Where: Mapping — New Cartographies of Networks and Territories

2 Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 William Cartwright School of Mathematical and Geospatial Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract With the arrival of the Internet, Cartography was able to publish maps on-line, quickly and with no distribution or printing costs. However, the way maps are constructed for Web delivery differs little from computer graphics and discrete multimedia products. Now, accelerated by relatively inexpensive access to the Internet, the availability of small, inexpensive, mobile computers and the availability of social software have changed the way in which users access information via the Internet. This is being facilitated via blogging, building products like Wikis and using Aggregator and Social services. The Internet is now being used in a way where users ‘build’ their own information resources by placing their own information on-line or linking to many distributed resources. Information is stored virtually and accessed when needed and in formats best suited to a particular use. Information is not developed or stored as one complete unit, but ‘built’ on demand using Web-provisioned resources. This chapter considers whether cartography needs to address the concept of ‘decomposing the map’ in the era of Web 2.0, whereby a complete product will be replaced by cartographer-built components in conjunction with user-provided information. Users would ‘construct’ their own mapping product from both cartographer-provided components and their own information.

2.1 Introduction When interactive multimedia was new innovation was paramount. ‘Multi-media’ became ‘multimedia’ and products became integrated, seamless and content-rich. Users were offered a smorgasbord of media applications. Computer displays harnessed to adjunct output and input device were the delivery mechanisms and hyperlinks and interactivity were the ‘glue’ that held them together. For cartography this offered designers the opportunity to move beyond ‘just’ single screen ‘snapshots’ and to be able to assemble products of more generous proportions. These initial products excited users and producers alike. They provided the means 11

12

William Cartwright

for experts and ‘armchair travellers’ alike to explore geography using richly furbished cartographic composite offerings. Initial products were ‘packaged,’ with the author/producer deciding the product content, and the user the navigation paths to follow and the type of display to view. Later, products were dynamically ‘built’ ‘on-the-fly,’ once generous databases were first cobbled to, and later became integrated with multimedia products. Then, almost as if discrete media had never been the focus of concentrated effort, distributed media using the World Wide Web changed the access method, and along with the strategies for delivering ‘good’ product. The Web, Berners-Lee’s communication tool that enabled scientists to collaborate virtually, albeit initially only using text (via HTML-facilitated documents), provided the means to make documents available (almost) instantly. Media that once demanded the movement of voluminous tomes of text or, later CD-ROM-packaged ‘rich media’ products, were replaced by the Web’s ‘pull’ technology that enabled documents to be found on a computer somewhere else in the network, retrieved, and then used on one’s own computer. No paper products to print then post or fax, no CD-ROMs or floppy disks to burn and then mail. For cartography the Web provided the means to make maps ‘available for all’. Initially the mapping products published via this medium was quite modest, static counterparts of their discrete multimedia forbearers. Rudimentary maps were the rule of the day, and ‘simple’ meant that download times could at least be tolerated when graphics products were transferred. Function dictated form, and maps were simple, inelegant and basic – but they were available immediately. Quite quickly more elaborate products replaced these simple mapping products as software was developed and download times improved. Soon the maps produced for the Web became as useful and usable as discrete multimedia products. Then maps generated from databases ‘on-the-fly’ were possible, with processing being initially server-side biased, but later both server-side and clientside ‘generated’ maps became de-rigueur. Large databases could be interrogated and the forthcoming data analysed and visualized. What was once the domain of large cartographic offices was ‘ported’ to the map users computer. The user could become a producer-user. The Web, and mapping products later became mobile, delivered via the telecommunications conduit of large telecommunications companies as proprietary product or via the Mobile Internet. Maps became smaller, demanding a re-think about what constituted ‘good’ design. Maps had to be displayed on small, lowresolution devices. And, the user was mobile! Again, function dictated form, and the maps produced for this delivery medium were simple products for navigation and ‘at-location’ geographical information provision. How these maps were used differed from desk-bound or notebook computer products and speed of delivery and consumption (again, whilst mobile in most instances) dictated their design and use.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

