I could swear this was working just a few days ago, but I guess it was pulling up tiles off my harddrive.
I would write them as owner of a small business asking them for more information about this change in policy. The overall explanation in their notice says concern for data quality. But that's a red herring because this is a prominent link on every page of their site (data disclaimer).
http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/GC_disclaimer.htmThey also state "Data that is not managed by the BLM was also removed from the map viewers" without giving reason.
I would emphasize that the concerns of a few (BLM claims parties, private land owners, etc) should not outweigh the benefits to the whole (all public land users, mostly people just looking for where they can and cannot go). If all agencies took their position it would not be possible to create a single map layer showing who owns what. And the idea that data in a digital database updated as changes take place is less accurate than printed maps that were updated perhaps once a decade is nonsense.
This is just my speculation, but some special interest is upset at how this public information is being used and wants its availibility and ease of access limited. Sort of like, the info is available, but you have to go to each county courthouse to look at it. In my opinion there's no excuse for our government to limit and actually spend money reducing access to public information, to become less transparent. It does not look like this change was planned or well thought through because they still label the layer as Surface Management Agency on their interactive web viewer. In fact, this agency is run in the DOI BLM branch for the purpose of showing the ownership of all federal lands, not just BLM.
http://www.blm.gov/nils/GeoComm/Metadata/sma/fedland_metadata.htmI'll write them myself, but I think a small business owner depending on public information has a better chance of getting results. Anyone else upset by this reduction in service should write as well.
Steve
