Cartography: Web 2.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cartography: Web 2.0

on

  • 1,502 views

O artigo de 2009, de Clamptom, descreve o atual estado da Cartografia e a influencia da Web 2.0 na mudança de paradigmas das representações espaciais

O artigo de 2009, de Clamptom, descreve o atual estado da Cartografia e a influencia da Web 2.0 na mudança de paradigmas das representações espaciais

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,502
Views on SlideShare
1,502
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
52
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cartography: Web 2.0 Cartography: Web 2.0 Document Transcript

  • Progress in Human Geography 33(1) (2009) pp. 91–100Cartography: maps 2.0Jeremy W. Crampton*Department of Geosciences, Georgia State University, PO Box 4105,Atlanta, GA 30302, USA Key words: crowdsourcing, FOSS, geospatial web, locative media, new spatial media, virtual earth.I Introduction geoweb (Scharl and Tochtermann, 2007),At 11.35 am PDT on 18 September 2007 at neogeography (Turner, 2006), locative mediaVandenberg Air Force base in California, (Rheingold, 2002), DigiPlace (Zook andDigitalGlobe’s new WorldView-1 satellite Graham, 2007a), spatial crowdsourcing orlaunched into orbit. The satellite is capable geocollaboration (Hopfer and MacEachren,of collecting imagery over as much as three- 2007) and map hacking (Erle et al., 2005).quarters of a million square kilometers a Whatever it is called – and ironically ‘carto-day in resolution as fine as 0.5 m. A second graphy’ does not seem to be one of the op-satellite will be launched in 2008, capable tions (Wood, 2003) – all of these activitiesof photographing nearly a million square are based around and dependent on mapp-kilometers daily at the same high resolution. ing. Furthermore, they are distinctly publicThe data are twice the resolution of the pre- and citizen orientated mapmaking efforts,vious industry leader, the IKONOS satellite which raises interesting questions not onlylaunched in 1999 and close to the military’s about access and control of the geographicown resolution of 10 cm (Monmonier, 2002). information but of the possibilities for counter- What is significant about the launch is mapping and counter-knowledges (Harrisnot only the extent and resolution of the and Hazen, 2006). Yet another questionimagery (which from all vendors now covers is the critical evaluation of the geoweb andover half of the world’s population) but also whether it requires renewed map literacythe fact that this imagery will be available or education. As with any technology, thecommercially (look for it in Google Earth). particular systems of power and surveillanceSuch imagery, alongside the tremendous are unavoidable.possibilities of ‘crowdsourced’ geospatial Despite the interesting messiness of thisdata, represent interesting new develop- situation (Livingstone, 1996), it looks asments in cartography. if maps and mapmaking – once in danger In the first of three reviews assessing the of being made obsolete by GIS – are setcurrent state of cartography, I focus on the to get more and not less important. Whatexplosion of new ‘spatial media’ on the web. those maps look like and in whose serviceThis topic goes under a bewildering number they are deployed, however, are unresolvedof names including the geospatial web or questions.*Email: jcrampton@gsu.edu© 2008 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0309132508094074 Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • 92 Progress in Human Geography 33(1)II The new spatial media: the geoweb (2) the display is interactive, allowing zoom-and virtual earth ing and rotation (the ‘magic carpet ride’,Go ahead and double click the Google Earth still an unfamiliar concept for geographical(GE) icon on your desktop (if you do not have data in 1998) and querying by simplya copy, you can download it for free). Spin clicking on objects;the earth around a few times. Zoom in on (3) data from different sources can be inte-New York City (type the city’s name in the grated and easily layered;search bar). In the menu bar on the left, turn (4) time can be incorporated (this is doneon a couple of options; say the 3D buildings in GE by use of a simple slider tool, notand the Gigapxl service, which provides quite as sophisticated as Gore’s vision);ultra-high-resolution photographs georefer- (5) the means of production of knowledgeenced to the spots where they were taken. are in the hands of the public rather thanYou can ‘enter’ these photos and look around. accredited and trained professionals –I am looking at one for Times Square. It is so either a deprofessionalization or a repro-detailed that I can see the time on the clock fessionalization depending on yourat the far end of the block. Knowingly or position (see below).not, you have just taken part in a vision of adigital earth articulated in 1998 by then Vice Google Earth is only one example (if a particu-President Al Gore. Asking us to imagine a larly well-known one) of the geospatial webyoung child playing with this globe: or ‘geoweb’ comprised of map and location- based services available on the web. As a she zooms in, using higher and higher levels metaphor of meaningful geographies for of resolution, to see continents, then regions, virtual data, the idea can be traced back countries, cities, and finally individual houses 25 years to ‘cyberspace’ in the science fiction … having found an area of the planet she is interested in exploring, she takes the equi- of Vinge and Gibson (Gibson, 1984; Vinge, valent of a ‘magic carpet ride’ through a 3-D 2001, first published in 1981); see also Kitchin visualization of the terrain. Of course, terrain and Kneale (2002). Stephenson’s Snow is only one of the many kinds of data with crash (Stephenson, 1992) has been particu- which she can interact. Using the systems’ larly influential; its vision of a 3D ‘Earth’ voice recognition capabilities, she is able to request information on land cover, distribution has been acknowledged by the founders of of plant and animal species, real-time weather, Keyhole (the precursor to Google Earth) in a roads, political boundaries, and population. recent interview as one of their inspirations (Gore, 1998) (Bar-Zeev, 2008) alongside the 1978 ‘Powers of ten’ movie (Boeke and Eames, 1978).It is staggering to think that Google Earthand Google Maps were only introduced in the III Examples of