13

Maps were produced for the Web by cartographers, who packaged their design and delivered products as complete packages. This was done using various methods of map composition, but the cartographer was composer/producer. The availability of relatively inexpensive Internet access, small, but powerful computers and Social Software changed this ‘one size fits all’ way of map composition, production and consumption. Producer/users used Web 2.0 and the freely-available Web sites that allowed virtual information repositories to be built, accessed and used in a collaborative way. Users built their own products, and collaborated with other Web users by sharing data and joining forces for mapping programs. The way in which products were produced changed from maps and atlases being ‘pre-composed and built for users’, to a situation where maps and atlases were composed on-demand and ‘on-the-fly’. Perhaps this was similar to what happened when cartography embraced printing and atlases were ’assembled’ from what were once discrete maps.

2.2 Communication systems and maps Communication systems that have been adopted by cartography can be grouped into four loosely defined eras: • • • •

Inscription Printing Electronic Iconography Global electronic publishing

However, with the rapid advancement and changes in communication it is reasonable to add two more that have developed most recently: • Personal / global electronic publishing • Collaborative global electronic publishing and communication It is this last communication phase, and its relevance to cartography that this paper focuses on – the use of contemporary collaborative communication systems using the World Wide Web. More particularly, the paper looks at what has been described as Web 2.0, the use by individuals and groups of individuals to provide and share information by utilising the Web in a different manner. The way that users of Web 2.0 communicate differently is that they do not require materials packaged by publishers – they do this themselves, and, they are computer literate, equipped with versatile computers and appropriate software and, perhaps most importantly, ready to use the Web in different ways. It is this last communications system, and it application to cartography that is the focus of this paper. This ‘New Cartography’ uses the Web 2.0 as a different, collaborative form of communication.

14

William Cartwright

2.3 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 is the use of the World Wide Web by individuals and groups of individuals to provide and share information by utilising the Web in a different manner. The way that users of Web 2.0 communicate differently is that they do not require materials packaged by publishers – they do this themselves, and, they are computer literate, equipped with versatile computers and appropriate software and, perhaps most importantly, ready to use the Web in different ways. The Web 2.0 has been described as: “… the transformation of the original Web of static documents into a collection of pages that still look like documents but are interfaces to full-fledged computing platforms. These Web-based services are proliferating so fast because they can be built using shared, standardized programming tools and languages developed, for the most part, by open-source software community” (Roush, 2005, p. 49). It has been made possible by three broad technology trends: • Inexpensive Internet access; • Inexpensive wireless computing devices; • The Web as a platform for personal publishing and social software (Roush, 2005). These information access methods include Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Infoclouds, Wiki software, Blogging, MMS, Wi-Fi, Aggregator services, Social services, Location Based Services (LBS), etc. The paragraphs that follow briefly describe a selection of these access and sharing methods under two headings: 1) Collaborative information sites; and 2) Social software. 2.3.1 Collaborative information sites Flicker is perhaps the most popular photograph-sharing Web site (www.flickr.com). As well as posting digital images users can also add comments and tags. This allows for photographs to be found by using in-built search routines. Folksonomies are collaborative knowledge structures. They are built collaboratively by groups of users with a common interest in a particular structure tag digital data for later access and use. The structure of the knowledge database is not hierarchical, but an extensive, un-bounded one. Wikis - Web sites that allow the free posting of content. The content is not moderated, but maintains its integrity by the continual review and modification by contributors. Contributors can choose to post content anonymously or with their details provided. These sites provide powerful community-built (Web) information resources. Perhaps the best example of Wiki software is Wikipedia (http:// www.wikipedia.org), which Began in January 2006 (Associated Press, 2006). This Web-accessible encyclopaedia delivers five billion pages a month. It has over one

