Bruce Sterling highlights an intriguing app being developed for the Google Android Developer Challenge. The video (follow link) provides a nice demonstration of the app, as well as a description of future plans for the technology including integration of a gyroscope and the use of 3d buildings models. I think this is just of the type of iceberg. I also imagine that we will be seeing a similar concept integrating GPS and Street View. A timely idea, moving one step closer to an Augmented Reality invention that Popular Mechanics is waiting for. As the Instapundit would say: Bring it on!
Showing posts with label GIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GIS. Show all posts
Minor Geographic Immortality (An attempt)
It has been four years since ortho-photograhy has been taken on behalf of Ottawa County. Last time, it was black and white 6-inch pixel (a maximum resolution of 1'=50" on a paper map) taken with a traditional film camera. This time, we are purchasing color photos obtained through a digital camera. While the film camera required thousands of individual snapshots to cover a County our size (about 600 square miles), the digital camera uses a "push-broom" method. The equivalent of one giant exposure is taken with each sweep of the plane over land. Our County should be covered in about 25 sweeps. The technical specs of the equipment utilized by the company taking the photos is listed here. The photos were planned to be taken today.
For our part here on the homefront, we have made a minor attempt to immortalize ourselves through the air with sidewalk chalk (sample photo above). So, hopefully, our sketches will show up in the photos. I'm not sure if it will be successful. We'll see in a few weeks possibly. Then, I'll update.
VE Update: Striking 3D Models in Grand Rapids
Microsoft pushed out an update of Virtual Earth today (details here, plus blog items here and here). There are many useful new features, but perhaps the most jaw-dropping feature is the upgraded 3D models. Virtual Earth has had high quality models for a long time, but the quality has evolved and the scope is immense. In a previous post, I pointed out the new bird's eye photos in my immediate area. Well, we now have 3D models in Grand Rapids (shown above). Grand Rapids!
It's a city of less than 200,000 people, but there are now extremely accurate and detailed 3D models of the city. The models cover not just the downtown, but as far as out as Meijer Gardens. I never thought we'd have this type of application in this area this soon.
The scale of what Microsoft and Google have undertaken is staggering. I mentioned that Mircosoft has collected oblique and street view imagery for the top 150 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. I think that they must be using all the oblique imagery to aid generation of the 3D models (here is an overview of the technology and methodology utilized to create these models. I have not watched the whole thing, but I scanned through it and it seems to cover many of the cutting edge processes being used, including the integration of ortho imagery, oblique imagery, and LiDAR scans). But, even with automated generation of models, the time and cost for this project must still be astronomical. And the platform is free! In Microsoft's in-home blog, their goal is described:
Cities now have thousands more buildings than before especially noticeable
as you move from a city core out to its suburbs. It all adds up to make Virtual
Earth much less virtual and takes us a large step closer to delivering a truly
impressive mirror world experience.
The development of these on-line globes are a watershed moment. As I've written before, I don't think anyone has caught up with the potential of the technology and few realize just how important and useful this will be. In a few years time, we may be able to can to nearly anyplace, anywhere and scroll through as if we are walking down the street. That's just the start of it, because I know they are working on moving from outside to inside. The mirror world is coming.
Geocode the Money
The state of California is reviewing legislation to allow local governments to charge for GIS data. Slashgeo links to citizens opposing the bill (actually, the bill is already dead). More here.
Apparently, this bill was the culmination of a long battle to force governments to make their GIS data available for the cost of copying, not the cost of generating it. Here is some background from the Open Data Consortium Project. It appears that courts have ruled against local governments who still are trying to recover costs by charging for GIS data. According to blogger Adina Levin, Orange County was pushing the bill.
Here in Michigan, there is already a law which allows government to charge for digital data (not just GIS). The law, with a classic Orwellian title of the Enhanced Access to Public Records Act, can be found here. This bill specifically mentions GIS, but I know that other public officials were fighting for this. As a reporter, I sat in on meetings were the County Clerk complained about people requesting voting records. In the digital age, the records can be easily provided at no cost while the cost of maintaining the records is high.
