[Geysers] UGB north map

[TSBryan at aol.com]

I'm sure everybody else also got only the Pocket Basin and UGB north maps.  
In any case, what if anything are we to do with them?
 
Clearly, as they are, the maps are incomplete. The representation of  thermal 
ground is inaccurate. I also feel that the method used in labeling the  
individual springs is awkward at best. And I feel that showing the springs with  
red dots all the same size regardless of the size and/or activity of the feature 
 is questionable.
 
Sometimes having a large-scale map can be handy, but if these are  pretending 
to accurately identify things, then they are too large a scale.
 
(Note: I have dots almost all the same size in my book, but my book doesn't  
pretend to be a "legal" representation).
 
As for how many names ought to be on the maps -- all of them. If a name has  
been applied, then it should be noted.
 
Scott Bryan
 
 
In a message dated 12/11/2008 6:59:16 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
caroloren98 at hotmail.com writes:

The  question with these is whether old, inactive feature names should be 
retained  on this map.  An alternative perhaps is to have two maps, one cleaner  
with fewer names, and another with as many feature names as can  fit.

Carolyn Loren

**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20081212/3da83e56/attachment.html>