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

15

million English-language articles and it publishes in more than 120 languages (Stross, 2006). As well, Digital Universe is a similar non-profit commercial-free Web storehouse of information (http://www.digitaluniverse.net). Examples such as Placeopedia, Openstreet, or Geowiki are emerging from the similar communities (Pulsiver and Caquard 2006). 2.3.2 Social software Social Software Services began when we used SMS (Short Messaging System), and later MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) on cell phones, instant messaging on Internet-linked computers and email. MMS has increased in popularity in countries where third-generation (3G) cellular telephone services have been introduced. MMS via 3G services appends images (still and motion) and sound to the text messages of SMS. Voice-over-Internet-Portocol (VoIP), delivered using networks like Skype, provide free peer-to-peer Internet-connected phone services and, for a relatively modest charge, links to fixed-line and cellular phone subscribers. Blogs – personal electronic ‘journals’. Users build their electronic journals on-line using sites like Blogger, LiveJournal, Movable Type and WordPress (Roush, 2005). These sites allow users to easily ‘build’ and maintain blogs that may consist of text, images, audio and video content. Delicious (del.icio.us) - users deposit URLs, comments and tags that enable them to index and retrieve selected Web pages. This type of software provides powerful, free methods for assembling a comprehensive directory of useful Web sites. Gmail – provided by Google. This service provides users with almost unlimited storage space via the Web. Subscribers also gain access to powerful Google search engine. But, it must be noted that there are some privacy concerns with this service, as Google stores the contents of all email messages, outgoing and incoming. Infoclouds are aggregations of personal digital data. Individuals ‘point’ to information that resides on the Internet, rather than store the information locally or on purpose-built Web sites. Users invoke infoclouds to retrieve and display the information of interest to them, or for specific applications. Podcasts are MP3 recordings published on the Internet. ‘Listeners’ can subscribe to specific ‘shows’ and then download the complete show for later listening on MP3 players. Apple’s iPod made this type of program popular. Location-Based Services (LBS), sometimes referred to as L-commerce, began when Telco’s saw increased revenue generated from the provision of location with services. The industry sees that the biggest potential money earner is mobile location entertainment, especially amongst teenagers (Gisler 2001). And, LBS may soon be ‘personalised’ by applications like Siemens proposed ‘Virtual Post-Its,’ where users

16

William Cartwright

of GPS-enabled cell phones can leave virtual post-it notes by sending a message from the location about which the post-it refers. When the message recipient is within a certain proximity of where the message was dispatched a message is sent from the server (Technology Review, 2005).

2.4 Web 2.0 and Cartography What impact will Web 2.0 have on cartography? Currently cartography provides users with maps and map-related products in both paper and digital form. But, over the last decade by far the most widely-used method for the dissemination of geographical information recently has been the World Wide Web. In this time, it has grown from 40 million users worldwide in 1996 (van Niekerk 1996) to around 1 billion during 2005 (Peterson 2006). The products delivered by the Web are by-andlarge the products of cartographers and, particularly products that are provided as ‘packaged’ products, whereby users are unable to sometimes make their own maps from supplied databases, but otherwise cannot make personal contributions. The Web 2.0 works somewhat differently – users want to make their own contributions, they share documents and they are attuned and skilled at composing their own compilations of rich media to facilitate ‘self-help’ information provision.

Fig. 2.1 OpenStreetMap. Free, editable map of the World. http://www.openstreetmap.org/

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

17

Looking at some mapping examples developed using Web 2.0 provides a snapshot of the interest that Web 2.0 has generated. The following images show mapping examples developed and delivered by groups of individuals using Web 2.0. OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/) makes available a free, editable map of the World. Users can download the image for free and then annotate it with their own, additional information. The map is shown in Figure 2.1. Other resources include GPS Traces, a public collection of road centerlines (see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces), MapStraction, providing a common API for Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft’s javascript mapping APIs (see: http://www. mapstraction.com/) and CivicMaps Tile Engine v0.5, a Web mapping engine for insertion into individual sites that present maps with clickable thumbtacks. (see: http://maps.civicactions.net/). Examples such as Placeopedia, OpenStreetMap, or GeoWiki are emerging from the similar communities (Pulsiver and Caquard, forthcoming). Also, individual users are creating ‘Mashups’ – collections of maps using the resources provided via the Web. They provide the ability to assemble Web pages that are a combination of: Geolocation + Googlemaps + Additional information (added by the individual). The following images show the types of maps that are produced with Mashups.