The same applies for GIS. Obviously, the labor involved in GIS is costly. The products and infrastructure required to maintain a relevant GIS are also expensive. Without selling GIS data, the investment by government is worth the money just for internal applications. There are numerous applications. In Ottawa County, we have accomplished much and, in some ways, are only scratching the surface. At the same time, much of our data is already free to view for the public through our interactive mapping site.
The cost to the public comes in when they want access to copies of the data, the most valuable of which include the parcels, roads, photos, and elevation data. The parcel data is inputed by a few full time staff, while the photos and elevation data cost multiple thousands of dollars to obtain. Yes, I agree that data wants to be free, but there is a small disconnect for many local governments currently under a fee system when they are asked to go free.
The average resident does not want a copy of the parcel data. It is a specialized file that is pretty much useless to them (though with the new free applications out there it is a lot easier for amateurs to use the data), same with the photos and elevation data. When our department receive requests for large sets of data, it is mostly from private companies, typically ones located outside the state. They typically do not buy it (as this report (10 Ways to Support GIS) points out, no matter how low the price, companies don't bite). For one, they are used to getting data for free in other states. It would be hard to explain to tax-payers and government decision-makers that their money is being used to help develop businesses outside the state.
In addition, I don't think the average tax-payer who uses Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual does not realize how much free public imagery has been used to support those maps. Many of our customers believe that the imagery on these apps is all satellite. In fact, much of it is aerial photography made freely available at some level of government.
Of course, Google and Microsoft are both investing greatly in efforts to obtain their own imagery (see this post here). Both products are great and I am thrilled they are free (as is Ottawa County's GIS web site). However, if you asked Google and Microsoft to give you their photos for free, I don't think they would. Why should they expect that copies of government be free?
In its "10 Ways to Support GIS" report, the Open Data Consortium lays out some alternatives to charging for data. One of them is to use the data to identify under-taxed parcels, another includes a $5 property transfer fee. This increases taxes to the average person, while lessening the burden on non-citizens. Other strategies are more realistic, such as justifying GIS through productivity savings for other governmental departments.
The report points out that GIS data value is from use, not the data. However, right now, in Michigan, we are trying to having both ways. We are selling the data and putting it out there for free to view via the Web. The usage numbers are good and they are growing. As the reports points out, GIS sales are not exactly a cash-cow, but they do provide some revenue. In addition, despite what the report states, the staff cost of distributing data being sold is very minimal. The major labor drag is in printed maps.
The problem with the State of California saying that the data should be free is that the state did not invest funds in the local systems. If local systems want to charge, they should have that right. If the citizens want the data free, push their local board or council, not the legislature. If the local government loses out on economic development, then it is their concern.
The ODC report ends with this anecdote:
I'm am torn on this issue. It is similar to the intellectual property problems with books, music, and movies. However, the trouble for governments is that they are not able to turn to advertisers to pay for free services. You could argue that the return would be in economic development dollars, tourism dollars, or savings to residents who utilize engineering companies to improve their property. I would prefer to have a free model, but Michigan has allowed local government to decide. Our County has decided to charge for copies, but have free web data. I don't think you can fault us for that.
Apparently, this bill was the culmination of a long battle to force governments to make their GIS data available for the cost of copying, not the cost of generating it. Here is some background from the Open Data Consortium Project. It appears that courts have ruled against local governments who still are trying to recover costs by charging for GIS data. According to blogger Adina Levin, Orange County was pushing the bill.
Here in Michigan, there is already a law which allows government to charge for digital data (not just GIS). The law, with a classic Orwellian title of the Enhanced Access to Public Records Act, can be found here. This bill specifically mentions GIS, but I know that other public officials were fighting for this. As a reporter, I sat in on meetings were the County Clerk complained about people requesting voting records. In the digital age, the records can be easily provided at no cost while the cost of maintaining the records is high.
The same applies for GIS. Obviously, the labor involved in GIS is costly. The products and infrastructure required to maintain a relevant GIS are also expensive. Without selling GIS data, the investment by government is worth the money just for internal applications. There are numerous applications. In Ottawa County, we have accomplished much and, in some ways, are only scratching the surface. At the same time, much of our data is already free to view for the public through our interactive mapping site.
