When doing this lab the actual lab was incredibly easy, but accumulating the data and processing it was the difficult part, which seems to be the common trend in GIS.  In doing the maps though i discovered just how different IDW and Splining truly are.  IDW attempts to generalize the entire map, creating a common thread throughout. Splining seems to overestimate values.  The differences in the two styles is very apparent when looking at the northeast corner of the map.  In IDW, where generalizations are made and values tend to lean toward the middle, the precipitation is believed to be between 12 and 16 inches a year, where as the Splining method values the area to be below 4 inches a year becuase it overestimates and leans toward extremes.  The massive difference between the two values shows just how inconsistent the entire method is, and how being able to display multiple methods can help realize what the true values possibly are.
     Another major issue is the bias towards areas with more points, which makes sense.  When there are more values it is easier to make assessments, but it also creates problems, for example the large discrepancy with the northeast corner of the map.  With IDW, because a majority of the values were in the 12-16 range, it valued any area without too many points to be in that general area.  Spline seemed to favor the nearest point in making the decision.  All in all, the major discrepancies make it necessary to both collect as much data as possible and understand the differences between the methods.
IDW- generalizes
Spline- overestimates
areas with few receptors will be over-generalized.  bias towards areas with multiple points.
compare and contrast styles of idw and spline