Comparing and Reconciling Traditional Field and Photogeologic Mapping Techniques: Lessons from the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

Abstract

Cartographic products and - specifically - geologic maps provide critical assistance for establishing physical and temporal frameworks of planetary surfaces. The technical methods that result in the creation of geologic maps vary depending on how observations are made as well as the overall intent of the final products [1-3]. These methods tend to follow a common linear work flow, including the identification and delineation of spatially and temporally discrete materials (units), the documentation of their primary (emplacement) and secondary (erosional) characteristics, analysis of the relative and absolute age relationships between these materials, and the collation of observations and interpretations into an objective map product. The "objectivity" of a map is critical cross comparison with overlapping maps and topical studies as well as its relevance to scientific posterity. However, the "accuracy" and "correctness" of a geologic map is very subject to debate. This can be evidenced by comparison of existing geologic maps at various scales, particularly those compiled through field- and remote-based mapped efforts. Our study focuses on comparing the fidelity of (1) "Apollo-style" geologic investigations, where typically non-geologist crew members follow static traverse routes established through pre-mission planning, and (2) "traditional" field-based investigations, where geologists are given free rein to observe without preplanned routes. This abstract summarizes the regional geology wherein our study was conducted, presents the geologic map created from traditional field mapping techniques, and offers basic insights into how geologic maps created from different tactics can be reconciled in support of exploratory missions. Additional abstracts [4-6] from this study discuss various exploration and science results of these efforts