The cost to the public comes in when they want access to copies of the data, the most valuable of which include the parcels, roads, photos, and elevation data. The parcel data is inputed by a few full time staff, while the photos and elevation data cost multiple thousands of dollars to obtain. Yes, I agree that data wants to be free, but there is a small disconnect for many local governments currently under a fee system when they are asked to go free.
The average resident does not want a copy of the parcel data. It is a specialized file that is pretty much useless to them (though with the new free applications out there it is a lot easier for amateurs to use the data), same with the photos and elevation data. When our department receive requests for large sets of data, it is mostly from private companies, typically ones located outside the state. They typically do not buy it (as this report (10 Ways to Support GIS) points out, no matter how low the price, companies don't bite). For one, they are used to getting data for free in other states. It would be hard to explain to tax-payers and government decision-makers that their money is being used to help develop businesses outside the state.
In addition, I don't think the average tax-payer who uses Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual does not realize how much free public imagery has been used to support those maps. Many of our customers believe that the imagery on these apps is all satellite. In fact, much of it is aerial photography made freely available at some level of government.
Of course, Google and Microsoft are both investing greatly in efforts to obtain their own imagery (see this post here). Both products are great and I am thrilled they are free (as is Ottawa County's GIS web site). However, if you asked Google and Microsoft to give you their photos for free, I don't think they would. Why should they expect that copies of government be free?
In its "10 Ways to Support GIS" report, the Open Data Consortium lays out some alternatives to charging for data. One of them is to use the data to identify under-taxed parcels, another includes a $5 property transfer fee. This increases taxes to the average person, while lessening the burden on non-citizens. Other strategies are more realistic, such as justifying GIS through productivity savings for other governmental departments.
The report points out that GIS data value is from use, not the data. However, right now, in Michigan, we are trying to having both ways. We are selling the data and putting it out there for free to view via the Web. The usage numbers are good and they are growing. As the reports points out, GIS sales are not exactly a cash-cow, but they do provide some revenue. In addition, despite what the report states, the staff cost of distributing data being sold is very minimal. The major labor drag is in printed maps.
The problem with the State of California saying that the data should be free is that the state did not invest funds in the local systems. If local systems want to charge, they should have that right. If the citizens want the data free, push their local board or council, not the legislature. If the local government loses out on economic development, then it is their concern.
The ODC report ends with this anecdote:
One ODC participant, a stalwart advocate of selling his county's data to users who were not taxpayers or citizens of his county, asked during our deliberations, "why should a national map company have free access to our data when they sell digital tourist maps for profit?" "And when those tourists use our maps to guide their vacation," the data reseller answered,"where do they go to spend their money?"There is truth to this story, but couldn't we find a happy medium? Wouldn't it be nice to have the tourists spend money in the County and also have private companies supplement the taxpayers investment in GIS?
I'm am torn on this issue. It is similar to the intellectual property problems with books, music, and movies. However, the trouble for governments is that they are not able to turn to advertisers to pay for free services. You could argue that the return would be in economic development dollars, tourism dollars, or savings to residents who utilize engineering companies to improve their property. I would prefer to have a free model, but Michigan has allowed local government to decide. Our County has decided to charge for copies, but have free web data. I don't think you can fault us for that.
History, the GIS Way
The Blog of Long Now links to an interactive map from UCLA designed to elucidate Berlin's history using old maps. This type of application of GIS demonstrates just how powerful and dynamic a tool it can be. The difficult problem is digitizing historical maps and information into a GIS format.
As I've mentioned, in Ottawa County, we recently scanned thousands of historical aerial photos at a high resolution. Each mylar sheet is equal to a section or quarter-section and they have been scanned into TIFFs (about 40 mb in size each). While each TIFF will have use as an individual file viewed using a standard photo program, it is unlikely that we will be able to dedicate time to "georeferencing" the photos (assigning a geographic location to each TIFF) or "mosiacing" them (stitching the TIFFs together into a seamless single photo) so that they could be used for viewing and analysis in a true GIS program. We only have so much time.
