7 and 8 is most important. Only 35% responded yes to question 7. However, after reviewing the enclosed information packet, 68% responded yes to question 8. To show the degree of understanding and acceptance of the 30' quad system, a comparison by States is given in table 2. Table 2. — Yes responses to questions 7 and 3, and comparison, *A(8-7), indicating increased understanding and acceptance (in percent) . State 7 8 A(8-7) State 7 8 A (8-7) Ala. 22 68 46 Mont. 49 72 23 Alaska 39 71 32 Nebr. 51 72 21 Ariz. 4 4 77 33 Nev. 40 7 6 3 6 Ark. 31 70 39 N.H. 19 5 6 3 7 Calif. 44 75 31 N.J. 21 5 4 33 Colo. 31 70 39 N. Mex. 34 68 34 Conn . 17 (min) 48 (min) 31 N.Y. 27 57 30 Del. 29 71 42 N.C. 27 66 39 Fla. 37 73 36 N . Dak . 43 82 39 Ga. 29 67 38 Ohio 33 66 33 Hawaii 23 65 42 Okla. 40 72 32 Idaho 28 83 (max) 55 Oreg. 38 65 27 111. 52 (max) 66 14 * Pa. 35 66 31 Ind. 40 73 33 R.I. 2 6 59 33 Iowa 4 1 65 24 S.C. 31 69 38 Kans . 34 6 9 35 S. Dak. 39 7 5 36 Ky. 29 70 41 Tenn. 25 6 8 4 3 La. 35 67 32 Tex. 4 6 74 2 8 Maine 18 68 50 Utah 23 75 52 Md. 33 58 25 Vt. 27 6 9 42 Mass . 25 62 37 Va. 41 70 29 Mich . 33 6 4 31 Wash. 35 65 3 Minn. 38 65 27 W. Va. 35 71 36 Miss . 49 79 30 Wise. 34 67 33 Mo. 39 6 5 26 Wyo. 39 77 38 Mean 35 68 33 *A is used in this text to indicate a difference. In all cases, responses to questions 7 and 8 indicated in- creased understanding and acceptance of the 30' quad system, which ranged from differential increases of 14% to 55%, the average being 3 3%. It is assumed from these comparisons and results of question 9, "Would you prefer to order a single station?", (table 1) to which an average of 71% answered no, most geodetic data users not only understand the 30 ' quad sys- tem of ordering but prefer to receive data in 30' quad booklets rather than as single stations. Since the user prefers to receive data by quad units, use of quad units greatly enhances the NGSIC automated system, and more efficiency will be real- ized in filling data requests and maintenance of records; the NGS adopted a new user-charge system on February 1, 1975. 2. Automatic Mailing Service A. Question 3. Do you presently maintain a geodetic data file for your area? Approximately 37% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 64% from Illinois and a minimum of 19% from Rhode Island (table 1) . £ Q) +J w >i w C LD O r- •H -l 0) > c u I I 10 Analysis based on percentages: Mean = 37 a s = 9.2 2a s = 18.4 The only discernible information to be reported concerning a s is that the New England States are less prone to maintain geodetic data files. There is a great degree of scatter throughout the Nation as to the extent to which land survey- ors maintain geodetic data files. The important factor is that, according to responses to the questionnaire, 37% of all land surveyors do maintain geodetic data files. B. Question 4. Were you previously aware of the NGS Auto- matic Mailing System? Approximately 17% of all land surveyors answered yes, with the maximum of 37% from Illinois and the minimum of 6% from Alabama (table 1) . The land surveyors of Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, New Jersey, South Caroli- na, and Tennessee answered no to this question more than 90% of the time. The indications from responses to this question are that this Nation's surveyors must be further informed of NGS ' s Automatic Mailing System through follow-up contacts by NGS Mark Mainte- nance engineer and State advisors, NGS geodetic field parties, NGS Information Center, professional society meetings, work- shops, etc., in conjunction with fulfilling primary missions. C. Question 5. Do you now subscribe to the Automatic Mailing System? It is no surprise that the surveyors responded 91% negative- ly to this question considering the responses to question 4. The advantages of enclosing the geodetic information packet in mailing the questionnaire to all land surveyors are great when the responses to question 5 are compared with those to question 6. (Tables 1 and 3.) D. Question 6. Do you plan to subscribe to the Automatic Mailing System? Approximately 39% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 58% from Illinois and Hawaii and a minimum of 21% from North Dakota. Even though this mean of 39% is much lower than NGS anticipates in the future, it still represents a differential improvement of 30% over the situation (tables 1 and 3) . 11 Table 3. — Yes responses to questions 5 and 6, and comparison, A (6-5) , indicating planned increases to subscription (in percent) . State 5 6 A (6-5) State 5 6 A(6-5) Ala. 5 43 38 Mpnt. 5 41 36 Alaska 10 23 13 Nebr. 8 38 30 Ariz. 4 26 22 Nev. 19 48 29 Ark. 8 41 33 N.H. 7 32 25 Calif. 16 32 16 N.J. 4 35 31 Colo. 9 45 36 N. Mex. 13 34 21 Conn. 3 41 38 N.Y. 8 31 23 Del. 12 47 35 N.C. 4 52 48 Fla. 12 46 34 N. Dak. 14 21 (min) 7 Ga. 7 53 46 Ohio 7 28 21 Hawaii (min) 58 (max) 58 Okla. 4 32 28 Idaho 6 44 38 Oreg. 12 2 9 17 111. 