What’s so new about neogeography?
Dr Muki Haklay
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, UCL
m.haklay@ucl.ac.uk

Outline
• Web 2.0 and mapping - defining neogeography
• Why did it happen around 2005?
• What’s new? Things to learn from neogeography
• Is neogeography so wonderful? Perceptions,
assertions and the reality
• Summary

The emergence of neogeography – signs
• Neologism: neogeography, mapping mashups,
mapping API, geotagging, geostack,
geotechnology
• Huge increase in use:
– mid-2005, Multimap: 7.3m visitors; Mapquest: 47m
– end of 2007, Google Maps: 71.5m, Google Earth 22.7m
while Multimap and Mapquest also increased
• Web mapping - 50,000 mashups in the first 2
years
• Silicon valley awareness: Where 2.0
Haklay, M., Singleton, A., and Parker, C., 2008, Web mapping 2.0: the Neogeography of the Geoweb, Geography Compass

Neogeography
‘Neogeography means ‘new geography’ and consists of a set of
techniques and tools that fall outside the realm of traditional GIS ...
Where historically a professional cartographer might use ArcGIS, talk
of ... projections, and resolve land area disputes, a neogeographer
uses a mapping API like Google Maps, talks about GPX versus KML,
and geotags his photos to make a map of his summer vacation.
Essentially, Neogeography is about people using and creating their own
maps, on their own terms and by combining elements of an existing
toolset. Neogeography is about sharing location information with
friends and visitors, helping shape context, and conveying
understanding through knowledge of place.
Lastly, Neogeography is fun . . .’ (Turner 2006)
Turner, A. J. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Structural changes
• 1st May 2000 – President Clinton removes
selective availability of GPS signal
• Dot-com crash and the increase of broadband use
• The acronym soup of AJAX: SOAP, XML,
Javascript – and support in browsers
• Data storage: from $10 (2000) to $0.5 (2005) per
gigabyte
• 2004 – GPX
• Web services and simplified APIs
Haklay, M., Singleton, A., and Parker, C., 2008, Web mapping 2.0: the Neogeography of the Geoweb, Geography Compass

User experience
• Size
• Response time (AJAX, rendering)
• Simplified interface
• Cartography

Different levels of ‘Hacking’
• Deep technical hacking (system programming) –
changing the actual code of GIS, writing new
analytical tools
• Shallow technical hacking (end-user
programming) – changing the interface through
basic customisation, writing macros
• Use hacking – applying existing tools differently
• Meaning hacking – using information in new
ways, beyond its original ‘design’

Typology of hacking
Type No. of participants Issue for GIS
Deep technical Significant skills, negotiation
& translation of knowledge
Shallow Skills, user / programmer,
technical control over the application
Use Knowledge of GIS, legitimacy
of outputs, access to data
and software
Meaning Outputs, legitimacy of
interpretation, overcoming
‘technophobia’

Skills needed to change technology
Type Pre Neogeography Post Neogeography
Deep technical
Shallow
technical
Use
Meaning

Meaning hacking

Use Hacking
Reusing Flickr ability to mark different
areas of the image, for geographical
annotation and creation of Memory Maps

Use Hacking
New use of sound meters and paper maps
for data collection, then the data is
integrated in the GIS and a map is
produced.
Map construction requires knowledge of
GIS, access to data, analytical knowledge

Shallow / Deep Technical Hacking
New use of Google Maps, allowing
entering information, editing and
moderating.
Requires knowledge of GIS, programming,
web development and web design

Deep Technical Hacking
OpenStreetMap and MySociety are
examples of complex projects that deal
with geographical representation and the
use of geographical information.

Simplified glue – OSM API vs. OGC WMS
• OpenStreetMap API:
http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/map?bbox=-
71.00,42.00,-72.00,43.00
• OGC WFS API:
http://example.com/wfs?service=WFSSIMPLE&version=0.5&REQUE
ST=GetFeature&BBOX=-71.00,42.00,-72.00,43.00&TIME=2006-09-
12/2006-09-22&OUTPUTFORMAT=text/xml
Haklay, M. And Weber, P., 2008, OpenStreetMap – User Generated Street Map, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

OSM technological stack
(cc) OpenStreetMap Haklay, M. And Weber, P., 2008, OpenStreetMap – User Generated Street Map, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

The business of GIS
• ‘Canned’ data
• Accuracy and functionality
• The value of data in the whole process of
implementing GIS

