OK, in your hallmark #1, I suppose you're distinguishing between, say, topographic or land-cover maps that come from remote sensing and that might be useful in

OK, in your hallmark #1, I suppose you're distinguishing between, say, topographic or land-cover maps that come from remote sensing and that might be useful in flood risk assessment, versus property-valuation or storm-drainage infrastructure maps that don't come from remote sensing and that might also be needed for flood risk assessment? I.e., the value is in a complete "application" solution to a given problem rather than in hoping for a "killer remote-sensing data product" that would (in theory) solve the problem? About your question, I'm on the analysis side, not the infrastructure side, so I don't know about the download metrics - they must be tracked but a quick search didn't turn up anything accessible. The download metrics aren't super-valuable because lots of people/groups do programmatic downloads -- the cost is zero. I think the L0-L4 distinctions is trying to illustrate these points: -- L0, L1 data are sensor-dependent and not really useful to solving problems -- There's a lot of value in developing calibrated data (L2+) -- Basic visual imagery often isn't calibrated so subsequent processing will necessarily be ad hoc and thus of limited value for any consequential decision-making