Fig. 2.2 Simple map produced by the author using the Quikmaps site. http://quikmaps.com/

18

William Cartwright

Fig. 2.3 The author’s map using PlaceOpedia. Geolocation+Maps+Wikipedia+Flickr. http://www.placeopedia.com/

Fig. 2.4 frappr - maps created by individuals, who then invite others to join. http://www.frappr.com/applegeeks

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

19

There has been a revolution about how user/producers go about actually collecting data and producing maps. They are being produced by ‘New Cartographers,’ as well as cartographers that are new to cartography. To assist in their endeavours books have been written about New Cartographies. Three examples are: 1) Mapping Hacks: Tips & Tools for Electronic Cartography, Schuyler Erle, Rich Gibson, Jo Walsh (Oreilly & Associates Inc., 2005) 2) ELSE/WHERE: MAPPING — New Cartographies of Networks and Territories, Janet Abrams and Peter Hall (University of Minnesota Design Institute, 2006. ISBN 0-9729696-2-4). This book was a project that explores the “techniques and contemporary applications of mapping”. (For further information see the Web site at: http://design.umn.edu/go/project/elsewheremapping or the blog at: http:// www.elsewheremapping.com/) 3) Gibson, R. and Schuyler E., 2006, Google Maps Hacks (Oreilly & Associates Inc., 2006) Conferences also have addressed New Cartographies. For example, Futuressonic (http://10.futuresonic.com/off_the_map.html) was held in Manchester in July 2006. The theme of the event was: “to consider how evolving mobile, locative and mapping technologies, often created by independent developers working collaboratively with open source tools, are opening up new cultural possibilities across the world”. Sounds like ‘mainstream’ cartography. As well, during August/September 2006 the Royal Geographical Society / Institute of British Geographers held their conference in London. One of the sessions is devoted to New Cartography – Rethinking Maps – organised by Martin Dodge and Chris Perkins (University of Manchester) and Rob Kitchin (NUI Maynooth, Ireland). The topics presented at the conference illustrate the interest in providing maps ‘differently’: • Deconstructing the Map • Performing Cartographies: Wayfinding Within The Airport • MAPS withOUT Borders • OpenStreetMap.org – Citizens Mapping the World • Emergent Mapping: The Possibilities for Cartographic • Multiplicity and Resistance • Tools and social uses for collaborative map building • Maps, Race and Foucault • European topographic mapping and the aesthetics of landscape • cartography • Spatial Diaries? Personalisation and Reflexivity in Maps • Maps & Orientation • TheirWork: An Online Map You Can Contribute To

20

William Cartwright

2.5 Questioning how to deliver geospatial information using Web 2.0 Some problems are emerging due to the ability that the computer-savvy have to access information using these tools. A “New Digital Divide” is being expounded by blogger Godin, who splits Web users into the ‘Digerati’ and the ‘Left behind. His perceived differences are listed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 The New Digital Divide. Re-drawn from Godin, 2006. THE NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE The Digerati

The Left Behind

Uses Firefox

Uses Internet Explorer

Knows who Doc Searls is

Already has a Doctor, thanks very much

Uses RSS Reader

RSS?

Has a blog

Reads blogs (sometimes)

Reads BoingBoing

Watches the Tonight Show

Bored with Flickr

Flickr?

Gets news from Google

Gets news from Peter Jennings

Where does this place cartography – as part of Godin’s ‘Left Behind’ or ‘Digerati’? Therefore, the question that this chapter asks is: Is there still a need to have the map as one ‘whole’?” That is, should we consider that users may wish to compose their own ‘maps’ or ‘atlases’ by perhaps using only some cartographer-provided information, and then supplementing this with information that they source themselves, or construct in their preferred manner. Are users, who are attuned to ‘selfcomposition’ and finding information themselves more likely to assemble their own ‘experience’ of geography? They have the ability and tools available to do this. So do we need to address how we should provide information via Web 2.0? Do we still only provide ‘packaged’ geographical information, or do we need to re-think how we can best include the user in this process. If we consider that many of the first atlases were ‘composite’ products, where publishers ‘composed’ paper atlases from maps sourced from various cartographers, then this is not a new concept. The difference is that the user becomes the publisher, and the cartographer just one of the providers of information. Therefore, are New Rules for cartographic product composition and delivery required?

