|
LETTERS AND
CORRECTIONS
LETTERS
I read EOM cover to cover, as it is the best source
that I can acquire to help me keep current in remote
sensing. When I saw the June/July cover, I knew that
changes had happened. Under the EOM logo, there was the
title GIS in Rural Law Enforcement. …there are many
other sources of GIS information that can't be matched by
remote sensing sources, either in number or quality. To
move (“cross-over”) the Earth Observation Magazine,
THE remote sensing magazine, into GIS causes me grave
distress.
It leaves me with company magazines that may or may
not be biased, and magazines of lesser caliber, to depend
on. That’s a significant loss to me, my staff, and the
students of my University. When I read EOM, I want to read
about new things in Earth observation, new imaging
products, how remote sensing helped solve problems,
information about the remote sensing industry, how to use
remote sensing in combination with other technologies,
including GIS, and so on. I have at least a dozen other
sources for information on GIS that I don’t have for
remote sensing; please don’t take away what little is
available by filling up the magazine with non-observation
articles.
Look at the front of the magazine to see if you are
really looking at the magazine that you have counted on
for years for information on advances in remote sensing. I
did all this, and I was disappointed. Please leave GIS to
the GIS magazines, and keep the remote sensing in the
Earth OBSERVATION Magazine.
Dr. Jon H. Arvik
Director, GeoResources Institute-Stennis
Mississippi State University at
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi
Please put me on your mailing
list. Many of my co-workers get your magazine and I would
much appreciate it also. The article about GIS in Rural
Law Enforcement (June/July 2004) was phenomenal.
Charles Pederson
Geographic Information Systems Specialist
USGS Mid-Continent Mapping Center
Rolla, Missouri
The editor replies: We welcome
your feedback, both positive and negative. Please share
your thoughts via our online survey www.eomonline.
com/survey or by contacting the editor directly at [email protected].
CORRECTION
Sharp-eyed reader Larry Flynn
noted an error in the “Imagery in Your World” feature
discussing the loss of green space in the Washington, D.C.
area in last month’s issue (page 35). The article cited
a study from the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments and the National Park Service and noted that
28 to 43 square miles of green space in the region vanish
each day. The correct figure for loss, confirms Brian
LeCouteur, a senior planner and urban forester at the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, is 28-43
acres per day. We regret the error.
Back
|
