Consulting using Google Earth is easier said than done

Consulting Using Google Earth Is Easier Said Than Done

September 26th, 2006 · 24 Comments · ArcGIS Explorer, ArcGIS Server, ArcIMS, ESRI, GIS, Google, Google Earth, Google Maps, Microsoft, Virtual Earth

We all know the benefits to using clients such as Google Earth over traditional web based mapping systems, but that doesn’t seem to matter much in the real world. I’ve been running up against an IT wall at many companies and organizations to getting Google Earth or even NASA World Wind installed (let along AGX when that arrives in November). Brian Timoney put it very well when he said in the comments over at All Points Blog; “While it certainly would be in my best interest for GE to be ‘the next cool thing’ in IT, my sense is that it’s not going to happen anytime soon given the current licensing for its use in professional environments.“. We work primarily with DoD clients and Google Earth/NASA World Wind or even ArcGIS Explorer penetration is almost non-existent. Sure we find pockets of GE, but generally anything we demo on Google Earth usually gets pushed aside with the realities of the work place.

So what does that mean for us in the long run? Well already we try and serve up KML using Google Maps, but you’ll see very quickly that GMap doesn’t do quite the best just just yet rendering KML. So for now, I think we’ll be putting our efforts into the new ESRI .NET Web ADF (combined with some really cool Virtual Earth stuff) and implement KML only where we see a need. For now, the efforts at getting these clients installed is too great for us to deal with. At least with web based clients I don’t need to worry about installing anything on clients computers.

Adobe Acrobat used to be in the same boat, but now it is almost impossible to find a computer without Acrobat on it. Only time will tell if Google Earth follows that same pattern and if so will it take 5 years for such implementation. Of course if they continue to charge $400, it could be close to never.

Tags:

24 responses so far ↓

1 Tom Kralidis // Sep 26, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Why not push out GML via WFS instead and render that?
2 Phil // Sep 26, 2006 at 5:31 pm

What is the ESRI.NET Web ADF? Is it the ArcIMS .NET tools coming out in 9.2?
3 James Fee // Sep 26, 2006 at 5:45 pm

Well yes, but the tools are the same for both ArcIMS and ArcGIS Server (as well as ArcWeb and WMS). One ADF (Java or .NET) for all ESRI server products.
4 Chad // Sep 26, 2006 at 5:59 pm

World Wind has more DoD inflow than you would think. And World Wind is being NSA certified so that it fits in with all the security guidelines.

( Sorry… I think we are cutting into your consulting because we are helping them for free :~} )

It is just too bad that most the DoD World Wind projects are all “We can tell you but then we have to shoot you” catagorized projects.. but I know one use of World Wind is for tracking ground and air “targets” another person we helped out with some buts was “using World Wind in a ‘gulf area’”.

National Guard was given a directive to use World Wind as GE was going to be blocked from even accessing the network (I put together a tour for the NG on using WW). NATO is also using World Wind for “we can’t tell you projects”.

Come onto the IRC channel.. you will see a lot of .mil users in a week.
5 James Fee // Sep 26, 2006 at 7:18 pm

Hey I didn’t say I haven’t encountered it, just that the average DoD user has no hope of getting a copy of any digital globe application anytime soon. I can deploy an ArcObjects application with no issues at all.

Honestly if NMCI doesn’t support World Wind, it is dead to me. I’ve worked with Google Earth and NASA World Wind with some of our DoD clients but as I said, beyond these pockets, the average DoD user has no hpe of getting either product on their desk anytime soon.
6 Chad // Sep 26, 2006 at 7:23 pm

True. I have done some stuff for noaa and the usgs and they look at their data in WW, then pick up their jaws.

I just hope that some of the work I am doing will eventually pan out into some $$ eventually.
7 Russell Nelson // Sep 26, 2006 at 7:47 pm

I’m astounded that US government bodies are reluctant to use software published by the US government. Dudes! You’re all on the same side, remember?
8 Larry Renolds // Sep 26, 2006 at 8:07 pm

Totally agree James. I actually work at a Navy installation on the east coast and you are toally right about NMCI. Pigs will fly before NMCI allows Google Earth. I guess the hope is AGX might be approved, but the rumors are that is isn’t close to being as fast as Google Earth is, let along World Wind (that I can’t get approved either).
9 Chad // Sep 27, 2006 at 3:27 am

Larry: Try getting a hold of Patrick Hogan the NWW Project Leader. He is on “vacation” till the end of October but he has calls/emails/meetings with more people in .gov/.mil that I could care to hazard a guess.

You may not be able to get it approved, but perhaps he can help there.

Russel: Kinda funny isn’t it? It goes a long with a rant I posted a while back “If Google didn’t do it, it must not exist.” World Wind is more like a juggernaught.. it has been rolling and slowing picking up steam.

There will probably be more addoption once WWJ (World Wind Java) is released as that is what a lot of groups are wanting, not the .Net version.
10 Doug // Sep 27, 2006 at 7:20 am

James what precicely makes it hard to get GE/NWW/AGX into a DoD contract? Is it that the programs are new? Is it that they chat to outside servers?
11 Doug // Sep 27, 2006 at 7:24 am

Russell the government has a long history of not eating its own dog food. For example, NASA decided to not use EELV launchers that the Air force has operating now and instead will make their own launcher to put the new capsule into space.

