Informal e-mail communication received from Gary Raines, USGS, May 8, 1996: ************************************ Digital Geologic Maps For The Future - Initial Informal Workshop Notes of meeting from Portland meeting, held April 22, 1996. Below is a summary of the meeting, some notes from discussion afterwards, a list of things to do, and a list of participants. The notes have been assembled from several sources that attempt to summarize the feel and process of the meeting. Lesley Chorlton provided much of the text, which I have edited. I apologize if I have forgotten someone's contribution or misrepresented their ideas. Please communicate your corrections and thoughts on how to proceed to me or another of the organizers and your offers to help and participate. There is a lot we have to do in order to bring this to a useful conclusion. Important things to do are discussed below. The major items are get more people involved, prepare a Penrose Conference, and develop working groups now. For those that can receive attachments, I have attached this document in WordPerfect 6.0 for Windows (meet1.wpd) and Micorsoft Word 5.0 (meet1.ms5) formats. This may be the second copy. I believe the MS Word attachment was not with the first transmission. Gary Raines, May 8, 1996 MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Digital Geologic Maps For The Future - Initial Informal Workshop A Call for Participation GSA Cordilleran Section meeting- Portland, Oregon, April 22, 1996, 7-10 pm Organizers: Gary Raines, USGS, (702) 784-5596, graines@usgs.unr.edu Boyan Brodaric, Geologic Survey of Canada, (613) 992-3562, brodaric@gsc.emr.ca Jon Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, (702) 784-6691, jprice@nbmg.unr.edu John Oldow, University of Idaho, (208) 885-6192, oldow@uidaho.edu Todd Fitzgibbon, USGS, (415) 329-4942, tfitz@sierra.wr.usgs.gov Ralph Haugerud, USGS, (206) 553-5542, rah@geology.washington.edu Statement of Theme It is the responsibility of geologic organizations to provide geologic knowledge meeting the needs of society. From interactions with users of geologic maps, we have learned that there is a need for much more information than is conventionally displayed on a paper geologic map. From experience with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), we have learned that digital geologic maps can be much more than electronic copies of paper maps. Behind each paper geologic map lies a wealth of data that has contributed to its derivation but that cannot be displayed on conventional paper map. GIS technology allows us to capture, store, and use this underlying data within a digital geologic map. Users of digital maps require the ability to combine maps to cover large areas while retaining the underlying data, and to view local areas in detail. This requires, however, an appropriate GIS data structure that adapts to different map scales and varying information about map units. The challenges here are geological, technical, and organizational. Geologic concepts must be agreed upon within organizations and the geologic community at several map scales that are adaptable to regional and topical variation. A technical (GIS) framework must be established and designed to grow and evolve as the science changes. Two teams, geological and technical, will be required to coordinate such an effort, with participation from everyone. Properly adapted, current technology provides the opportunity to create dynamic, digital, geological maps for North America that are scalable, sustainable, intuitively usable, widely available, and more informative than paper maps. The success of this effort requires the close interaction of the geological community and GIS experts. SUMMARY The meeting was opened with a greeting and introduction by Gary Raines to the effect that GIS and the information age is upon us. Geological maps in digital forms have uses ranging far beyond repositories of geological data for geologists only. As geologists who are users of digital geologic data, we best understand the wealth of data in a geologic map. A geologic map is formation rich. No single piece of paper can capture all of the information associated with the map. Our objective in capturing a geologic map in a GIS is to have all or as much as possible of that information in the GIS in a form usable for computer analysis. Thus the data requirements for cartographic display of the traditional paper publication are a subset of the needs for analysis. We are trying to go beyond the cartographic standards and cartographic approaches to data structures that many organizations are considering. The geological community needs to collaborate in developing mutually satisfactory attribute data structures so geologic maps are truly usable in a GIS. The four organizers of the meeting introduced themselves, and gave short descriptions of their involvement, interests and concerns regarding the issue of attribute GIS data. John Oldow described himself as starting to get into the GIS game, trying to integrate geological maps and other types of geological data (geophysics, satellite imagery) and finding to his surprise that the rock unit data was the most difficult component to deal with. He is concerned that we come together as a community to develop some common bases and guidelines for dealing with attribute data. He has a number of graduate students who are advancing in this area, and is concerned that they don't spend their energy rediscovering wheels or chasing wild geese. He is also deeply concerned that digital products get identified in some clear way with the scale at which they were captured and meant to be used, and with indications of precision and accuracy. Ralph Haugerud