GeoCommons - The future of mapping or geo-splog?

GeoCommons - the Future of Mapping or Geo-Splog?

June 5th, 2007 · 22 Comments · GIS

Steve likes GeoCommons and James gives him a head butt Steve and I had a heated argument about Geocommons. Steve used statements such as “it is frickin sweet!!!” and “no need for spatial analyst anymore”. I responded with “its pretty worthless” and “meh”. Steve likes the idea that he can access maps that people have created and leverage them in his own work. I’m pretty much down on the lack of metadata and no idea of the motives of some of the map creators such as “aark2” and others.

Steve of course loves the idea that “I can upload my data and do stuff with it - without owning ArcMap w/spatial analyst”. That may be true, but I just can’t imagine using any of this data in anything other than recreational browsing. I mean what EIS would ever reference GeoCommons as a source. Not one of mine, that is for sure.

Tags:

22 responses so far ↓

1 Lefty // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Where you not the one James pushing Swivel on us? Seems like this is the same thing?

I didn’t like Swivel and I don’t like this.
2 James Fee // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:31 pm

@Lefty: Notice I didn’t post about the new mapping part of Swivel. Draw your own conclusions about my feelings about Swivel now.
3 Doug // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

James first wikipedia and now GeoCommons. It wouldn’t be on the internet if it weren’t true!
4 James Fee // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Thanks for keeping me strait Doug!
5 Joseph Wallis // Jun 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Wow, some of this data is really bogus. Take the “tornado alley” data. Tornados only land in populated areas? Who woulda thought?
6 Mike // Jun 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Nice concept, but try loading up a shape file…you need to individually specify the .shp, .dbf and .shx files. Not so friendly if you want to share more than one dataset. Cool idea but poor implementation. Another drawback…you can share imagery!
7 Talk about a straw man « Steve’s Little world // Jun 5, 2007 at 2:58 pm

[...] about a straw man Posted June 5, 2007 So I see that James has seen fit to place our conversation up in the echo chamber and then fails to leave out my crucial [...]
8 Steven Citron-Pousty // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:01 pm

response on my blog
9 MidNight Mapper aka Neil Havermale // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:05 pm

I so totally agree that spatial analysis has gotten out of the ESRI barn and good on Swivel! Totally wrong tactic from ESRI Globle Explorer - can accept KML but has no give that I can detect? IMHO KML is rapidily becoming the defacto STANDARD for geospatial infomation… versus the crippled SHP.
10 James Fee // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I think we are quite a while away from KML replacing SHP. There is still way too many clients out there that cannot read KML/KMZ or even write it. In time I agree with you, but that doesn’t mean posting heat maps will matter much in that equation.
11 Dylan Beaudette // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

In regards to something replacing the “spatial analyst” extension to ESRI software: try GRASS. Nearly every raster operation is implemented in the base modules, and combining a couple together can solve the rest.

Note there is a linux version, a mac version, a cygwin version, and a NATIVE windows version.

Dylan
12 Brian Timoney // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:58 pm

The main takeaway for me re GeoCommons is that the value of a quick-and-dirty visual summary of point data is a good first step in data discovery. The web interfaces are good enough now that I’m confronted with a blizzard of point features that I’ve no interest in clicking on to determine whatever trend is of interest.

Whether GeoCommons will pull of its “vision” is another debate that’s probably best left between them and their venture capitalists, but in the larger scheme here’s hoping it’s a waypoint towards a more analytically robust geo-web.

BT
13 Ben Slater // Jun 5, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Even if the data currently there is poor quality and not well documented with metadata, that’s not to say that it will still be that way in the future. Just like Wikipedia, you’ll probably end up with a mix of questionable content alongside well documented scholarly works. If I were still in academia, GeoCommons would be just the type of place I’d dump my data after my own research is done. I’d just make sure to include metadata and contact info.
14 Casey // Jun 6, 2007 at 6:16 am

Interesting comment about the science world, Ben. I have had several discussions with Professors and researchers who work their butts of dissecting an idea, publish it, and then “lose” the actual data. Maintaining data electronically costs long term money and time and thats rarely figured into any grants. Who should maintain it — I think government clearinghouses might be better than GeoCommons.
15 Sean Gorman // Jun 6, 2007 at 7:34 am