Fortunately, institutions such as UCLA do have the time (as well as organizations such as Dave Rumsey's). Through their efforts, we now have new and fascinating ways of interpretating the past.
As I've mentioned, in Ottawa County, we recently scanned thousands of historical aerial photos at a high resolution. Each mylar sheet is equal to a section or quarter-section and they have been scanned into TIFFs (about 40 mb in size each). While each TIFF will have use as an individual file viewed using a standard photo program, it is unlikely that we will be able to dedicate time to "georeferencing" the photos (assigning a geographic location to each TIFF) or "mosiacing" them (stitching the TIFFs together into a seamless single photo) so that they could be used for viewing and analysis in a true GIS program. We only have so much time.
Fortunately, institutions such as UCLA do have the time (as well as organizations such as Dave Rumsey's). Through their efforts, we now have new and fascinating ways of interpretating the past.
Trouble for Street View?
With the preponderance of sites for viewing ortho photos (straight down view), oblique photos (angled or "bird's eye" view), and "street view" photos of homes and communities, I've been long awaiting outrage from the general public. I think there hasn't been enough public awareness of just how much information about their property is accessible, both in image and database forms.
For some reason, Google Street View seems to be a turning point. I've noted an early reaction to the application in this post. Further evidence of blowback can be found in this link from Wired, in which a couple is suing Google for posting photos of their house. It is not entirely clear whether the company that obtained the photos actually took the pictures from a private road or from a public road.
I've been told by a representative from one of these companies that take these photos that they had run-ins with residents while out in the field. These run-ins have included being threatened with guns (this type of reaction is somewhat understandable since the vans and SUVs used to obtain the photos seem like a spy-vehicle).
This type of lawsuit could have wide-ranging implications for the GIS and imagery industries. Our County has a Web site with high resolution aerial photos and extensive parcel information and it receives brisk traffic. Thousands of counties have sites like ours. More of this type of information will be out there in the future. Much more.
As I've said before, I think this is a positive development overall. The government and corporations will gather this type of imagery whether or not they post it on the Web. Is your privacy protected if the government or corporations already have the information and keep it in-house? Or are we better off knowing the type of information and imagery that is available to the government and corporations? I think we are better off when we can watch the watchers watching us (convoluted I know, but you get the idea).
For some reason, Google Street View seems to be a turning point. I've noted an early reaction to the application in this post. Further evidence of blowback can be found in this link from Wired, in which a couple is suing Google for posting photos of their house. It is not entirely clear whether the company that obtained the photos actually took the pictures from a private road or from a public road.
I've been told by a representative from one of these companies that take these photos that they had run-ins with residents while out in the field. These run-ins have included being threatened with guns (this type of reaction is somewhat understandable since the vans and SUVs used to obtain the photos seem like a spy-vehicle).
This type of lawsuit could have wide-ranging implications for the GIS and imagery industries. Our County has a Web site with high resolution aerial photos and extensive parcel information and it receives brisk traffic. Thousands of counties have sites like ours. More of this type of information will be out there in the future. Much more.
As I've said before, I think this is a positive development overall. The government and corporations will gather this type of imagery whether or not they post it on the Web. Is your privacy protected if the government or corporations already have the information and keep it in-house? Or are we better off knowing the type of information and imagery that is available to the government and corporations? I think we are better off when we can watch the watchers watching us (convoluted I know, but you get the idea).
Bird's Eye View of the OC!
For the geography geek in my immediate area, Microsoft has uploaded bird's eye view photos of Ottawa County, Michigan (the screen capture above is a view of downtown Grand Haven).
These photos were taken by a company called Pictometry, which specializes in "Oblique" aerial photography. Microsoft has contracted them to obtain imagery for the top 150 Metropolitan Statistical Area in the country. In urban areas, there photos of every locations from all four directions and with high resolution (6-inch pixel or a maximum scale of 1" = 50' before the photo begins to pixelate). In rural areas, every locations has photos in two directions, north and south, and the resolution is still decent (1-foot pixel or 1"=100')
Microsoft is also obtaining street view photos for these areas through another company (I discuss street view here). For more geography geekery, check another post here. Here is a link to download Virtual Earth. Here is a blog focused on VE, and another focused just on Google Earth.