described himself as starting to come to grips with GIS in his area, and also finding that the digitizing of geological map geographical features, which he once thought to be the essence of the data capture, to be the tip of the iceberg. The real challenge is to develop an attribute database adequate for what you want to do, which can house the range of geological information normally contained in a geologic map and associated reports and also track the history of who contributed parts of the map, and who modified it and how - i.e., lineage. He also felt that if common data structures were determined, it would be better if they were developed by geologists, rather than being imposed from on high by, for instance, the top level USGS management. In other words, it should be user-needs driven and geologically oriented - a bottom up approach. Gary Raines mentioned his experience with a large landuse planning exercise, and the discovery that map unit geological properties, beyond the rock unit descriptions provided in the legend by the author, should be available for visualization and analysis for other purposes than geology. He described the attribute data that he has used in the past, stating that he felt it was inadequate - that he would like to attach other attributes, such as scale data, extended age and lithological data, stratigraphic thickness data, engineering properties, and so on. How and whether to communicate recommended display characteristics for cartographic output, and how to pass on metadata were also issues which needed to be dealt with. Boyan Brodaric described his development of FieldLog, a means of capturing field data using a database linked with AutoCad all housed on a Laptop. Utilities for designing the database on a project by project basis, for registering air photos and overlays and georeferencing them, and exporting data in various GIS and graphics formats are all built in. Mapping project groups using the FieldLog method can pass their field data on to the cartographic division and have a colored map released within the year, often within three months. He went on to describe the development of a more generic data model for field and geological map data, and how he was beginning to test it by prototyping in the Slave Province of the Canadian Shield. The meeting was then opened for discussion and presentation from the audience. Lesley Chorlton described her efforts to test the feasibility of attaching a simple geological database plus data source information to the Generalized Geology of the World (project leader Rod Kirkham, GSC). In preparing this data set, she had to be mindful of the uses of the map - a 35 million scale wall map, and continental sized diagrams often imported into PC-based GIS, mapping, or graphics software to produce embellished hard copy, ie., visualization only. Attaching attributes and references was very feasible and useful. To be truly useful as global context for economic geology, the database is to be enhanced for the second version by dealing explicitly with age ranges, and further subdividing age tracts, and also adding more detailed information to major rock type categories. Input from geological specialists will be required to make the data model effective. Authorship issues concerning collectively prepared products must be tackled, as weak guarantees of acknowledgement deter expert participation. What to do next was the next order of discussion. The discussion then focused on several alternatives: a demonstration project, a session at a GSA national meeting, or a focused meeting. 1. Need for a meeting or conference? and form of action: The primary question was do we need a meeting, and could it be held under the wing of the GSA. The consensus was yes on both counts. Elridge Moore (President of GSA) reported that the related concerns were being raised loudly at all of the regional GSA meetings this year. A Penrose conference soon, with a proposal to be formulated immediately, was recommended by Moore. Questions were raised about the balance between a practical, experienced and examples based meeting versus a theoretical computer and informatics science meeting. Hands-on computer-based demonstrations of various data structures and user requirements should be incorporated. 2. Scale, Scalability, and metadata: Another important issue was the issue of scale and spatial accuracy and precision. There was common agreement that any structure or guidelines must provide for each data set being accompanied by metadata of some form describing the spatial accuracy or resolution upon collection and resulting from degradation or resampling for raster data, estimated accuracy for vector. We also might consider recording the scale, datum, geode, projection, and survey date of the basemap to which collected observations are registered. Looking at this issue from another angle, the digital data set (as with a paper map) may have been intended and thus generalized for specific uses, including visualization at a certain scale and analyses of certain environmental factors. We should investigate ways of providing this information with the data set. What is meant by scalability? This term identifies a property that we have to deal with when we compile a smaller scale geologic map from a collection of larger scale maps. This can either be a compilation showing less detail but correcting or standardizing differences between maps or a composite keeping all the detail of all the maps. Included in scalability is, however, the concept that we also need to make the best possible geologic map for an area at some scale larger than all of the maps. For example, maybe we have most of an area covered at 1:100,000 