17 58 (max) 41 Pa. 7 28 21 Ind. 35 (max) 42 7 R.I. 19 4 8 29 Iowa 7 31 24 s.c. 4 42 38 Kans . 3 3 9 36 S. Dak. 4 32 2 8 Ky. 5 34 29 Tenn. 2 42 40 La. 10 29 19 Tex. 11 42 31 Maine 2 43 41 Utah 11 55 44 Md. 9 40 31 Vt. 19 44 25 Mass . 5 39 34 Va. 11 43 32 Mich. 4 40 36 Wash. 9 3 8 2 9 Minn. 3 32 29 W. Va. .10 35 25 Miss . 14 41 27 Wise . 6 36 30 Mo. 5 38 33 Wyo . 11 43 32 Mean 9 39 30 The immediate results of the mailing with respect to the NGS automatic mailing system are graphically displayed below: 2000 | 1500 •H U u o 1000 en £ 500 00 00 FY-> 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Figure 3. — Number of subscribers, shown by fiscal years 12 The NGS automatic mailing system has been operational since FY 63. The number of subscribers has increased over the last 9 years at an average rate of 4%. However, because of the 1973 mailing to all land surveyors, the total number of new subscribers increased from 1283 in 1973 to 2013 in 1975, an average increase of 18%. This indicates not only that the users were not well informed of this service in the past, but also the dynamic need and requirement of such a system for this Nation's surveyors. It is anticipated that the average growth rate of subscribers will increase at a much greater rate as the Nation's surveyors realize where, when, and how they can obtain geodetic control data, and as the NGS awareness program to in- form and assist users is improved through the State Geodetic Advisor program. 3. Control Diagrams and Unadjusted Data A. Control Diagrams (questions 10 and 11) The two major series of diagrams prepared and published by NGS are the Geodetic Control Diagrams (GCD) 1° x 2° (1:250,000) and the horizontal and vertical State Control Diagrams (various scales). These diagrams are used as cartographic indexes to geodetic control stations and networks. They are used pri- marily in survey project planning and control station selection From all indications, neither series are used as often as anticipated. See responses in tables 1 and 4 to question 10, "Do you prefer the 1:250,000 Geodetic Control Diagrams?" and question 11, "Do you prefer the State Control Diagrams?". A reason for low responses (average of 39% yes for question 10 and 51% yes for question 11) could be a weakness in the questionnaire. A possible question should have been "Were you aware of the Geodetic Control Diagrams of NGS?" By not having such a question, we were not able to obtain information on who was knowledgable about the diagrams. Furthermore, the land surveyors did not receive copies of State Control or Geodetic Control Diagrams as part of the information packet. If these diagrams had been included, the cost of the mailing would have increased considerably. Since each diagram costs 50C, the increased mailing cost would have been $36,000. The following differential table (table 4) of mean compari- sons indicates that in most cases, State Control Diagrams are preferred over GCD ' s . L3 Table 4. --Yes responses to questions 10 and 11, and comparison, A (11-10) indicating preference for State Control Diagrams over GCD's (in percent) . State 10 11 A (11-10) State 10 11 A (11-10) Ala. 41 39 -2 Mont. 46 38 -8 Alaska 52 52 Nebr. 44 5 6 + 12 Ariz. 44 54 + 10 Nev. 52 43 -9 Ark. 34 46 + 12 N.H. 34 4 6 + 12 Calif. 51 43 -8 N.J. 27 5 8 + 31 Colo. 46 49 + 3 N . Me x . 41 5 + 9 Conn. 24 67 + 43 N.Y. 34 42 + 8 Del. 24 65 + 4i N.C. 27 64 + 37 Fla. 40 50 + 10 N. Dak. 50 32 (min) -18 Ga. 44 58 + 14 Ohio 22 (min) 39 + 17 Hawaii 38 77 (max) +39 Okla. 46 57 + 11 Idaho 33 72 + 39 Oreg. 36 45 + 9 111. 53 49 -4 Pa. 37 51 + 14 Ind. 40 49 + 9 R.I. 2 2 (min) 6 3 + 41 Iowa 34 44 + 10 S.C. 36 61 + 25 Kans . 53 56 + 3 S . Dak . 36 50 + 14 Ky. 41 42 + 1 Tenn. 31 6 2 + 31 La. 36 42 + 6 Tex. 49 42 -7 Maine 41 54 + 13 Utah 41 5 9 +18 Md. 37 60 + 23 Vt. 2 9 46 + 17 Mass . 30 55 + 25 Va. 4 4 53 + 9 Mich. 38 32 (min) -6 Wash. 36 4 + 13 Minn. 38 44 + 6 W. Va. 58 (max) 55 -3 Miss . 34 51 + 17 Wise. 37 42 (-5 Mo. 39 41 + 2 Wyo. 5 2 5 9 f 7 Mean 39 51 + 12 To prove or disprove which series of diagrams are preferred and to assist this office in determining the best course of action to satisfy user needs in the most economical manner, a small random sample, 500 to 6 00, of university, State and Federal agencies, and professional societies concerned with surveying and mapping, should be taken. The results of this sampling could be used in combination with the results of this questionnaire . From this questionnaire alone, it is quite evident that both series of diagrams must be maintained. The idea of replacing the State Control Diagrams with the GCD's is totally unjustifi- able as indicated by responses of the primary users of such