OMB

(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.

The Association for Geographic Information (AGI) are a UK-centric trade association for the producers and consumers of geographic information and related hardware suppliers, software developers and consultants. They exist to promote the interests of their members, provide them with a forum for discussion, oversee professional development and organise events like this week’s annual conference, held in Stratford-upon-Avon, UK.

I was invited to talk about OSM and some of the neo-geographic development that ZXV undertake. The AGI conference is a lot like Where2.0 for people who use proprietary desktop GIS and all the trappings of the pre-Web2.0 era, something that the conference tried to address this year by the inclusion of several talks relating to neo-geography, and a conference theme: ‘Building a geo-community’.

It was a tough crowd. These are the guys for whom tagging, folksonomies and the democratisation of, well, almost anything is a scary idea. In a lot of ways talking to groups like this is what its all about - these are the people who use geographic information all day, everyday. Convincing an open software advocate of the benefits of open geodata is one thing, but selling the idea that a bunch of normal people without years of training and professional certification, can make a map that’s actually quite good, to a room full of people who have built their careers upon concept that they are the specialists, is quite a challenge. Its a challenge that I relish and I think the message is really getting across - there was a lot of interest in OpenStreetMap, open-geodata and neo-geography.

Neo-geography - it will never work

The criticisms leveled and OSM and neogeography were nothing new. The usual concerns about ‘how can a trust the data’ and ‘will it ever be complete’, were voiced, along with some misinformed comments from several of speakers and panelists, including David Maguire, VP ESRI UK and one gentleman who’s name I missed, sitting on the far right of the pannel. (I’d like to crowd source the name of the guy sitting on the far right of the panel during the debate on Thursday, so please leave his name as a comment).

Both of these delegates spun the line that the kind of pins-in-maps analysis that neo-geographers undertake is one thing, but if you want ‘proper’ geographic analysis, you of course need a ‘proper’ GIS. Spatatial analysis cannot, apparently be undertaken with open source tools and is certainly outside of the realms of neo-geography. Have these guys not heard of GeoCommons?. ‘They must have heard of PostGIS or GRASS?’, I thought. Of course they have - these guys are board level executives of companies like Oracle and ESRI. Right now, it would be insane for the VP of ESRI to stand up at the AGI and tell the delegates that yes, its true, 90% of the users of ESRI, could actually use QGIS quite happily. Its tantamount to Vanessa Lawrence standing up and telling everyone to use OpenStreetMap maps. These guys are going to keep on peddling their company line, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t understand what’s going on.

Oracle will profess that open source databases are no threat, but they they’ll release a free version. The OS will innovate to keep up with developments driven by the open source and neo-geographic community. And I would be surprised if ESRI don’t release a free desktop GIS that has equivalent functionality to QGIS. The smart guys are already doing so.

This is far from all I’ve got to say about the conceptions of the established GIS community regarding neo-geograhpy.