Usually there are requirements that aren’t being met that prevent deployment and usually they deal with security. For example I doubt that the DoD is too pleased with the idea of google farming statistics for what region’s tiles are being accessed by people in .mil/.gov TLDs.
12 Andy Morsell // Sep 27, 2006 at 10:18 am

I’ve run into the same issue with local governments - Counties and Cities. They cannot install GE on their desktops due to the non-personal use licensing issues and having a limited budget. One thing some of these governments have realized is that there is nothing stopping them from serving their GIS data to GE which puts the responsibility of meeting GE client licensing requirements on the end user. In this case, that would be the general public.
13 Brian Flood // Sep 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

Licensing aside, I would also like to know what Doug asked above. that is, what is the major barrier to getting software approved?

also, to Andy’s comment above, we have seen both when it comes to GE being installed. However, when it comes to integration, the real hope is for the citizens of the town to have access. 2D maps will be the primary driver for now but a free 3D viewer with tight integration with the town’s data is also very attractive. This is something we are actively working on right now for our clients (http://www.spatialdatalogic.com/sdl/sol_Portal.aspx)

I still wish Google would figure out a better licensing schema…

cheers
brian
14 Larry Renolds // Sep 27, 2006 at 11:22 am

Brian, at least for NMCI all software must be certified by EDS. This means that someone must pay for the certification. For example, if I create a program, I need to pay EDS to certify that it won’t hurt the existing NMCI intranet. So I pay EDS to certify this application, even though it is EDS’s job to administer the network.

Beyond that ever major software release needs to be certified. For until a couple months ago, NMCI only allowed ArcGIS 8.3 to be installed. It took most of a year to get 9.0 certified and it is still being rolled out.

I’m still waiting for a new desktop from NMCI and I ordered it over a year ago. We had a dig permitting application that we had before NMCI was implemented. To get this simple MapObjects application certified took the better part of 2 years and in that time NMCI clients couldn’t use the application. We had to have one old legacy computer running in the office for people to walk over and use. Non NMCI applications cannot be used on NMCI seats. The way around it (and I’ve talked with James on this) is to use web applications because nothing gets installed on NMCI clients.

Heck there is a whole website devoted to NMCI and how bad it is.

http://www.nmcisucks.com/
15 Doug // Sep 27, 2006 at 12:24 pm

OH I see, NMCI is a navy/marine thing. The Army seems to be able to deploy things with 9.0 Come on Marines, stop waiting for the Army to get something done before you! (jk!)

http://www.tsc.com/gis/_1RATL.htm
http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc06/papers/abstracts/a2394.html
16 anon // Sep 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm

Actually the Army and the Air Force are moving toward the NMCI model. EDS I know is involved with the Army and I for one am fighting to stop it.

Given all the money that is going to the warfighters (and rightly so), IT will probably all be outsourced here in the next year anyway.
17 NavyGISUser // Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm

Uh Doug, you do realize that the Navy/USMC has standardized on ESRI? I would think you’d like that.
18 Doug // Sep 27, 2006 at 12:41 pm

I was just poking fun at the Navy and Marines. My brother is more of an Army Guy. As you are probably well aware, the Navy has been doing quite a bit with ArcObjects since they first came out.

If NMCI has standardized on ESRI then it seems that ArGIS Explorer would probably be certified and that it is just a matter of time and money and all that. Oh and ArcGIS Explorer would have to be released too
19 NavyGISUser // Sep 27, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Will ArcGIS Explorer be 9.2 or 1.0? That will tell me how quickly it will get approved.
20 KoS // Sep 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Well, it’s not only the military slow on approving new applications. Here at the USDA all software must be CCE(common computing environment) approved before installation. Which can take for ever. Currently, by the time they certify a product, a new version has already came out.

KoS
21 James Fee // Sep 27, 2006 at 3:36 pm

Which is fine when new versions come out ever 5 years, but not at the speed that these new applications get updated.
22 Russell Nelson // Sep 27, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Doug: I agree with you about the potential classified information leaks through examining which tiles get loaded. All the MORE reason to use NASA World Wind, since the military can get its own copy of the data and serve it in a secure fashion.
23 Doug // Sep 28, 2006 at 7:26 am

Russell: ESRI was asked in the ArcGIS explorer user conference technical session if a client could cut ArcGIS explorer off form the outside world, ESRI servers included. Yes it can be cut off and run happily on the intranet. Also you can limit the viewable extent for any map. So Worldwind and exploer would seem to be better than GE for people who don’t want to have their clients chat to the outside world.

RE: serving worldwind data, my guess is that the military has better imagery (makes sense, doesn’t it?).

I’m still interested in knowing what technical hurdles an application faces in becoming certified and why it takes so long.
24 Bill Dollins // Sep 29, 2006 at 4:45 am

NMCI is predicated on the idea that no one needs anything on their desktop other than MS Office and e-mail. Everything else is a fight. Because of this approach, most application development has been pushed to server-only web apps.

The truth is that NMCI is just one of multiple accrediation hurdles you have may have when doing DoD work. It’s enough to make you reach for the flask in your desk. Oops!