diagrams. However, consideration must be given to a more appropriate base that will satisfy a larger percentage of users and possibly replace both series now in use. 14 B. Unadjusted Geodetic Data - (Questions 12 and 13) Unadjusted geodetic data may be defined as control data that have not been adjusted to, or adjusted as part of the National Horizontal and Vertical Networks for various reasons, such as more field data are required to complete particular projects, more observations are required to improve geometric relation- ships or accuracy of work, time lag between completion of field project and final adjustment. It is important to com- pare the responses to question 12, "Were you aware that unadjusted and unpublished data are available?" - 2 7% answered yes - and question 13, "Would you desire to receive such data?' - 53% answered yes (tables 1 and 5) . Many of the users of geodetic data who previously were unaware of the availability of unadjusted and unpublished data desire to receive such data. Unadjusted data have always been available to the user. However, as indicated by responses, a very low percentage of users realized these data were available. Table 5 indicates these data are required by a surprisingly high percentage of users . Table 5. — Yes responses to questions 12 and 13, and comparison; A (13-12), indicating increased requirement for unadjusted and unpublished data (in percent) . State 12 13 A (13-12) State 12 13 A (13-12) Ala. 11 48 + 37 Mont. 36 54 + 18 Alaska 33 41 + 8 Nebr. 23 56 + 33 Ariz . 33 40 (min) +7 Nev. 31 62 + 31 Ark. 19 55 + 36 N.H. 12 56 + 44 Calif. 36 47 + 11 N.J. 10 51 + 41 Colo. 29 57 + 28 N. Mex. 32 40 (min) +8 Conn. 15 48 + 33 N.Y. 24 49 + 25 Del. 41 (max) 71 + 30 N.C. 25 59 + 34 Fla. 30 60 + 30 N. Dak. 21 46 + 25 Ga. 24 69 + 45 Ohio 19 40 + 21 Hawaii 27 69 + 42 Okla. 30 49 + 19 Idaho 27 78 (max) +51 Oreg. 36 45 + 9 111. 37 68 + 31 Pa. 26 46 + 20 Ind. 29 45 + 16 R.I. 19 48 + 29 Iowa 24 51 + 27 S.C. 15 52 + 37 Kans . 30 56 +26 S. Dak. 29 46 + 17 Ky. 23 49 + 26 Tenn. 8 (min) 55 + 47 La. 32 43 + 11 Tex. 35 52 + 17 Maine 23 45 + 22 Utah 27 70 + 43 Md. 35 51 + 16 Vt. 23 4 (mi n) +17 Mass . 22 51 + 29 Va. 25 60 + 35 Mich. 27 53 + 26 Wash. 30 49 + 19 Minn. 32 44 + 12 W. Va. 23 61 + 38 Miss . 43 61 + 18 Wise. 23 55 + 32 Mo. 24 49 + 25 Wyo. 34 50 + 16 Mean 27 5 3 + 26 15 The information packet mailed with the questionnaire explained the availability of unadjusted data and, from all indications, it was noted in a most positive manner. 4. Mark Preservation Program A. Question 14 - Were you aware of the NGS Mark Preservation Program? Approximately 57% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 73% from Mississippi and a minimum of 34% from New Hampshire (tables 1 and 6) . Analysis based on percentages: Mean = 5 7 a s = 8.7 2a s = 17.4 New Hampshire exceeded the -2o s ; Arizona, Connecticut, Massa- chusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia exceeded the -a s . From these results, it is evident the survey- ors from these States are not very aware of the NGS Mark Preservation Program. Informing them will be given highest priority. Conversely, Alaska, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin exceeded the +a s and are considered as the States most aware of the NGS Mark Preservation Program; low priority will be assigned to follow-up contacts. The importance of mailing information packets with the questionnaire is realized when comparing question 14 with question 15 - "Are you willing to assist NGS Engineers in the preservation program?" (Tables 1 and 6.) Approximately 91% of all land surveyors answered yes to question 15. The Mark Preservation Program is the most cost-effective pro- gram of NGS. Through this initial mail contact with the surveyors of the Nation, and the resultant propagation of knowledge of the NGS Mark Preservation Program, it is antici- pated that an ever-increasing cost avoidance will be realized. The mean comparison between questions 14 and 15 in table 6 indicates very favorable results. B. Question 16 - Do you know how to report a monument in danger of being disturbed? Approximately 62% of all land surveyors answered yes, with a maximum of 79% from Alaska and a minimum of 49% from Virginia (table 1) . 16 Table 6. — Yes responses to questions 14 and 15, and comparison, A (15-14) indicating increased willingness to participate in Mark Preservation Program (in percent) . State 14 15 A (15-14) State 14 15 A (15-14) Ala. 53 89 36 Mont. 62 92 30 Alaska 69 89 20 Nebr. 69 97 28 Ariz. 47 94 47 Nev. 45 83 38 Ark. 61 94 33 N.H. 34 (min) 90 56 Calif. 68 92 24 N.J. 41 84 43 Colo. 51 94 43 N. Mex. 60 85 25 Conn. 44 91 47 N.Y. 54 86 32 Del. 59 76 (min) 17 N.C. 54 91 37 Fla. 58 91 33 N. Dak. 57 89 32 Ga. 60 95 35 Ohio 50 82 32 Hawaii 65 92 27 Okla. 52 93 41 Idaho 72 100 (max) 28 Oreg. 59 86 27 111. 