Glad to see that GeoCommons sparked a debate and there are good valid points all around. Actually we spun out of George Mason University where we were old school GIS types. We combined the acamdics with web 2.0 developers and GeoCommons, for better or worse, was the result. We conciously did not put in a requirement to demand traditional metadata to contribute and play. You are more than welcome to cut and paste that data in if you have it or provide a link back to it. For instance the comment on the Tornado Alley data - it came from the USGS National Atlas. You can click on the data profile in GeoCommons - http://www.geocommons.com/data_set/detail/1009. See who posted, when they posted it, look at the data dictionary and link back to the original source. We are working on getting data directly from the source, but at the end of the day we want to make they system as open to as many people as possible. It is up to the user to judge the metadata or lack of it when they decide to use a data set and what they want to use it for. This is going to not be good enough for some people because it is not up to the GIS standards outlined above, and that is ok. To be honest that population has always had access to the data and GeoCommons is really built so that the rest of the world can now as well.
16 Troy Anderson // Jun 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm

GeoCommons is a great idea and it’ s early on in its implementation, but it’s hard to complain about it or Swivel. I know from experience with DataPlace (http://www.dataplace.org), that delivering services with apples-to-apples data, substantial metadata, and an assortment of GIS tools is phenomenally difficult to produce and roll-out on a regular basis. With no” editor,” it’s tough to complain about the “editorial” quality; if you have an editor and are worried about quality, it’s a much slower plod.
17 Troy Anderson // Jun 6, 2007 at 7:47 pm

GeoCommons is a great idea and it’ s early on in its implementation, but it’s hard to complain about it or Swivel. I know from experience with DataPlace (http://www.dataplace.org), that delivering services with apples-to-apples data, substantial metadata, and an assortment of GIS tools is phenomenally difficult to produce and roll-out on a regular basis. With no” editor,” it’s tough to complain about the “editorial” quality; if you have an editor and are worried about quality, it’s a much slower plod.
18 Paul Bissett // Jun 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

There is another approach besides advertising based sharing to expanding the bounds and reach of the geospatial community. Rather than just focusing on sharing, we could be focused on expanding the bounds by which people can afford to participate.

Most of us in the geospatial business need access to high quality data and content, with good metadata and solid heritage. In addition, we would like to be able to sell our wares into an open marketplace. Today’s market is dominated by government services, which in turn is controlled by larger players with the infrastructure (financial, hardware, software, etc.) and access (to programs and managers) to compete. This does not make it easy for small players with the necessary skills and open source tools to derive a living in a manner to support themselves or their families.

A different market approach would combine the ability to track metadata and heritage with the Web 2.0 ability to search, sort, market, and distribute GB to TB mapping products. Consider the impact of an “Ebay” for maps on our field (i.e. http://www.WeoGeo.com). An individual with skills could obtain high quality, low cost content on which to market their enhancements. I believe that opening the markets for content and skills will be a paradigm shifting event for our field.
19 GeoCommons and Disruptive Technologies « Flat Out GIS // Jun 8, 2007 at 9:22 am

[...] sbuscher @ 10:22 am A parallel to Dave’s disruptive technology concept in reference to the GeoCommons squabbling is what’s happened to the survey industry. There you have a complex science of [...]
20 Moving Past Push Pins » Blog Archive » How Much Metadata is Enough: Is there a GIS - Neogeography Middle Ground? // Jun 20, 2007 at 1:10 pm

[...] few weeks ago James Fee wrote a blog post about a debate he had with Steven Citron-Pousty concerning the usefulness of [...]
21 Moving Past Push Pins » GeoWeb / GIS Convergance: Ubiquitous as Spreadsheets? // Sep 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm

[...] us as one of the companies blurring the line between GIS and the GeoWeb, although sometimes to GIS professionals chagrin. The second article was a blog post by Nick Black of OpenStreetMaps. Nick does a great job of [...]
22 GeoWeb and Autodesk // Jun 11, 2008 at 8:26 pm

[...] faith in these projects/companies (WeoGeo, FortiusOne, Pleiades, OpenStreetMap among others), is an understatement, but they are really proving that if you give people a platform to collaborate and share data, [...]