Militant Democratization Part II
In an earlier post, I discussed the phenomenon of democratization of music via technology. Of course, this is not limited to music as this paragraph from Kevin Kelly states:
In this post, Kelly is referencing the possible democratization of taxonomy (I'll discuss his post on this more in-depth later). However, I wanted to focus on what he was saying about cartography, since my current occupation is as a professional digital cartographer. As I have mentioned previously, the field of geography has undergone drastic changes during the past few years. Beyond of the accelerating technological improvements, Google Earth and its ilk has brought a flood of amateurs into the field, just as Kelly says.
Due to the innovations of ESRI (the private company responsible for ArcMap, a pioneering digital mapping software used by thousands of companies and governmental organizations worldwide), geography was already experiencing a dramatic shift from the past. In the past, only a few could produce geography, then once ArcMap caught on every county in the nation suddenly was establishing a GIS department and producing in-house maps, investing in state-of-the-art aerial photography and LiDAR, and developing immense digital mapping datasets. This greatly expanded geography. As in the case of music, you no longer needed a physical talent to make maps, just a somewhat spatial and computer-based mindset.
Still, the expense of the software limited its utilization (about $1,200 for a single use license). ArcMap was not like Microsoft Office, where everyone had a copy. In addition, even if you got a copy, there was not much you would do with it since you did not have data. However, all this changed with Google Earth. As Kelly said, suddenly the field of geography expanded from thousands to millions.
ESRI is still dealing with the implication of this. I'm still dealing with the implications of this. As Glenn Reynolds has written, the Internet and new technology has created an army of Davids. One lesson of this is never to get too comfortable with what you are doing, because someone may come along willing to do it for free, distribute it for free, or find a robot who will do it for little cost (Kevin Kelly calls this being Turing'd).
When I graduated from college, Ottawa County did not have a GIS Department. In many ways, the department is still in its infancy, but the field of professional GIS could be heading into old age already. That's why I working a back-up: speculative fiction. Not much to hang your hat on, but I do enjoy it.
We see a similar phenomenon happening in cartography and typography. Both of
these were formerly esoteric practices. The number of folks who knew about fonts
and kerning, or rubbersheeting and lat-long, numbered in the tens of
thousands. But now that fonts are loaded into every PC, and kerning a matter of
dragging your mouse, when Google maps are a click away, the rote work of type
design and map making are done by machines empowering hundreds of millions of
new enthusiasts in these fields.
In this post, Kelly is referencing the possible democratization of taxonomy (I'll discuss his post on this more in-depth later). However, I wanted to focus on what he was saying about cartography, since my current occupation is as a professional digital cartographer. As I have mentioned previously, the field of geography has undergone drastic changes during the past few years. Beyond of the accelerating technological improvements, Google Earth and its ilk has brought a flood of amateurs into the field, just as Kelly says.
Due to the innovations of ESRI (the private company responsible for ArcMap, a pioneering digital mapping software used by thousands of companies and governmental organizations worldwide), geography was already experiencing a dramatic shift from the past. In the past, only a few could produce geography, then once ArcMap caught on every county in the nation suddenly was establishing a GIS department and producing in-house maps, investing in state-of-the-art aerial photography and LiDAR, and developing immense digital mapping datasets. This greatly expanded geography. As in the case of music, you no longer needed a physical talent to make maps, just a somewhat spatial and computer-based mindset.
Still, the expense of the software limited its utilization (about $1,200 for a single use license). ArcMap was not like Microsoft Office, where everyone had a copy. In addition, even if you got a copy, there was not much you would do with it since you did not have data. However, all this changed with Google Earth. As Kelly said, suddenly the field of geography expanded from thousands to millions.
ESRI is still dealing with the implication of this. I'm still dealing with the implications of this. As Glenn Reynolds has written, the Internet and new technology has created an army of Davids. One lesson of this is never to get too comfortable with what you are doing, because someone may come along willing to do it for free, distribute it for free, or find a robot who will do it for little cost (Kevin Kelly calls this being Turing'd).