68 98 30 Pa. 57 89 32 Ind. 70 97 27 R.I. 52 89 37 Iowa 60 92 32 S.C. 41 90 49* Kans . 56 95 39 S. Dak. 71 93 22 Ky. 61 92 31 Tenn. 49 90 41 La. 55 88 33 Tex. 57 90 33 Maine 55 90 35 Utah 61 95 34 Md. 56 93 37 Vt. 54 90 36 Mass . 48 82 34 Va. 47 91 44 Mich . 59 95 36 Wash. 66 84 18 Minn. 62 91 29 W. Va. 61 97 36 Miss . 73 (max) 93 20 Wise. 69 92 23 Mo. 60 89 29 Wyo. 61 93 32 Mean 57 91 34 Analysis based on percentages: Me an = 6 2 s 2a, 7. 3 14.6 No state exceeded the -2a s ; Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia exceeded the -a s . Conversely, Arizona, California, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming exceeded the +a s . These results indicate States least and most aware, respectively, of how to report a monument in danger of being disturbed. These, in conjunction with other results of the questionnaire, will be used to determine the priority list of follow-up contacts (as explained in the report summary) and planned actions. 17 By comparing responses to question 16 above with question 18, "Have you previously submitted such reports?" (table 1), the need for immediate action is indicated. Even though 62% of the surveyors knew how to report endangered marks, only 26% actually submitted such reports. However, because of this mailing of information packets and questionnaires to the land surveyors, considerable improvement in the situation is indicated. More surveyors understand the procedures and actually plan to submit "Report on Condition of Survey Marker" reports. Table 7 shows a comparison between questions 18 and 17, "When applicable, are you willing to submit 'Report on Condition of Survey Marker 1 cards?" and the responses indicate this willingness. Table 7. — Yes responses to questions 17 and 18, and comparison, A (17-18) , indicating willingness of land surveyors to report on condition of survey markers (in percent) . State 17 18 A (17-18) State 17 18 A (17-18) Ala. 91 25 66 Mont. 90 33 57 Alaska 95 29 66 Nebr. 97 2 6 71 Ariz. 96 21 75 Nev. 9 3 2 4 69 Ark. 94 25 69 N.H. 92 15 77 Calif. 95 35 60 N.J. 86 32 54 Colo. 96 21 75 N. Mex. 87 24 63 Conn. 94 14 80 N.Y. 88 2 5 6 3 Del. 88 6 (min) 82 N.C. 91 2 1 70 Fla. 94 29 65 N. Dak. 93 39 5 4 Ga. 96 19 77 Ohio 83 (min) 13 70 Hawaii 92 15 77 Okla. 94 2 2 7 2 Idaho 100 (max) 28 72 Oreg. 91 31 60 111. 98 39 59 Pa. 91 22 69 Ind. 97 33 64 R.I. 89 19 70 Iowa 91 30 61 S.C. 92 14 713 Kans . 97 31 66 S. Dak. 8 9 36 5 3 Ky. 91 21 70 Tenn. 9 5 15 80 La. 87 19 68 Tex. 94 34 60 . Maine 92 19 73 Utah 95 16 19 Md. 98 33 65 vt. 92 17 7 5 Mass . 86 24 62 Va. 93 27 66 Mich. 97 28 69 Wash. 89 36 53 Minn. 91 32 59 W.^ Va. 97 26 71 Miss. 97 41 (max) 56 Wise. 94 32 6 2 Mo. 91 29 62 Wyo. 9 5 2 7 68 Mean 93 26 67 5. Future Data Products A. Question 19. "Would you desire recommended NGS specifica- tions for: 1:100,000 Traverse; 1:50,000 Traverse; 1:20,000 Traverse; 1:15,000 Traverse; 1:10,000 Traverse; or 1:5,000 Traverse?" was asked to ascertain whether any qreat differences occur in types of data needed or surveys performed with regard to desired accuracies. As anticipated, surveyor's needs were fairly equal between 1:100,000 to 1:5,000 with slightly more requirements toward the lower end of this range. Results from the questionnaire indicate that 44% of JLand surveyors require data of greater than or equal to 1:20,000 and 56% require data of less than 1:20,000. This substantiates the need for in- clusion of third- or lower-order geodetic data in the NGS Data Base; this is now in the pilot test stages of design. B. Question 20. "If available, would you prefer data to be furnished as: Paper copy; Microfiche; Microfilm; Magnetic tape; or other (indicate form)?" This question was asked to determine future user needs with regard to type media on which data are available. The results are as follows: paper copy, 95.1%; microform (microfilm or microfiche), 4.8%; magnetic tape, 0.1%. The percentages clearly indicate that land surveyors are primarily interested in paper copy. Most of the individuals contacted operate small offices at the local level and have no real or justifiable need for microform or magnetic tapes, nor do they have the equipment to use such media. Even though this question was biased in favor of paper copy, it -is surprising that 5% of those questioned prefer to receive microform. If this question were asked of Federal, State or local government, the reverse response would likely be received; i.e., microform or magnetic tape would be preferred to paper copy. As the NGS Data Base develops, the user of geodetic control data will have the option of receiving data in paper copy, microform, or magnetic tape form. SUMMARY A. A total of 6005 questionnaires was received and evaluated (table 1, and figure 6 of appendix 2). Evaluation showed the following: 1. 