never intended to draw black/white distinctions; just stated that roles change in part due to technological advances...
--------------- Michael Gould Centro de Visualización Interactiva University Jaume I, Castellón Spain www.geoinfo.uji.es Quoting Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > MG wrote: "...while technology is allowing ordinary people to do some of what > they (and only they) could do earlier." > > There is a reason professionals exist. If you want to build your new garage > up against a property line derived from Google Earth and "further > investigation on the ground" go ahead. > > It's kind of like asking your buddy from the bar to visit WebMD and then > perform your vasectomy. > > In some cases professionals are necessary because they protect the health and > welfare of the public. Anyone who thinks an untrained individual can locate > property lines based on a "corrected" satellite photo and some poking around > with a metal detector has no idea of the complex issues that are involved in > boundary surveying. > > I will admit that new technology has allowed the "common man" to do things > that once required a surveyor with special training. For example, you can now > use GPS to locate topographic features. This used to require special optical > instruments and special training. In this case, I think the expansion of > technology and the removal of the professional can be a good thing, > especially in an economic sense. It makes our world more efficient. > > Landon > Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 > Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gould Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:52 PM > To: Landon Blake > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sean Gillies; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Geophysics vs. Geography: Why does one love > geowanking and the other not so much? > > your example seems to put the finger on the problem: professionals (surveyor > in > this case) fighting tooth and nail to keep control over a certain > domain...while technology is allowing ordinary people to do some of what > they > (and only they) could do earlier. I would not label your politician > technically ignorant (maybe a bit naive): in a sense he is foreshadowing the > future....people are going to stop contracting surveyors for many tasks that > they can do (in a good-enough manner) themselves (hopefully the imagery they > use is corrected). This is inevitable: people used to have professional > chauffeurs, secretaries took dictation and then typed letters, etc. and now > we > do these things ourselves thanks to technology and usability engineering. > > People normally do not go to GE for GIS activities, but to have a quick look > from above and then investigate further on the ground...no need for a GIS or > a > surveyor. > > MG > > p.s.- by the way, the initial post starting this thread seems not to have > sufficiently juxtaposed geoscientists and geographers....I'd say both like > virtual globes and both like their professional tools, all in good measure > and > where appropriate. > > > Quoting Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have enjoyed the comments so far on this topic. I thought I would > > share an eye-opening experience of my own that might illustrate a > > negative consequence of "neogeography". > > > > The local chapter of my state land surveyors association testified in > > front of the County Board of Supervisor in support of a small tax on > > recorded deeds. The tax would be used to fund the County Public Works > > Department's efforts to preserve property corner monuments in the > > County. In my particular area this is sorely needed, and the fund would > > do a tremendous public could if it was handled properly. > > > > One of the County Supervisors looked right at our group and said > > something like this: > > > > "I don't even understand why you guys or even the public needs property > > corner monuments any more. Can't you just look on Google Earth to see > > what you own?" > > > > I was shocked at this level of technical ignorance in an elected > > official, and for the first time in my life I saw how neogeography (or > > more importantly a misunderstanding of neogeography) had the potential > > to cause harm. > > > > I think digital globes like Google Earth and NASA WorldWind are awesome, > > but that doesn't mean that the ignorant people in powerful positions > > can't cause damage. The internet (Google) can't cure all of man's > > problems. :] > > > > Landon > > Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 > > Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 3:10 PM > > To: Sean Gillies > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Geophysics vs. Geography: Why does one love > > geowanking and the other not so much? > > > > Both (Brent and Sean) good points. I don't think anyone on this list or > > in general is saying geographic theory or critical thinking is bad. > > I've even seen GIS theory books on Andrew Turner's desk (neo poster > > child natch) ;-) If anything I'd argue that neo is leading more people > > to become interested in geographic theory and methods. New folks may > > not learn them through a four year degree program or an ESRI training > > class, but it does not mean they can't become well versed in the > > subject. > > > > Also I'd call Google Earth a data visualization tool not a data analysis > > tool. Most folks do their data analysis in something else then > > visualize it in Google Earth. So, I'm not sure that Google Earth is > > really supplanting geographic analysis (i.e. the climate modeling > > replacement analogy) although it is definitely debatable. > > > > Just seems there is an artificial divide between paleo and neo that is > > not really based on much substance. Unless you count vague references > > to mistakes being made and bad things happening. Just curious what is > > driving it all - outside of my various conspiracy theories. > > > > FortiusOne Inc, > > 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 > > Arlington, VA 22201 > > cell - 202-321-3914 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sean Gillies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:15:36 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Geophysics vs. Geography: Why does one love > > geowanking and the other not so much? > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I would not normally spam the list with one of my own blog posts, but > > I'd love to get thoughts from the list on the topic. > > > > > > > > http://blog.fortiusone.com/2008/11/14/geophysics-vs-geography-divergent- > > viewpoints-on-the-geoweb/ > > > > > > In short it seems the geophysicists have really embraced geowanking > > type things - check out their special session on spinny globes: > > > > > > http://conferences.images.alaska.edu/agu/2008/index.htm > > > > > > Now compare this to Mike Goodchild's quote in the latest ArcNews: > > > > > > "In 2005, Google Earth was released, and people with little or no > > background in GIS, geography, or cartography began using it and other > > similar services to discover the power of map making. Some even began > > calling themselves neogeographers. Suddenly it was possible to do some > > powerful things with geospatial data without committing to what was > > often a difficult and lengthy learning process....But mistakes (by > > neogeographers) were and are being made, as often happens when powerful > > technology is put in the hands of people with little background in its > > underlying concepts and little experience in thinking critically about > > its products." > > > > > > I have a lot of respect for Mike's academic work but this seemed a bit > > over the top. > > > > > > Any thoughts or response? > > > > > > best, > > > sean > > > > I suspect we'd see somewhat different attitudes if an easy-to-use > > climate modeling application that is to the CCSM as Google Earth is to > > Arc* were unleashed on the public. Google Earth is disruptive to GIS, it > > isn't disruptive to geophysicists. I sympathize. > > > > Still, the length and difficulty of the GIS learning process is being > > exaggerated, don't you think? > > > > Sean (still suffering from Post Navier-Stokes Stress Disorder) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > > > > > Warning: > > Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against > defects > > including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > > distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If > you > > have received this information in error, please notify the sender > > immediately. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > > > > > > -------------------------- > Michael Gould > Universitat Jaume I > Castellón > > > > Warning: > Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects > including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this information in error, please notify the sender > immediately. > > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
