<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Updated USGS 24K Topographic Maps From The US Forest Service</title>
	<atom:link href="http://freegeographytools.com/2007/updated-usgs-24k-topographic-maps-from-the-us-forest-service/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://freegeographytools.com/2007/updated-usgs-24k-topographic-maps-from-the-us-forest-service</link>
	<description>Exploring the world of free tools for GIS, GPS, Google Earth, neogeography, and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:10:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Leszek Pawlowicz</title>
		<link>http://freegeographytools.com/2007/updated-usgs-24k-topographic-maps-from-the-us-forest-service/comment-page-1#comment-310</link>
		<dc:creator>Leszek Pawlowicz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freegeographytools.com/?p=82#comment-310</guid>
		<description>They probably got all of their topo maps in one batch, and that batch was strictly the older ones. Since only a small part of the US is covered by these updated versions, I suppose that makes sense. Or maybe they just don&#039;t know that these updated versions exist, or didn&#039;t want to mix old and new maps. Take your pick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They probably got all of their topo maps in one batch, and that batch was strictly the older ones. Since only a small part of the US is covered by these updated versions, I suppose that makes sense. Or maybe they just don&#8217;t know that these updated versions exist, or didn&#8217;t want to mix old and new maps. Take your pick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://freegeographytools.com/2007/updated-usgs-24k-topographic-maps-from-the-us-forest-service/comment-page-1#comment-309</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freegeographytools.com/?p=82#comment-309</guid>
		<description>So why is the TerraServer service &quot;pushing&quot; the old version of the Arizona comparison you have posted above???&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;BT</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So why is the TerraServer service &#8220;pushing&#8221; the old version of the Arizona comparison you have posted above???</p>
<p>BT</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