39% of the land surveyors planned to join the automatic mailing service; previously only 9% were subscribers. Net gain 30%. 19 2. 91% of the land surveyors planned to provide assistance to NGS Mark Maintenance engineers; previously 5 7% provided assis- tance. Net gain: 34%. 3. 93% of the land surveyors planned to report condition of survey marks; previously 26% submitted such reports. Net gain 67%. An estimate of the net value of assistance promised as a result of this questionnaire is tabulated below: Net qain Value of public assistance* per unit (man hours) Total value of public assistance (man hours) 1. 30% of 6005^1802 2. 34% of 6005^2042 3. 67% of 6005=^4023 450 4,084 16,092 20,626 20,626 man hours-10 man years at $25,000 each, of public assistance: $250,000 per year. Total value In the supporting statement to 0MB, prior to mailing, an estimated total value of $155,000 in voluntary assistance per year was predicted. The large difference in these figures resulted primarily because a much higher percentage of respond- ents indicated willingness to assist NGS Mark Maintenance engineers than was anticipated. Similarly, an estimated cost of $37,000 was predicted. How- ever, the total cost of mailing questionnaires and evaluating results was approximately $4 3,000. The difference between the estimated and actual cost was caused by the need to type address labels for 43 states; only 7 states furnished computer generated address labels. Through this initial mailing to all U.S. land surveyors (36,000), at the cost of $43,000, the NGS will be provided a projected $250,000 in voluntary assistance per year from those who responded to the questionnaire (6,000). To continue the awareness of availability of geodetic data and to perpetuate even larger voluntary actions by this Nation's sur- veyors to assist the Federal Government, the NGS plans to con- tinue its awareness program by various me„thods as mentioned in this report summary. (See B. and C.) *Voluntary actions by the surveying profession to assist the Federal Government, directly (field) or indirectly (office). 20 Pre-and post-questionnaire accumulative values of public assistance are shown in figure 4. 7 3 75 FISCAL YEARS Figure 4. --Estimated values of public assistance before and after Geodetic Data Questionnaire was circulated. B. This study was directed to the grass roots of the surveying profession, the land surveyor, who, in essence, represents small business. However, because of their number, approxi- mately 36,000, they collectively represent a large ^percentage of the surveying and engineering public. For this reason, the results of this survey are of extreme importance and will have considerable influence on the development of future programs and priorities of the National Geodetic Survey. Actions are 21 planned or have been taken in the following areas as a result of this questionnaire. 1. The implementation of a quadrangle pricing and distribu- tion system will provide the following: a. Expedite the response time to user requests for geo- detic control data. b. Provide the data in the most desirable format for user c. Reduce NGS processing and billing expenditures (esti- mated as equivalent to h man year of effort) . d. Reduce NGS file space requirements by 1,6 80 square feet at an annual cost avoidance of approximately $10,000. 2. Initial steps have been taken toward developing a Nation- al Geodetic Data Center from which all control data can be obtained by the user. Currently, only first- and second-order control is available from NGS. The need for such a Center is evident, because of the high percentage of organizations that maintain geodetic files. The justification for such a Center is strengthened by the requirement for unadjusted data, which indicates that sufficient control data do not exist or are not readily available to the user in many areas. 3. There will be increased emphasis on educating users of geodetic control data as to their availability and the proper procedures for obtaining them. Examples of this would be: a. Direct contact with the users through the Mark Main- tenance Program and the geodetic field parties. b. Increased participation by NGS at State surveying and engineering meetings. c. Preparation of slide shows for use at meetings below the state level, or at meetings not attended by NGS representatives . d. Publication of articles on NGS data availability by surveying and engineering publications. e. Mailing of information packets to selected users. 