When I graduated from college, Ottawa County did not have a GIS Department. In many ways, the department is still in its infancy, but the field of professional GIS could be heading into old age already. That's why I working a back-up: speculative fiction. Not much to hang your hat on, but I do enjoy it.
Transparency Two: Street View
To add to the discussion of the Transparent Society I started on this blog earlier, I wanted to comment on Google Street View, the technology which allows you to simulate walking or driving down a city street and seeing what exactly is around you through a series of interwoven photos.
Microsoft also has this technology and is working acquiring street views of cities all around the country. I work in GIS at the county level and utilize remote sensing technology (digital photos and LiDAR) on a daily basis. As I mentioned previously, GIS technologies are accelerating rapidly and I believe in a few years most people will be shocked by our ability to model the real world.
Google and Microsoft have completely changed the equation in the field of GIS and the ability of the public to access remote sensing technology (including digital photos, oblique photos, and street view photos). However, once people realized what Google had created with Street View, a few people were not happy. The interesting thing about this reaction is that people were concerned only once these photos became available to the public.
Rather than harming privacy though, Google is performing a great public service. These photos are also being resold to the government and being used by corporations. The same with the bird's eye view on Virtual Earth (this is oblique imagery). Yet, people do not seem as concerned with the government having it as with Google publishing it.
In the future, governments and corporations will possess and exploit this technology. Why should they be the only ones with access to it? The first best use of this technology is to model, understand, and explore our world. However, the technology will also be utilized in perverse ways. Public privacy is better served if everyone can see what is available and not just the government and corporations.
(Of course, Google has a history of reneging on the idea of free access to this information when confronted by the government. Here is a recent example. In the military's defense, it doesn't help anyone if there is street view of American bases but not any other country's).
Microsoft also has this technology and is working acquiring street views of cities all around the country. I work in GIS at the county level and utilize remote sensing technology (digital photos and LiDAR) on a daily basis. As I mentioned previously, GIS technologies are accelerating rapidly and I believe in a few years most people will be shocked by our ability to model the real world.
Google and Microsoft have completely changed the equation in the field of GIS and the ability of the public to access remote sensing technology (including digital photos, oblique photos, and street view photos). However, once people realized what Google had created with Street View, a few people were not happy. The interesting thing about this reaction is that people were concerned only once these photos became available to the public.
Rather than harming privacy though, Google is performing a great public service. These photos are also being resold to the government and being used by corporations. The same with the bird's eye view on Virtual Earth (this is oblique imagery). Yet, people do not seem as concerned with the government having it as with Google publishing it.
In the future, governments and corporations will possess and exploit this technology. Why should they be the only ones with access to it? The first best use of this technology is to model, understand, and explore our world. However, the technology will also be utilized in perverse ways. Public privacy is better served if everyone can see what is available and not just the government and corporations.
(Of course, Google has a history of reneging on the idea of free access to this information when confronted by the government. Here is a recent example. In the military's defense, it doesn't help anyone if there is street view of American bases but not any other country's).
Technologies accelerate, Humans not so much
One of the foundations of the Singularity is the concept that technology is self-accelerating and that at some point it will become self-improving. I have not seen the self-improving part so much, but over the last few years I have seen the self-accelerating part.
When I started in my current field, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), in 2002-2004, digital geography was still in its nascent form and it was being utilized in a powerful, but not world-historical transformative scale. Its strange, I come into it at a time that was still relatively innocent, when you could put together a digital map and feel relatively impressed with yourself. That early experience has given me just the right amount of perspective for what has followed. I think this podcast (scroll down to the 2004 area and look for David Rumsey) by David Rumsey captures the pre-2005 mood perfectly. GIS was an exciting field and there had been many efforts by many devoted people to spread the information to the general public.
Then, Google Earth arrived and everything changed. Virtually overnight everybody's connection to geography changed and the expectations went through the roof. You can still impress people with a nice, clean digital map, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to find such a person.
