(continued from the last post
The fact that organisations like the AGI are trying to get to grips with neo-geography is a good thing. Their members have amassed a serious amount of experience working with geoghraphic information and neo-geographers can learn a lot. But in order for this to be a successful two-way exchange, both parties need to understand what neo-geography is. A good starting point would be Andrew Turner’s O’Reilly Shortcut: Introduction to Neogeography. I’m going to try and address a few of the misconceptions and confusions surrounding neo-geography that I noticed at the AGI 2007
Neo-geography is not the same as open source
There’s a lot of cross over between the worlds of neo-geography and the worlds of Free and open source software (FOSS) and neo-geography, but they are not the same thing. FOSS applications exist that fill every space of the geo-stack – from heavyweight databases to desktop GIS to rendering engines. I talked about FOSS for geo-informatics at UCL earlier this year and have a brief list of applications here. FOSS exists to provide free alternatives to proprietary software and to create new software that might not exist if a proprietary form. FOSS projects usually have a focus on democracy and equal access and are based on the fundamental principal that everyone should have access to the source code.
There is no such belief within neo-geography. Projects like OpenSteetMap, which license all of their data under an open license are few and far between. Look through the listings of this year’s Where2.0 conference and you won’t find many open source projects – most companies do not want to give their data away. What you will find is a lot of innovation, ranging from visualisation to 3D modeling. The flagships of neogeography are neither open source nor open content. Applications like ShapeWiki, which lets users derive polygons by tracing over Google Maps do provide their content under open licenses, but are built upon a proprietary platform – Google Maps.
Further more, sites which allow a user to place a pin on a map, or draw a line or polygon on a map, may or may not be infringing the copyright of data-providers. Case law surrounding these issues is far from convincing, but the lack of clarity is enough to question exactly how open the content of sites likes these can possibly be.
Neo-geography is about pragmatic solutions to real problems
Neo-geography represents the democratisation of access to geographic tools and geodata. Before the release of Google Maps in 2005, the options for the amatuer geographer were limited by the barriers to entry to the use of geographic software and in many countries, geographic data. An Arc GIS or MapInfo license is simply too expensive for most people. FOSS alternatives like GRASS exist, but are not easy to use. The proliferation of geo-apps that has characterised the rise of neo-geography has been facilitated by the fast code-fix-deploy cycle that applications like the Google Maps API, and programming languages like Javascript, Ruby and Python provide, combined with the network effect of developing web-based (as opposed to desktop or server) app.
Neo-geography’s reaction against the built-in complexity of traditional GIS has caused a penetration of sectors of society that would be unimaginable using traditional GIS tools. The often voiced criticism that neo-geography is too simplistic represents the divide between the providers of traditional GIS and the consumers of neo-geography. People like neo-geographic apps because they are simple, because they solve a few targeted problems at a time.
Building complexity to ensure exclusivity
There’s also a darker side to the complexity of traditional GIS. The fact that someone needs a masters degree in GIS, to work as a GIS Technician should set alarm bells ringing. By maintaining the complexity of GIS, vendors like ESRI or Oracle are able to justify the costs of their products and consultants are able to justify their high fees and trade organisations justify their existance. Meanwhile, many individuals and businesses that could be using geographic information to make better decisions and operate with increased efficiency are strongly discouraged from doing so. Geographic information will not save the world unless the world’s citizens have access to both the information and tools with which to use it.