The Staff Map of France. 251 



With this, however, the accuracy appears to end. The detail 

 consists of the map, or the map proper, httle more than a 

 compilation of commune cadastral plans. These were fitted 

 to the triangulation points and to one another, a process which 

 appears to have been by no means easy of satisfactory accom- 

 plishment. This adjustment having been completed, the culture 

 was brought up to date of survey and a survey was made of the 

 relief features by the use of such inferior instruments as the 

 clinometer compass and chain. 



The principal and obvious criticism uj)on such work is that it 

 is top-heavy. The triangulation is far more elaborate than is 

 required, while the provision for making the map itself is by no 

 means comparable with it : it is as far below the requirements 

 of the scale as the triangulation is a1)0ve it. 



This leads up to a broader proposition, which may be stated 

 thus : That the general tendency of surveying organizations is 

 in the direction illustrated by that of the " French Staff." Or- 

 ganized originally for map-making, they progress little by little 

 in the direction of devoting their energies to geodetic work, while 

 at the same time the topographic work proper, for which they 

 were created, is belittled and neglected. As a consequence 

 the latter depreciates in quality and diminishes in quantity ; 

 the main purpose of the organization is lost, and a mere means 

 becomes the ultimate end of the work. This tendency should 

 be recognized in map-making organizations. The weakness of 

 our modern maps is seldom in the primary control. It is easy 

 to do triangulation of sufficient accuracy for the control of maps 

 upon such scales as that above considered, little knowledge or 

 experience being-required beyond that gained at our engineering 

 schools ; while the more accurate triangulation, generally known 

 as geodetic work, requires merely better instruments, more time, 

 and more experienced observers. 



The weak features of maps are generally the details, the part 

 of the work that, strange to say, is usually relegated to the lowest 

 grade of professional men. This weakness consists in an insuffi- 

 ciency of minor locations for the control of the sketch and in 

 unfaithful sketching. It is the sketching that requires the most 

 careful attention and the best and most experienced men. The 

 instrumental portion of the work is the least difficult ; the artistic 

 portion, or sketching, is the most difficult. It would seem more 

 logical and would doubtless produce better results to reverse the 