However, the scary thing is that the changes are just beginning and the advance of GIS technology is far out-stripping the ability of most people to capitalize on it (this applies to me and the people I work for and with). The revolution is only starting. There is a convergence of technologies occurring that will totally transform our relation to our world within the next decade. Many people have a limited exposure to these technologies through Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth, but these only offer a small peek of what's to come.
Today, I listened to an intriguing Long Now podcast by Paul Saffo, a forecaster associated with Stanford University. In the podcast, Saffo mentions that the 80's were the decade of cheap processing power (the advent of the personal computer), the 90's were the decade of the cheap laser (the advent of fiber optics and the networked world), and this decade will be the decade of the cheap sensor. He right on because I've seen it in action in GIS, real-world (not quite real-time) sensing has gotten much more affordable. That's why Google and Microsoft have been able to invest in it on a Nationwide scale that the government could not even have imagined.
Combined with computer processing power and networking power, the ability to create models from this newly available sensing data has grown exponentially. It will not be long before we will be able to view a functional mirror world model of the real world that is a near perfect representation of the real world.
There are five key technologies involved in this transformation, these include LiDAR (laser-based sensing of the Earth's surface), hand held GPS, street-view GPSed photography (now viewable on Google Maps), cheap digital color orthophotography (straight down view), and oblique photography (the "bird's eye view" now available on Virtual Earth). While all these technologies have a certain "wow" factor on their own, the meat of them is the advancing, but still infantile, ability to pull these technologies together and create models. One demonstration of a model I recently saw was breath-taking.
As impressive as these technologies are, the amazing part to me is the utter lack of applicability these things have to most people in comparison to the richness present in the data. The data is extremely valuable, especially in comparison to price, and there is money to be made by the people who really figure out how to make it applicable to the average person.
When I started in my current field, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), in 2002-2004, digital geography was still in its nascent form and it was being utilized in a powerful, but not world-historical transformative scale. Its strange, I come into it at a time that was still relatively innocent, when you could put together a digital map and feel relatively impressed with yourself. That early experience has given me just the right amount of perspective for what has followed. I think this podcast (scroll down to the 2004 area and look for David Rumsey) by David Rumsey captures the pre-2005 mood perfectly. GIS was an exciting field and there had been many efforts by many devoted people to spread the information to the general public.
Then, Google Earth arrived and everything changed. Virtually overnight everybody's connection to geography changed and the expectations went through the roof. You can still impress people with a nice, clean digital map, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to find such a person.
However, the scary thing is that the changes are just beginning and the advance of GIS technology is far out-stripping the ability of most people to capitalize on it (this applies to me and the people I work for and with). The revolution is only starting. There is a convergence of technologies occurring that will totally transform our relation to our world within the next decade. Many people have a limited exposure to these technologies through Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth, but these only offer a small peek of what's to come.
Today, I listened to an intriguing Long Now podcast by Paul Saffo, a forecaster associated with Stanford University. In the podcast, Saffo mentions that the 80's were the decade of cheap processing power (the advent of the personal computer), the 90's were the decade of the cheap laser (the advent of fiber optics and the networked world), and this decade will be the decade of the cheap sensor. He right on because I've seen it in action in GIS, real-world (not quite real-time) sensing has gotten much more affordable. That's why Google and Microsoft have been able to invest in it on a Nationwide scale that the government could not even have imagined.
Combined with computer processing power and networking power, the ability to create models from this newly available sensing data has grown exponentially. It will not be long before we will be able to view a functional mirror world model of the real world that is a near perfect representation of the real world.
There are five key technologies involved in this transformation, these include LiDAR (laser-based sensing of the Earth's surface), hand held GPS, street-view GPSed photography (now viewable on Google Maps), cheap digital color orthophotography (straight down view), and oblique photography (the "bird's eye view" now available on Virtual Earth). While all these technologies have a certain "wow" factor on their own, the meat of them is the advancing, but still infantile, ability to pull these technologies together and create models. One demonstration of a model I recently saw was breath-taking.
As impressive as these technologies are, the amazing part to me is the utter lack of applicability these things have to most people in comparison to the richness present in the data. The data is extremely valuable, especially in comparison to price, and there is money to be made by the people who really figure out how to make it applicable to the average person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