4. As the present diagram series do not appear to fully satisfy user requirements, studies are under way to develop 22 cartographic procedures that can fulfill individual needs. As mentioned earlier, approval should be given to conduct a random sampling to determine user needs for control diagrams (of which NGSIC now maintains approximately 900). With the results of this questionnaire and future sampling, the development of a entirely new series of diagrams, or a continuation of the present series with special-purpose overlays may be required. This office will investigate the procedures required. 5. As data in the quadrangle format are the most desired, emphasis is being placed on the conversion of all data to this format. The National Geodetic Survey Data Base , now under development, will enable users to receive data in various for- mats, such as microfilm and magnetic tape, in addition to paper. The 5% requirement for data in other than paper form is considered extremely high as most land surveyors are neither familiar with these kinds of data, nor with the associated hardware required for their use. C. On the basis of the results of this questionnaire and input from the NGS Information Center and Operations Division, a priority list of follow-up contacts was developed. The pri- ority list is : Priority Area Number codes Total Number 1 New England States 2 Northeastern States 3 North Central States 4 South Central States 5 Southeastern States 6 Northwestern States 7 Southwestern States (See figure 5*) of States 1 and A 7 2 and 6 8 7, 8, and 9 11 10, 13, and B 7 3, 4, and 5 8 11, 12, and Alaska 5 4, 15, C, and Hawaii 4 D. The following guidelines will be used in formulating the NGS plan of follow-up contacts. 1. All states should be visited within 18 months commencing about January 1, 19 76 and ending July 1977. 2. The plan must be developed with respect to: a. State or country officials to be visited based on known contacts. (See sample found on pages 25 and 26.) These contacts should be made by NGS office personnel. *Figure 5 shows the regions of NGS Network Maintenance engi- neers; this explains the numbers coded above. 23 b. Local land surveyors at professional society meetings, etc., should be contacted collectively. These con- tacts should be made by each Network Maintenance engineer for his area of responsibility. c. During all contacts, the mission, products, and services of NGS will be discussed. d. Impact on office personnel and network engineers must be documented early during the planning stage. e. During the implementation stage, continuous moni- toring of actual and projected voluntary assistance to NGS is mandatory. 24 20S O PJ f- « « Q O > to t- U = < o fr- Z OS --> £ a! o h 60 4J B B i g ■ • U Oi-rt o • B. *J 3 S £ OS Z a.co 3 w 4-> C/> ^t J JJ c/) b <* a> M < O h >0 ■P Q O ■M E d a> o s E C -C o i) 1 3 » ifl ^ c « Ph g -H M H 3 !-i 00 J3 O H O -H 0> ^ ^i - b a. <-> j; n! n) j: ■3 $ >. • .* u o u J a co 35. U O i w oi z U 3 < ill ps h 2 a OS (K ^ 1-1 :s +j 0) c IW o in a; w en • 0) en M (0 T3 a; Ti 5-i «J (0 T) m •H ■P C) a) (1) u a c (0 fd QJ c H a) -p 5^ c •H iw id F w 5-1 >J a; M (i) O c is •H 4J m QJ c C 0) IH (1) O C) c in 01 01 C 0) 0) H -P fi c ■H iH m tti fi o •H x: a to S-l tn O u 25 NETWORK MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS AND STATES SERVED 3. Rolland D. Sveum a. Maine b. New Hampshire c . Rhode Island d. Connecticut G . Vermont f . Massachusetts g. New York Ra lph G. Poust a. Pennsylvania b. New Jersey c. Maryland d. West Virginia e . Delaware f . D.C. Martin E. Zimmer a. Virginia b. North Carolina c. South Carolina Robert P. Konrady a. b. Georgia Florida 5 . Donald D. Rexrode a. Alabama b. Mississippi c. Arkansas 6. Floyd K. Stuart a. Ohio b. Tennessee c. Kentucky 7. John D. Rigney a. Indiana b. Illinois c. Wisconsin d. Michigan 8. John S. Rindal a. Minnesota b. North Dakota c. South Dakota 9. James E. Fuchs 12 13 14 15 a . b. c. d. Missouri Iowa Kansas Nebraska 10 . Percy Chamley a. b. Texas Oklahoma 11. James T. Stapleton a. Washington b. Montana c. Idaho North of latitude 46° Floyd A. Martin a. Oregon b. Idaho South of latitude 46° Norman E. Matlock a. Colorado b. New Mexico c. Utah d. Wyoming Leo A. Critchlow a . CA + NV North of latitude 37' Jay L . Gummow a. CA + NV South of latitude 37° GEODETIC ADVISORS A. Richard F. Hanson New York B. A. K. Hansen Louisiana C. Larry W. Wakefield Arizona 26 Vermont District 1 ; Gleason Ayers Box 320 Bowlen Road Bennington 05201 442-2051 District 2 : John Clifford Box 6 36 Rattleboro 05 301 254-5011 District 3 : Marinum Van Kleef Box 666 Rutland 05701 District 4 : Frank Auldrich Box 995 White River Junction 05001 295-2815 District 5 : Donald Remick Box 168 Essex Junction 05452 655-1581 District 6: District 7 : Hugh Elder Box 370 St. Johnsberry 05819 748-2911 District 8 : Sanford Brigham P.O. Box 228 St. Auburn 05478 524-5926 District 9 : Franklin Round Box 18 7 Newport 05 855 334-7934 COUNTIES Addison Bennington Celedonia Chittenden Essex Franklin Grand Isle Lamoille Orange Orleans Rutland Washington Windham Windsor Milan W. Lawson Box 857 