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

21

2.6 New Rules New methods for depicting the earth and its cultural and natural attributes have developed and many other graphic and non-graphic formats have become available to complement maps for presentation. In the ‘main stream’ cartographic world this equates to the use of things like simple in-car alphanumeric read-outs, audioguided city guides and SMS (Short Message Service) - enabled cellular telephones that deliver directional and location information to users. With the sheer number of publications readily available through contemporary communications and multimedia publishing systems the way in which we access information has changed forever. The geospatial sciences are no different. It is argued that a new genre of spatial artefact has now stabilised and become an accepted tool for exploring geography and for mining geographical information. This has resulted in adapting new ways to use these products and new ways of assembling data into a personalised cartographic product. Information can be combined from multiple sources to create ‘montage maps,’ maps without a ‘data of data capture’ (that is, the final visualization may be a composite image that ensures the ‘best’ image for usage, for example, a composite remotely sensed image that can be produced from separate files to ensure global cloud-free coverage, but at each discrete point on the earth the data is derived from different sources or different collection ‘date/time’ ‘stamps’’). In many instances, this has led to the proliferation of geospatial products that have been produced by ignoring the ‘rules’ that govern what cartography considers to be good map compilation and design. Traditionally, data and user were ‘merged’ by the provision of a particular mapping product that was generated to meet a certain usage requirement for viewing geographical information within a designated area. Contemporary products have changed the process. Users can become the map drawer, data can be assembled from many discrete and geographically dispersed sites and visualization products can be generated using a plethora of depiction techniques that interpret data into usable maps using software that is both available and inexpensive. In the light of the tremendous impact that information technology has had on the graphic arts in particular, and also on the possibilities for producing fairly professional products by non-cartographers, the area of responsibility for cartographers perhaps needs to be re-defined as well. Consider that new technologies enables non-cartographers to produce maps, which can nevertheless be viewed as naive mapping products in the eyes of cartographers, as usable products (albeit inefficient and probably scientifically inaccurate and artistically inelegant), almost at the touch of a button. These can be developed and produced without a cartographer’s input whatsoever, as long as the producer has access to data, which data providers are more than willing to make available to anyone who has the ability to pay.

22

William Cartwright

Does cartography therefore need to be re-defined in terms of cartographer and also in terms of naïve producer/consumer as well? Consider that cartographers can control most elements of the provision of products until the final consumption of the product, perhaps a division needs to be made between the actual ‘behind the scenes’ elements of contemporary cartography and the ‘public face’ of cartography - ‘consumer cartography’. Therefore, what do we produce? Once the focus of map production, as paper products, discrete media like CD-ROM and the Web, was for ‘packaged’ cartographic products. Cartography did ‘compose’ products like atlases and map sets, but predominantly cartography has focussed on delivering packages, and not packets of information. Perhaps what is required for users of the Web 2.0 is a ‘decomposed’ map. A ‘map’ where users ‘build’ their own product, individually or collaboratively, from resources that they choose. And, the resources chosen by users may not always be those provided by cartographic firms. They may be composite products, discrete or distributed, cartographer-provided, user-built or the result of a collaborative enterprise. 2.6.1 Judging quality How can quality be judged when a composite product is being ‘self-assembled’ by a user? With paper, computer-generated and Web products there were certain elements that could be evaluated to ascertain ‘good product’. Web 2.0 demands a different approach. This section addresses this issue. 2.6.2 Quality and printed maps When printing was applied to map publishing the whole world changed! Information could be made more quickly and the perennial problem of copying errors from one document to another disappeared. When judging quality it needed to be considered that printers had become part of the map production team and in many ways they dictated the ‘look’ of maps due to their technologically-imposed specifications on the map production process. After the printer was incorporated into map production Cartographers had to adapt design and production to take into account the particular restrictions which printing placed on maps. Therefore to judge quality in maps the actual print quality was included, and sometimes print quality became paramount. As well as the actual cartographic design and the completeness of the map, judging quality of paper maps had to include the artwork itself – drawing or scribing, the photomechanical processes used and, finally, the quality of the actual print. Quality focussed on the producers definition of what was a ‘good’ map and the actual drawing and replication specifications. In many cases the user was left out from quality evaluation.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

