• purpose
• selection of base map, reuse?
• differences in scale
• how current is source?
• have boundaries changed?
• distorted through reproduction?
• use 3 or 4 sources, all have errors
• find errors at larger scales
• be resourceful

    need access to quality information

    trained in cartography...not authority on subject mapped

    consistency in level of generalization

• standardize geographic names for gov. use
• consistency in local vs. conventional name (e.g. München vs. Munich, Grønland vs. Kalaalit Nunaat vs Greenland)
• local official name vs. shortened name (e.g. Kingdom of Spain vs. Spain)
• different names result form different systems of translation (e.g. Yekaterinburg, Jekaterinburg, Ekaterinburg)
• features may occur in multiple countries
• e.g. Danube River (English, conventional), Donau (Germany, Austria), Duna (Hungary), Dunaj (Czech), Dunav (Bulgarian), Dunay (Ukraine)
• consistency in use of generics or shortforms (e.g. River, Desert)
• awareness of generics embedded in names (Rio, Storia)
• geopolitics: new countries, name changes, independent or dependency or disputed

• copyright protects form of original works
• selection, design, synthesis
• client owns copyright
• US federal government maps not copyrighted
• not same of other countries (e.g. Ordinance Survey, UK)
• local governments?
• private companies defend their copyright
• licensing