Montpelier 05-6 02 828-2691 21 APPENDIX 1. Questionnaire and information packet. A. Letter of transmittal B. Notice of relocation of National Geodetic Survey Information Center C. Geodetic data questionnaire, NOAA Form 75-69 D. Network maintenance information sheet E. Geodetic Survey Mark Preservation notice (NOAA/PA 73022 (Rev. )1974) F. Geodetic Control Data Automatic Mailing List Agreement, NOAA Form 2 9-3 G. Bibliography 28 APPENDIX 1. A. Letter of Transmittal U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oeaanie and Atmospheric Administn NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY Rockville. Md. 20852 Reference: C18 Dear Sir: We have taken the liberty of sending the enclosed materials concerning the availability of services and/or geodetic data furnished by the National Geodetic Survey. This infor- mation is being sent because you are a registered land surveyor in your state and this may be useful to facilitate the accomplishment of your surveying goals. The National Geodetic Survey was formerly a component of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and is now a component of the National Ocean Survey. The primary mission of the National Geodetic Survey is the establishment and maintenance of the horizontal and vertical geodetic control networks of the United States. Geodetic control is a primary necessity in the surveying and mapping field. To assist this office in developing future programs which will provide better service to the users, it is requested that you complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to this office. This questionnaire has been prepared on a pre-addressed card requiring no postage to minimize time and effort required in its preparation. Your cooperation in this program is greatly appreciated. The relationship of land surveying and reliability of control is a mutually inclusive problem. Therefore, if you wish to receive control data, please write to: The Director, NGS Information Center, C18, Rockville, Maryland 20852. For additional information regarding our services, please contact this office. Sincerely , Allen L. Powell Rear Admi ral , NOAA Di rector National Ocean Survey Encl osure 29 B. Notice of Relocation of National Geodetic Survey Information Center U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY Rockville. Md. 20852 NOTICE - RELOCATION On July 31, 1972, the operations of the National Geodetic Survey Information Center, ATTN: C18, and the National Geodetic Survey Information Center, Distribution Branch, ATTN: C185, Federal Building, Asheville, N.C., of the National Geodetic Survey, was relocated in Rockville, Md. All correspondence and inquiries requesting geodetic control data should be directed to: The Di rector National Geodetic Survey NGS Information Center, C18 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Telephone Number: Area Code 301-443-8631 On March 31, 1973, the National Geodetic Survey Operations Center, located in Kansas City, Missouri, was closed, and the functions of this office were transferred to the NGS headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. All requests for relocation of geodetic survey monuments should be directed to: Director, National Ge-odetic Survey 6001 Executive Boulevard ATTN: CI 72 Rockville, Maryland " 20852 Telephone Number: Area Code: 301-443-8319 30 C. Geodetic Data Questionnaire, NOAA Form 75-69 NOAA FORM 75-69 (5-73) FORM APPROVED OMB. NO. 41-S73040 GEODETIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE 7. WERE YOU F, DATA ? 1. WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY AWARE OF DATA AVAILABLE FROM NGS ? 2. WERE YOU AWARE OF HOW TO ORDER THIS DATA ? 3. DO YOU PRESENTLY MAINTAIN A GEODETIC DATA FILE FOR YOUR AREA ? 4. WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY AWARE OFTHE NGS AUTOMATIC MAILING SYSTEM ? 5. DO YOU NOW SUBSCRIBE TO THE AUTOMATIC MAILING SYSTEM? 6. DO YOU PLAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AUTOMATIC MAILING SYSTEM ? ^R WITH THE 30' QUADRANGLE SYSTEM OF ORDERING 8. DO YOU FIND THE 30' QUADRANGLE SYSTEM ACCEPTABLE FOR ORDERING ? 9. WOULD YOU PREFER TO ORDER A SINGLE STATION ? 10. DO YOU PREFER THE 1:250.000 GEODETIC CONTROL DIAGRAMS ? 11. DO YOU PREFER THE STATE CONTROL DIAGRAMS ? 12. WERE YOU AWARE THAT UNADJUSTED AND UNPUBLISHED DATA ARE AVAILABLE ? 13. WOULD YOU DESIRE TO RECEIVE SUCH DATA ? 14. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE NGS MARK PRESERVATION PROGRAM ? 15. ARE YOU WILLING TO ASSIST NGS ENGINEERS IN THE PRESERVATION PROGRAM ? 16. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO REPORT A MONUMENT IN DANGER OF BEING DISTURBED ? 17. WHEN APPLICABLE, ARE YOU WILLING TO SUBMIT " REPORT ON CONDITION OF SURVEY MARKER" CARDS ? 18. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SUCH REPORTS ? 