23

2.6.3 Quality and computer-generated maps With the ‘invention’ of the computer, everything changed in the scientific world – including cartography. The mapping industry first used computers as ‘number crunchers,’ then to guide drawing instruments as CAD systems. The initial systems used ‘mainframe’ computers, which required interaction via punchcards and then keyboards, not graphic images. Eventually this type of system was applied to graphics, and graphic artists, and cartographers were able to design and produce graphics ‘directly,’ without the problems associated with having to produce artwork ‘blind’ of the final appearance of the graphic product until a colour proof was made through photomechanical processes. Cartography applied computer graphics for artwork production and output. Initially, a flood of ‘crude’ (from a design and consumption perspective) computer generated maps depicted everything about everywhere. As long as the products were not the subject of too much critical analysis, all appeared to be well with the carto-graphics. But, still, some below standard map products that resulted from the attempts to portray spatial information using early computer graphics systems were foisted onto the user. Unfortunately many inferior map products produced with these early computer systems were readily accepted as substitutes for the precise and eleganty scribed and printed alternatives only because they were produced quickly and by new computer systems. Just because the results of many calculations could be displayed using the newlyadopted computer drawing packages, users were sometimes willing to accept the initial crude outputs only because they were produced quickly and from data which resided on a massive, presumably more current, database. Once computer-mapping systems became commonplace, Cartographers looked for ways of improving the design of digitally-produced maps. The later generations of digital maps usually make the earlier products pale in comparison. Initial digital products were woeful, but some of their later products were wonderful examples of cartographic excellence. With the implementation of computers into the cartographic process, quality was determined differently. As well as the actual map itself, quality was also determined about the effectiveness of computer–assisted procedures. These included the design and planning stages, data acquisition, editing and quality assurance, data processing, map composition and production, replication and product delivery.

2.6.4 Quality and the Web The Web provided cartography with a new method for disseminating maps. Some of the early Web mapping packages used text-heavy interfaces to list the available mapping inventory and the text provided hyperlinks to the actual maps themselves. These maps were ‘packaged’ as either .GIF or .JPG images, or, once downloaded users could view them as a low-resolution counterpart to printed maps. As the focus

24

William Cartwright

on early Web mapping was on speed, some of these early Web-delivered maps mirrored the graphics produced by early computer systems. Alternatively, the maps provided were only scanned paper maps, like the extensive collection provided by the Perry-Castañeda Library, at The University of Texas at Austin. But, if users were willing to wait for a long download time, then images with better resolution could be had. This method has been used with great success by digital map libraries like Oxford University’s Bodleian Library, a repository to numerous historical artifacts related mainly to Oxford and Oxfordshire. Later, maps were made available via large databases and on-demand images were composed server-side and then delivered to the map user. The efforts of companies like MapQuest made this type of map available globally. Then, using formats such as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) vector maps were provided on the Web. These were ‘scalable’ and the map could be zoomed and panned with no loss of resolution. Using the Web for map publishing meant that the cartographic industry could publish without the mass replication costs of paper, information was provided world-wide and users had almost instant access to mapping products. Quality was adjudged by speed of delivery, circulation figures, accuracy associated with screen resolution and how the product had been generally delivered by the Web. Quality was gauged by how the ‘rules’ of computers and communications systems were applied. Users were still seen as consumers, and not collaborators in geographical knowledge acquisition. Users provided with maps from various resources, and from different cartographers, providers, etc. The Web mapping designer is restricted by reality: real reality and the reality that the user considers to be real.