and the remaining part of the area is only available at 1:500,000. If we needed a geologic map of the whole area and lack the time or money to map the remaining area, we have two choices, the lowest common denominator or a larger-scale composite. The lowest common denominator would generalize the 1:100,000 maps and decrease detail to make data appropriate to combine with the 1:500,000-scale data to make a new compilation. The larger-scale composite would involve keeping all of the detail of the 1:100,000-scale maps and possibly making a 1:100,000-scale composite where the 1:500,000-scale data are somehow represented as less accurate. Depending on the problem, one of these solutions may be the better solution. This is only an example of how it might be done; but I feel this is a real example when using geologic maps. Thus by scalability I am referring to the process of combining geologic maps in both directions of scale. The problem is how to use information without abusing it. By including scalablitiy as an issue in core data structure, we are lead to the concept of hierarchial terms for lithology, time, structure, map units. Such hierarchies explicitly identify the level of classification and thus how to generalize to smaller scale. As part of the core, then the map author, who is most familiar with the map, places his information in the hierarchy. For the larger-scale composite (the other direction of scale), a hierarchy guides how to join more detailed (is that higher in the hierarchy?) to the less detailed. The question then becomes do we want to go to the pain of creating and developing a consensus for hierarchies such as lithology and will we then do the work to add this with new maps and create it for old maps. 3. Metadata: An industry/exploration company attendee brought up the need for metadata to accompany each data set, which would not only encompass the scale issues, but the data structure itself, data definitions, and data sources. This re-enforced Ralph Haugerud's feelings that the need for lineage tracking should be heeded - as this participant is an private sector consumer from a discipline known for its cavalierness and disregard for academic details. 4. User needs: Ric Wilson brought up the question of ease of use of whatever structure or minimal structure that was developed. One of the biggest hurdles to getting cooperation from the geologists in supplying data for GIS purposes is that GIS is difficult to use and therefore get payback. Some geologists will cooperate if things are well enough defined and they get benefits from it, but others will never cooperate. This is a big issue, and a reason why we must exert ourselves to show a clear payback in the form perhaps of beautiful maps and diagrams, and fast completion of finished products, as Boyan Brodaric's example with the GSC. Another reference to user needs came from another attendees, who plead that other software besides Arc/Info on high end platforms be considered in deciding on data structures and standards, as many users had no access to the high end tools and the expertise to maintain them. This should be addressed on opening such a conference and in the call for papers literature - we are really talking mostly about geological attribute data and metadata to describe both this data and the geographical aspects of the data set, not any particular software system. We could perhaps come up with a description of a generic GIS as a 2 part system, one part dealing with the geomatics, geographical feature positioning, topology, analytical methods for these, and related things - the geographical engine, - and the other dealing with the attributes and metadata, as well as ways of selecting and querying them, - the database engine. This is old-hat in GIS circles, but perhaps should be re-iterated. Gary Raines had mentioned user-needs and new uses several times, and this was brought up too by Bruce Johnson as being necessary to investigate before determining data models or structures. - So maybe user needs and future user uses should be the focus of an early session in a Penrose conference. We must cover all of the present and potential uses using as wide as possible a perspective, i.e., education, popular science interest, and the needs of the investment community should be considered as well as geologists and environmentalists. Government data managers can be expected to contribute heavily to this part of a conference. 5. Data models and structure: The plausibility of working out some data hierarchies for geology was mentioned to and illustrated during the meeting, but we never got into discussing them fully. THINGS TO DO 1. Contact additional GIS users of digital geologic data. Everyone needs to get associates involved. So please forward these notes and your ideas to associates. If they want to be involved, ask them to email me, so I can add them to the list. 2.Organize Penrose Conference, Gary Raines, Boyan Brodaric, and John Oldow will take the lead. The product will be a set of standards that will be reported from the Penrose Conference to the community in GSA Today. Why? * None of us (single geologists or single agencies) can see all of the elephant. We need to collate the experience of many workers to develop a reasonable digital geologic-map data structure. * Any digital geologic-map data structure will be useful only to the extent that it is widely adopted by the geologic community--which means building consensus is especially important. * There is a need for standards now. Many organizations are rapidly digitizing geologic maps. To get everyone thinking, Lesley Chorlton proposes to organize the Penrose conference around the following topics: User needs - a