19. WOULD YOU DESIRE RECOMMENDED NGS SPECIFICATIONS FOR: 1:100,000 TRAVERSE ( ) ; 1 :50, 000 T R A VERSE ( ); 1 :20, 000 TRAVERSE ( 1 :15, 000 TRAVERSE ( ); 1 : 1 0,000 T R A VERSE ( ) ; 1:5,000 TRAVERSE ( ) 20. IF AVAILABLE WOULD YOU PREFER DATA TO BE FURNISHED AS: PAPER COPY ( ) ; MICROFICHE ( ) ; MICROFILM ( ) ; MAGNETIC TAPE ( OTHER . SIGNATURE ( OPTIONAL COMMENTS : FIRM ADDRESS: 31 CO i— o <— CO 4-> • CO CO ro CU •— -M > CO t/i «a: CTv - Z O o: >- i— . . ,r— O .C CO > 3 TJO Dl O C 4-> CO J- >> CU 1. X * (. E -r- - O X 3 CO O S- O rO ro CU ■ — o co D- CO CO 3 ""OLj-c— u_ co o - CO i— D. _l r— O- Ll_ 5 LO O CU «3" M CTi xz c o 3 o qj «a- o +-> > CTi EW< •.- • i- TJ < r- _l CU -r- .c » 3 to 0(0 >> ro S- 0) -i- o (O J- CU _! CU T- T> Q > ct: <*- . ex .o o • o «3" CO ro LO . . ■— CM Q- r- Q. 3 lu s; oc:«* Q > c coo O 3 O • co 3: cm o - <_> +J to 3 . CO -a l- LO +J CO CO CM >> LO X3 LO (O CU O >>0 r— •r- O > o.'^r S- U CM CU •■- CD CO < CO i in a. I CO i— en s_ i O JD •r- s: 3 o cc co ' o s- . . (O 1 Q- X ^ .— s- rO O • -t- z < s- CO r— Q-O . E n LO ►-< ro .C I — CO CO S •- i CO > -C T3 CO CD • ■— c "O •— Q. C c Q- O >>- CU CU C X 3 Q- L0 op mm .C O o CU s- i — ro O O CO +-> 31 CO "-zr>r •"3 S- "O -t-> • CU «* c O . 3 O 4-> ■— CO . --. +J O . . fO JC Jd <0 CD <0 LO ■ — fsl ro CU CO •r- _c S- J= i. +J O +J o o E co Or- +J r- "O l/) o to co x: cu o 3 J- SZ 3 O +J -l-> 4J C C CU O QIC o C CO •r- r- ^ -a C O S- CO •r- S- O -* <0 C O CU E ro LO CU o x: oo ■ r— <-> , CO ro ro CU C-OE1- s. Geodetic Survey Mark Preservation Notice (NOAA/PA 73022 (Rev.) 1974) GEODETIC SURVEY MARK PRESERVATION During the past century and a half, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Ocean Survey (formerly the Coast and Geodetic Survey) has been determining with great accuracy the latitude and longitude and/or elevation of thousands of locations throughout the United States. At each point a bronze marker is imbedded in cement or bedrock More than half a million of these markers have been placed in the U.S. and its possessions. The bronze disks, measuring about three and one-half inches in diameter, mark survey points for latitude and longitude, elevation, gravity, and azimuth or direction. They are used by engineers, surveyors, and mapping agencies as the basis or framework for maps, charts, local control and boundary surveys, and for various public and private engineering projects. The cost of surveying and placing a single mark ranges from around $100 to several thousand, depending on the type of survey, accuracy, and proximity to other survey monuments. Resurveying operations throughout the United States have revealed the destruction of an alarming number of permanent survey marks. To remedy this situation as much as possible, NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, asks the public's cooperation in preserving these marks. Many of the marks have been covered with dirt or debris and destroyed because construction /** ^ \ U S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Survey crews were not aware of their location. To prevent this, the practice of marking the location of the survey disks with wooden posts set nearby was begun in the 1940's. As these wooden posts deteriorated, metal signs bolted to metal fence posts were later substituted. These white signs, called Witness Posts, are set near survey marks to aid in their recovery and protection. Here's how the public can help preserve these marks: Never remove or disturb a survey marker unless authorization is obtained from NOAA. The National Geodetic Survey has a team of Mark Maintenance Engineers who will normally perform the necessary maintenance. If a mark is removed or displaced, its value as a survey point is lost and expensive re-surveying is usually required. If you see a survey mark which appears in danger of destruction or damage by erosion, construction, or other causes, please take appro- priate steps to preserve it. If danger is by construction, call it to the attention of the foreman or flag the mark by stakes. You will be performing a commendable public service in helping to preserve these valuable survey markers. In all cases, submit a report of your actions or finding to Director, National Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland, 20852. v™/ 33 KIMOWTHESE MARKS VERTICAL (NEW) Sv 5 ^ = 8a? A VJ TRAVERSE (OLD) A E .?ftr> 8WS us? I f-,s »>.** I 9f~ REFERENCE (OLD) #*? -^_ £fr VERTICAL (OLD) ^ oeoon vC j,. ,;:;x: HORIZONTAL (NEW) TRSANGULATION (OLD) Is*: GRAVITY (OLD) FACE LEGENDS (NEW) imm '*:r\ 2 r- 2 r- >- r- O -I » *-> u a. n\ tn O cm » ~-« 3 >- « o u » ^ o «_> O i- — 2: ^ W Z O Z Ul O o C0 <0 i/l (/] -i-l --• ^ O UJ Ul I— I l/> to Z) ~ Z> O, W 111 ^ or o o 111 St- >- >- CM o X ^ ^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976— 210-801/220