This is the map place

 This week we looked at different elevation models and did a brief comparison on their accuracy. The mode of producing contours that I found to be most accurate was the model that pulled from the elevation points. The areas in between points, where the tool interpolated the data, were smooth lines the made logical sense.

 The goal of this accuracy assessment was to judge the completeness of two layers, using their total length as the measurement. The datasets needed to be projected into the same coordinate system, clipped to the study area boundaries, and then computations were run to do comparisons on the differences in lengths on a grid-by-grid basis. I used the Summarize Within tool to get my results for the grids, which is a hint I found in the discussion group. If I was going to run this exercise as a part of my work, I would dissolve the two line layers first to ensure there were no duplicates artificially inflating the lengths.

 Here are my testpoints: To complete the accuracy assessment, first I gathered points both for testing and reference. Then I found their X and Y values and compared the testing points to the reference, getting their differences and finding the RMSE and NSSDA. For the City data: Positional Accuracy: Tested 16.7 feet horizontal accuracy at the 95% confidence level. For the Streetmap data: Positional Accuracy Tested 201.9 feet horizontal accuracy at the 95% confidence level.