structured session covering many of the geological and other uses of our GIS data sets. This should be planned to cover a broad scope. Experiences - an open session describing various projects, probably oriented more around data integration and miscellaneous aims Scale and accuracy issues - these might be divided into : collection resolution, base reference and intended user issues theory and practical examples. Metadata - what we need for what purposes. What metadata we need - and can incorporate and our experiences in preparing it. Some theory and wishfulness, and some experiences. We need to decide what we can reasonably pass on and how much trouble it will be, and how much trouble it is if it's not there. Data models and implemented structures - these would be experience based presentations oriented around individual data structures and their pros and cons. Practical demonstration, perhaps subdivided so that available practical illustration follows each session 1-5 Resolutions and resolution for next efforts - we should have some breath left for this, which will provide the bulk of our official "paper", which I guess is what a Penrose conference is for. 3. Preliminary discussion with the Penrose Committee of GSA leads me to conclude that the earliest we can hold such a conference is Spring or Summer of 1997. Bruce Johnson has proposed that we form working groups on such issues as geologic ages, lithology, stratigraphic correlation, minimal data structures, etc. Then a working meeting be held soon, such as July or August to discuss these issues in detail. These working groups could then provide proposals/demonstrations/? at the Penrose Conference as the jumping off point for a general proposal. Please contact me or Bruce Johnson about working groups and a working meeting this summer. READING Information on GIS standards and data issues. The Federal Geographic Data Committee Public Directory Documentation http://www.fgdc.gov/linkpub.html A detailed report on data structures for geologic maps used by the Newfoundland Geological Survey. Colman-Sadd, S.P., Ash, J.S., Hayes, J.P., Nolan, L.W., 1996, Management of geological map units in a geographic information system: Current Research, Report 96-1, Newfoundland Depart. Natural Resources, Geological Survey, p. 227-251. The following report was released in May, 1995, with the preface stating that the report was released for a 2 year public review. It is unclear how to obtain a copy, but on the cover it states that the document was prepared on behalf of the Federal Geographic Data Committee Geological Data Subcommittee by the U.S. Geological Survey with cooperation of Association of American State Geologists. I suggest you contact your local state geologist to ask about the report or the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Reynolds, M.W., Queen, J.E., Taylor, R.B., (principle authors), 1995, Cartographic and digital standard for geologic map information (draft): source unclear, Part 1- Principles, content, symbols, colors, patterns, and codes, 13 p., Part 2-Geologic map features: symbols, graphical standards, and attribute codes, 122p., Part 3- Colors and Patterns for geologic maps, 24 p. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Help Last Name First Name Organization email address Yes Anderson Vic US Forest Service Andersen Dave San Jose State U. andersen@geosun1.sjsu.edu Bidell Richard Homestake Mining rbedell@homestake.com Yes Brodaric Boyan GSC brodaric@gsc.emr.ca Brook John US Forest Service Brookenridge Roy Idaho Geol. Survey brookenridge@uidaho.edu Cappa Jim Colorado Geol. Survey jim.cappa@state.co.us Chorlton Lesley GSC GIS Geology Contractor brodaric@gsc.emr.ca Cummings Michael Portland State Geology michael@Ch1.ch.pds.edu Connors Kathy USGS-Reno kathy@usgs.unr.edu Dinklage Bill UC Santa Barbara dinklage@magic.ucsb.edu Fitzgibbon Todd USGS tfitz@sierra.wr.usgs.gov Foley Duncan Pacific Lutheran U. foleyd@plu.edu Furniss George Univ. Montana Guth Peter US Naval Academy pguth@nadn.navy.mil Harris Bill USGS-FDTS wharris@mcmc.gov Harris Carl WA. Div. Geology cfgg490@wadnr.gov Yes Haugerud Ralph USGS-Seattle rhaugerud@usgs.gov Yes Johnson Bruce R. USGS-Spokane bjohnson@usgs.gov Journeay Murray GSC-Pacific Div mjourneay@gsc.emr.ca Juilland Jean BLM jjuillan@ca0355.caso.ca.blm.gov Knosor Richard LC Map Servies Bonoo12695@aol.com Knott Jeff UC Riverside jefknott@citrus.ucr.edu Yes Logan Josh WA. Div. Geology rlgg490@wadnr.gov Merriu Brian R. CA-DPR & H.S.O. brm2@axe.humboldt.edu Yes Miller Dave USGS-Menlo Park dmiller@isdmnl.wr.usgs.gov Moores Eldridge 1996 Pres GSA, UC Davis moores@geology.ucdavis.edu Newhaus Mark Oregon Dept. Geology mark.newhaus@state.or.us Yes Oldow John S. Univ. Idaho oldow@uidaho.edu Yes Othberg Kurt Idaho Geol. Survey othberg@uidaho.edu Price Jon Nevada Bureau Mines Geology jprice@nbmg.unr.edu Yes Raines Gary USGS-Reno graines@usgs.unr.edu Yes Schilling Steve USGS-Cascade Volc. Obs. sschilli@pwavan.wr.usgs.gov Sleetl Bradley San Jose State U. bsleetl@geosun1.sjsu.edu Smith Jim USGS-Volcano Hazards Prog. jimsigp@mojave.wr.usgs.gov Soller Dave USGS-Nat. Geologic Mapping Prog. drsoller@usgs.gov Yes Stanford London Idaho Geol. Survey stanford@uidaho.edu Staub Paul Oregon Dept. Geology Paul.Staub@state.or.us Thompson Ren A. GSA Editor map & chart series, USGS rathomps@usgs.gov Wagner Dave Calif. Div. Mines Geology dwagner@consrv.ca.gov Yes Wilson Ric USGS-Anchorage fwilson@tundra.wr.usgs.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Raines U. S. Geological Survey Mail Stop 176 c/o Mackay School of Mines, UNR Reno, Nevada 89557-0047 USA Telephone (702) 784-5596 Fax: (702) 784-5079 ________________________________________________________________