2.6.5 Quality and Web 2.0 The use of Web 2.0 as a means for providing geographical information presents different problems for assuring quality. Problems might arise with a conglomerate product related to ‘self-constructed’ Web 2.0 products. Consider the use of Wikis and if a Wiki Atlas (or Watlas?) was constructed. To guarantee quality and assured, concise information, a number of questions arise: • Who takes ‘ownership / custodianship of the product? • Who guarantees the quality /integrity of the product? • Who maintains the product? For conventional cartographic products these assurances are provided by cartography. A major issue if self-composed products are to be used with confidence might well be quality assurance. Therefore, methods would need to be developed for assuring quality with conglomerate products, assuring quality with user-produced products and the means for informing users about the source of conglomerate information resources.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

25

2.7 How might this be achieved? If New Media is looked-upon as a vehicle to achieve this conglomerate hard/soft presentation tool, then there are a number of elements that need to be addressed to ensure that an effective artefact is provided. Design decisions need to be made that relate to how the user is able to modify the tool provided (shown as the fixedmalleable continuum ‘side’ of the cube in Figure 2.5) so that users can ‘mould’ the tool into a form that best suits their usage of the tool. The amount of interactivity provided, or perhaps no interaction at all will also change the visualization device. Products can be passive, and provide the ability for ‘armchair travel’ in a way that readers of travel-related novels would appreciate. Or, the product may be merely ‘reactive,’ whereby it would react to, say where a mouse was located on a screen or the ‘path’ that a user was taking while exploring information. The product could be fully interactive, and offer users many ways to interrogate the system. And, facilitating what could be called a ‘High Technical Precision’ – ‘Art Installation’ continuum is the ‘Geometrical Integrity’ – ‘Graphical Intensity’ edge of the cube in Figure 2.5. Design decisions related to this continuum can bias a product either towards a technology focus or an art focus, or somewhere in-between, allowing for a product that was ‘tuned’ to particular user likes. Art/technology attributes ‘dialled-in’! Traditionally, to ensure that the products so designed are usable and useful, in a geographical context, they were designed according to ‘Geo-Carto’ rules. This assumed that historical ‘rules,’ developed to ensure that cartographic artefacts GEOGRAPHICAL REALITY

‘Cartographic Outliers’ artefacts produced outside conventional geo-cartographic ‘rules’ Malleable

Graphical integrity Fixed Passive

Reactive

Geometrical integrity Interactive

Fig. 2.5 Geographical reality and interactive multimedia.

26

William Cartwright

provided tools had integrity and were effective for information communication, are considered and that current and developing methodologies and preferences are employed. Overarching these considerations is the need to provide visualizations that accord to geographical reality, whereby, for design functionality, information is not so distorted that the real geographical reality is so warped that it cannot be properly be visualized or understood. What users of social software and collaborative Web sites would include in their composite products can be seen to be ‘outside’ the Geo-Carto’ rules. They might be considered to be ‘Cartographic Outliers,’ products that are deemed to be unable to be evaluated according to conventional cartographic practices. However, these products are important to individual users and they would wish them to be part of any comprehensive product that delivered their ‘personalised’ conglomerate product, one that comprised cartographer-built and user built/specified (and linked) components. But how to design these products? Consider that any cartographic artefact needs to be designed according to certain guidelines, and these guidelines, once assembled, define the ‘look’ of the product and its utility. Historically, rules have evolved, rather than being specifically constructed. Take for example a topographic map, the evolution of hundreds of years of work related to design, trialling, redesign, and so on. Viewing a topographic map in terms of the edges of the cube in Figure 2.5, it could be considered to be fixed, that is, users are unable to modify how it is used, and it is passive, the user does all of the ‘work’. This is illustrated in Figure 2.6.

TOPO CUBE Fixed Passive

Fig. 2.6 Topo cube.

A product providing both art and technology bias ‘provisions’ would need to provide more, and it could be ‘built’ using a number of cubes, each containing preferred elements, and assembled in such a way that the final combination came close to an ‘ideal configuration. In this way ‘fixed’ New Media elements, fixed insofar that existing technology provides little or no malleability tools, can be assembled to build a unique product. In the example shown in Figure 2.7 a tool could be constructed containing both fixed/passive elements, like topographic maps, as well as passive/graphic elements like photographs or videos (which are passive

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

27

Graphical integrity

Fixed Passive

Passive

Fig. 2.7 Cubes used to assemble a unique product.

from the user’s perspective, but dynamic from the perspective of the media). This would be analogous to a cartographic Lego set. This ‘Cartographic Installation’ would have different configurations according to needs and preferences of different participants in a particular cartographic application, from design to development to consumption. Separate configurations might be needed for: • Designer - to trial ideas and build prototypes; • Producer - with a focus on the elements needed for an efficient production process; • User - with particular application needs; • Commentator - needing a model upon which to base informed decisions; • The commentator as a Theorist, only interested in abstract views of geography; and • Non-participant - wishing to view geography from afar, perhaps the ‘armchair traveller’ who wants to use tools as a built environment that needs no personal input at all to experience the ‘journey’.