Fantastic, isn’t it?
• ‘... the way individuals and communities are
using the Internet and new technologies to
create, develop, share and use information
(including GI), through innovative, often
collaborative, applications.’ (Haklay et al. 2008)
• ‘Democratization of GIS’ (Butler 2006)
• ‘Thus the most important value of VGI may lie in
what it can tell about local activities in various
geographic locations that go unnoticed by the
world’s media, and about life at a local
level.’(Goodchild 2007)

Engagement

Democratisation (I)
• Below - volumes of contact to Local Authority (LA)
services across all channels, Jan-Mar 2008
• Majority of people who access LA services are those
least likely to have Internet access
• Socio-economic status is 100.00%
88.00%
the main predictor of 80.00%
web access
60.00%
• 40% of UK households 40.00%
do not have access to the
web
20.00%
8.80%
0.50% 0.00% 0.10% 2.60%
0.00%
Fax E-Mail Letter SMS Telephone Web
Forms
(c) Richard Kingston

(c) Dair Grant
Democratisation (II)
(cc) Shaun McDonald
(cc) Chris Fleming

Participation
Haklay, M., 2008, How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey
datasets for London and the rest of England, submitted to Environment and Planning B.

Collaboration

Collaboration
Haklay, M., 2008, How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey
datasets for London and the rest of England, submitted to Environment and Planning B.

Collaboration
• ‘TomTom unique Map Share technology enhances your
navigation experience, because you can now make
instant changes directly on your map. You can also
receive similar changes made by the entire TomTom
community...’
• Google LatLong: ‘We are excited to announce that users
may now build and edit maps in Map Maker for 45 new
African countries, bringing the total number of countries
covered in Map Maker to 122 countries, covering a
population of 3 billion people...’

Spatial justice and OSM
90.00%
80.00%
Percentage of Ordnance Survey Meridian coverage
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
OSM
OSM (tagged)
0.00%
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
IMD percentage
Haklay, M., 2008, How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey
datasets for London and the rest of England, submitted to Environment and Planning B.

Spatial justice and OSM

Techno-libertarian undertones
• Suggested by Borsook (2000): technology culture which is
strongly individualistic, ‘violently lacking in compassion,
ravingly anti-government, and tremendously opposed to
regulation ...private sector can do everything ...’
protecting privacy, skimping on philanthropy, ignoring
environmental concern and hating cities
• Notice that environment is now ‘cool’ and ready for tech-
fix, and philanthropy is done directly, deciding on hobby
topics, ‘unholistically’ and without trust in governments
Borsook, P., 2000, Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. PublicAffairs

Techno-libertarianism and neogeography
• Strong anti-government sentiment - UK’s ‘Free our Data’
campaign, targeting the Ordnance Survey
• Wanting to get hold of publicly maintained data, but
demanding many constraints about their data (Share alike
or no access) – disregard of the rights of others, while
vigorously protecting their own
• Lack of awareness of serious social problems, little
empathy with gender, ability, and ethnicity issues
• At ease with exploitation – happy to use crowdsourcing
without giving anything back

Summary
• Neogeography is substantive, not just neologism
• New lessons: interaction with users, improving
the ease of implementing GI projects, new
business models, new ways of acquiring data
• Many issues with assumptions and assertions.
Beware of hype - not supported by the evidence
(e.g. Miller, 2006)
• There is a need for more theoretically informed
analysis of the changes, with strong realism
Miller, C.M. (2006) A Beast in the Field: The Google Maps Mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica. 41(3): 187-199.

Future research
• The motivation issue – from persuasive
technologies to real collaborations
• Integrating the lessons with the full range of GIS
services and software
• Information quality and fitness for use
• Learning about the world from crowdsourced
activities

Further reading
• Haklay, M., 2008, How good is OpenStreetMap information? A
comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets for
London and the rest of England, submitted to Environment and Planning B.
• Haklay, M. And Weber, P., 2008, OpenStreetMap – User Generated Street
Map, IEEE Pervasive Computing.
• Haklay, M., Singleton, A., and Parker, C., 2008, Web mapping 2.0: the
Neogeography of the Geoweb, Geography Compass
• Haklay, M., 2008, Open Knowledge – learning from environmental
information, presented at the Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2008,
London, 15 March.
• Haklay, M., 2007, OSM and the public - what barriers need to be crossed?
presented at State of the Map conference, Manchester, UK, 14-15 July.
• To get a copy, write to m.haklay@ucl.ac.uk , or get them on
povesham.wordpress.com