http://www.fgdc.gov/dataandservices data.gov
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
