One thing I wanted to ask the mapper of French Creek: I noticed these two pits pretty close to each other, but then later noted that the southern one was mapped as a depression
. Is there a reason for that? maybe a pit cannot be wider than an a specified length?
Based on passing them twice on Blue, I think the southern one was larger - presumably large enough to be represented by a clear (and shaped) contour line - vs. the other, which was presumably too small to allow that, and thus a V was chosen. Just a guess.
If you were unhappy when you passed it, then it was a depression.
And if you were pissed off, then it was "the pits". Right or wrong, it always seems to boil down to mapper's discretion/experience/ability. Make your own map, make your own version of pits & depressions & lots more! (ISOM aside of course:).
I don't know if I am "the" mapper in question, but I was the original field checker, and these features haven't changed, passing through eyes two other top level (int'l or WOC level) mappers. My memory hasn't been refreshed with a recent visit, but I think Wyatt gives the basic answer, one hole is significantly larger than the other, and deemed large enough to be shown with a contour, which is almost always the first and simplest option.
My nit picking complaint with both the original and current version of this depression, is that they are both drawn with two sub standard slope tags, rather than one proper slope tag which would more clearly distinguish it from a knoll. (I was not the draftsman or editor of either version)