Fig. 2.8 Multimedia elements and a participant.

28

William Cartwright

Fig. 2.9 Building a complex New Media Cartographic installation.

Each of the users would assemble their own combination of New Media elements and then exploit this installation in their own manner (Figure 2.8). This (virtual) cartographic installation could be as large as the user requires, with new ‘slices’ added to enhance and extend the coverage and utility of the product (Figure 2.9). Users put-together maps from various resources, and from different cartographers, providers, etc. Cartographic input may be in the form of providing (some or all) components or suggesting a pathway through the assembled information, so as to view meaningful information. (This type of ‘pathway’ was proposed by Monmonier (1992) as ‘graphic scripts’ - a sequence of cartographic “events’ could be pre-programmed, and users would be taken through a (geographically) logical set of steps. Also, an ‘engineered’ method of moving through such a matrix was proposed by Cartwright (2004) and called ‘Engineered Serendipity’.

2.8 Conclusion Web 2.0 and the software now available presents a new view on what is done when provisioning users with cartographic materials. It offers a new publishing genre and a different way of delivering New Media. Small, portable and generic devices have changed the way that we access and use Web-delivered information, including cartographic information. And this information is delivered locally via discrete storage media like CD-ROM and nationally and globally via the Internet using the various Web consumption methods. Social software has changed what

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

29

users consider to be the methods to find, store and access information. They also are part of Web-enabled collaborative publishing consortia. Cartography needs to ascertain how best to apply its skills, in other areas that have been enabled by Web 2.0. These are basically non-cartographic, but they need to be spatially defined / controlled if they are to provide usable geographical information. This can be done with the confidence that the theory and outlooks are basically unchanged, but the tools and methods of delivery are different and need to be explored, appreciated and applied.

References Abrams, J. and Hall, P., 2006, ELSE/WHERE: MAPPING — New Cartographies of Networks and Territories, University of Minnesota Design Institute. Associated Press, 2006, “A Free Online Encyclopedia”, Monday, March 06, 2006. Cartwright, W. E., 2004, “Engineered Serendipity: thoughts on the design of conglomerate containing geoviz tools and geographical new media artefacts”, Transactions in GIS, January 2004, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 1-12, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Gibson, R. and Schuyler E., 2006, Google Maps Hacks, O’Reilly. Gisler, M., 2001, “Rome mobile location services conference attracts industry leaders”, WLIA Newsletter, Wireless Location Industry Association, www.wliaonline.com/publications/romeconference.html, Web page accessed 26 November 2003. Godin, S., 2006, “The New Digital Divide”, http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_ blog/2005/05/the_new_digital.html, Web site (Blog) accessed 30/3/2006 Peterson, M. P., 2006, “The Internet and Multimedia Cartography”, in Multimedia Cartography Ed. 2, Cartwright, W. E., Peterson, M. P. and Gartner, G., Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Pulsiver, P. L. and Caquard, S, 2006, “Toward a New Generation of Community Atlases - The Cybercartographic Atlas of Antarctica”, in Multimedia Cartography (Edition 2), Cartwright, W. E., Peterson, M. P. and Gartner, G.(eds), Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Roush, W., 2005, “Social machines”, MIT Technology Review, Aug 2005, pp. 45-53. Schuyler E., Gibson, R. and Walsh, J., 2005, Mapping Hacks: Tips & Tools for Electronic Cartography, O’Reilly & Associates Inc. Stross, 2006, “Digital Domain - Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”, The New York Times, March 12. Web page http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/ business/yourmoney/12digi.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

30

William Cartwright

Technology Review, 2005, “Prototype – Virtual Post-Its”, Technology Review, September 2005, p. 25. van Niekerk, M., 1996, “Money on the Net, but not yet”, The Age, February 17, pp. B1 and B6.