Heather,
This really needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
Some areal features may be describing geographic phenomena that can be accurately represented in polygonal form e.g. Cadastral boundaries.
However, often areal features are used to describe phenomena that may not have crisp, well defined boundaries, e.g. geology, soils, drainage, vegetation, areas subject to inundation etc. Vector boundaries describing these features are usually the result of an interpretation and educated guess. These types of features may be better modelled as raster surfaces.
Often the original phenomena is captured in vector form at a point in time, e.g. the edge of a lake. However the lake shoreline will usually vary in location depending on season, rainfall, snowmelt, drought etc.
Considering the above, some data sets could be accurately defined, while many probably could not.
In the end it will still come down to validating your data against 'well defined' points.
However, also consider how the location used to define the 'well defined' points was originally defined.
Considering the above, it may not be meaningful to place an arbitrary accuracy value on the dataset. An approach that many people use is to make an educated assessment of the accuracy of the data by relating it back to well defined points, but also to include Metadata that adequately describes the data, including: what it is intended to portray: how it was defined and captured: as well as its intended use. The end user will then be able to assess the suitability of the data for their particular use.
Bruce ---------------------------------------
Bruce Bannerman IT Solutions Architect - GIS
Information Development Branch Minerals and Petroleum Division Department of Primary Industries - Victoria Australia
"Gordon, Heather C." <HEATHER.C.GORDON@saic.com> Sent by: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com 10/08/2007 11:10 AM
To <gislist@lists.geocomm.com> cc
Subject [gislist] Technical question: Areal accuracy standards?
Hi all, Here's my my issue, for which I could use some perspective: we all are pretty familiar with the FGDC standards for data accuracy, wherein a point location has to be within so many feet of the true location at the given scale. However, how does that translate into accuracy over an area? Would that be dependent on the number of vertices (assume that each point must be within the given distance of the true location)? Or would it pertain to the 95% confidence interval [http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/accuracy/part3/chapter3: page 7].
If you have any books or online articles/webpages that would offer clarification, I would be indebted. Thanks for your help, HC Gordon
_______________________________________________ gislist mailing list gislist@lists.geocomm.com http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________ This list is brought to you by The GeoCommunity http://www.geocomm.com/
Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email. _______________________________________________ gislist mailing list gislist@lists.geocomm.com http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________ This list is brought to you by The GeoCommunity http://www.geocomm.com/
|