Hi everyone, Is there a public data source that contains boundary files for all the U.S. National Parks and Forests? Perhaps also state parks?
Thanks, Andrew On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM, David Sonnen <[email protected]> wrote: > Tyler, > > I don't know of any academic studies that compare benefits of static maps > to > interactive maps or virtual globes. But, there are a bunch of studies that > look at the value of geospatial information in various applications and > contexts. You might be able to splice together some of the methods and get > a reasonable answer. > > Ordnance Survey cites their 1999 OXERA report a lot. > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/reports/oxera/index.html > OXERA's ROI methods are pretty standard. I think that they've recently > updated that report, but I don't have a link. > > You might find useful ideas in some of the INSPIRE documentation. The EU > published a slick YouTube video that might be a good starting point. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr_sx0iHb1w The video touches on a lot of > stock points about the value of geospatial information, interoperability > and > accessibility. The details are in the INSPIRE library. Going through the > INSPIRE document collection is an exercise in endurance, but there is some > good stuff in there. > > The UN's Economic and Social Council published a report in March that > touches on the broad value of geospatial information in the context of > economic development. > http://www.uneca.org/codist/codist1/content/E-ECA-CODIST-1-11-EN.pdf > > If you want to quantify the value of geospatial information in a set of > specific processes, take a look at my paper, "GVM: A Framework for > Estimating the Business Value of Geospatial Technology Within Information > Systems" That paper is available in a few different places. ESRI keeps a > copy at > > http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/geoinfo04/docs/gvm-whitepaper.p > df<http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/geoinfo04/docs/gvm-whitepaper.p%0Adf> > > I've also published a few papers on the business value of various > geospatial > technologies through IDC, but those tend to be written from a software > vendor's perspective. If you want to look at any of those let me know. > They > are all hanging out on various vendor sites. > > You raise an interesting question about the value of interactive > maps/virtual globes for spatiotemporal analysis. I think you're right. I > don't have any research on the value/utility of spatiotemporal analysis, > but > I think you could extend standard ROI methods to get a useful answer. If > you want to pursue that idea, let me know. We could probably sketch out a > method pretty quickly. (Doing the research is a whole different deal....) > > Dave > [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Geowanking Digest, Vol 8, Issue 15 > > Send Geowanking mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Geowanking digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. studies that quantify the benefit of interactive maps and > virtual globes? (Tyler Erickson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:39:33 -0400 > From: Tyler Erickson <[email protected]> > Subject: [Geowanking] studies that quantify the benefit of interactive > maps and virtual globes? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Have there been academic studies that compare static cartographic maps to > interactive slippy maps and virtual globes, in term of the quality and > quantity of information that can be communicated? I've been searching, but > so far the literature seems rather sparse. > > It seems to me that there is great value in the interactive nature of > modern > tools, particularly in the ability to quickly change perspective to see > both > the 'forest', the 'trees', and how they are related. And another area for > which the interactive maps/globes seem to shine is in presenting temporal > data. But has there been work in recent years to quantify the benefit of > this interactivity? > > I'm mostly interested in representing attributes of objects for which the > 3-D location is important (i.e. objects moving in the atmosphere), but any > leads on the value of interactive maps are also appreciated. > > - Tyler > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > > End of Geowanking Digest, Vol 8, Issue 15 > ***************************************** > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