geoweb applicationssummer of 2005 (Hanke, 2007). Since then The use of the internet and, later, the webthe pan and zoom ‘slippy maps’ have become for cartographic and GIS purposes soonan everyday part of life for many computer followed (Peterson, 2003; Taylor, 2005;users (Google claims GE has been downloaded Taylor and Caquard, 2006), but to a largeover 250 million times). Gore admitted this all extent the geoweb has developed outsidesounded a bit like ‘science fiction,’ but his academia. While there are conferences forvision captured several important details we the geoweb (eg, Where 2.0, FOSS4G andtake for granted today: in the military sphere GEOINT), judging by the presentations these are largely orien-(1) data are displayed ‘naturistically’ as if on a tated around practitioners. Perhaps this is planet seen from space (Cosgrove, 2001); good; not only are there are a lot of interesting Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • Jeremy W. Crampton: Cartography 93things going on, but the generally low barriers right to exclude’ (Weber, 2004: 16). Theto access encourage participation and not philosophy has its roots in the free softwarejust observation (the so-called ‘read-write movement associated with the developmentweb’ and the rise of citizen participation, of the UNIX operating system, and laterincluding amateur mapmaking (Armstrong the Free Software Foundation founded byand Zúniga, 2006; Gillmor, 2006; Helft, Richard Stallman. In 1997 the concept reached2007)). A recent report, for example, found a wider audience in a well-distributed workthat twice as many Americans got their pol- ‘The cathedral and bazaar’ (Raymond,itical news from the internet in the 2006 1999; 2001). Histories and appraisals of openMidterm elections compared to 2002, and source are numerous (for a recent overview,that some 14 million people contributed to see DiBona et al., 2006). FOSS does notpolitical discussion and activity (Rainie and oppose a monetary culture with a gift cul-Horrigan, 2007). ture (free means freedom: libre rather than Partnerships with Google are becom- gratis). This freedom includes freedom toing common. The US Holocaust Memorial run the program for any purpose; freedomMuseum has used it to map out the Darfur to study and modify the program; freedomatrocities (Labott, 2007) and make recent to redistribute copies or modified versionsimagery available to the public. Location (Stallman, 1999). Stallman’s implementationmarkers are also posted to the public discus- of these principles is encoded in the Generalsion board for Google Earth. Public License (GPL), ‘copyleft’, and Creative Google Earth has also been used to track Commons licenses.human rights violations in Burma/Myanmar Many of these principles inform map hack-(Butler, 2006a; Webb, 2006; Mejia, 2007; ing, for example Google Maps mashups,Zetter, 2007). By comparing satellite imagery although not necessarily in such absolutein Google Earth over time, ethnic cleansing terms. A map mashup is the combinationcan be readily documented. The American of geographic data from one source with aAssociation for the Advancement of Science map from another source (eg, Google or(AAAS) recently established a program on Yahoo) using an application programmingGeospatial Technologies and Human Rights interface (API) (Butler, 2006a; Miller, 2006;which draws heavily from open source tools Anon, 2007). An API is used to ‘hook’ data(AAAS, 2007). (To my knowledge, neither into Google or Yahoo maps. But of course thethe AAG nor the RGS/IBG have similar companies have control. For one thing theyinitiatives.) require an end-user license agreement or A recent article in Nature suggested that EULA and only provide access to the API,open source tools are well suited for scientific not the source code. They could remove thisinvestigations such as avian flu infections capability, or more likely charge for it or pipe(Butler, 2006b). Similarly, both NASA’s in advertising.1 NASA World Wind, the thirdWorld Wind and ESRI’s new ArcExplorer and least known of the virtual earths, mightare open source and designed for scientific provide a viable alternative. US Federal datadata. are not restricted by copyright. A common view within the FOSS move-IV Remember to FOSS ment is that it offers a radical challenge toFree and open source software (FOSS) is the information distribution and consump-a major component and indeed philosophy tion models we currently have. By providingof the geoweb. The idea of open source accessible and inexpensive mapping toolssoftware is that it is ‘configured fundamen- FOSS cartography may similarly reshapetally around the right to distribute, not the how mapping is done (MacEachren, 1998; Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • 94 Progress in Human Geography 33(1)Fairhurst, 2005; Taylor, 2005; Miller, 2006; Tools exist to make map projections, decideHanke, 2007). For example, GRASS, the free on color schemes, make animated maps, con-open source GIS, has been around since 1982. vert files, make cartograms, overlay map layersOne leading figure recently called open and of course upload and visualize GPSsource a ‘paradigm shift’ and pointed out tracks (many of these are listed at Leszekthat it is about more than the software on Pawlowicz’s excellent blog ‘Free Geographyyour desktop; ‘most of the “killer apps” of Tools’).the internet, applications run by hundreds Perhaps more fundamentally are the on-of millions of people [including Google] run going projects that truly exploit the FOSSon Linux or FreeBSD’ (O’Reilly, 2006: 255). cartography approach in quite intriguingThe corollary of this point is that the operating ways. One of these is OpenStreetMapsystem of the future will not be Macintosh, (OSM). OSM’s goal is to provide free (libreWindows or Linux but the internet itself – the and gratis) global geographic data such asinternet Operating System. If this becomes roads, streets, railways, and so on. OSM pro-the case, one would like to know who and ceeds from the realization that you cannothow the internet might be controlled (see just derive maps from Google or Microsoftthe discussion below on net neutrality). because those companies in turn have pur- FOSS cartography (if I might use yet chased and licensed data from mappinganother descriptor!) has taken a number of companies (contrary to popular belief, Googleforms. Besides self-made map hacking and does not operate any satellites or collect datamap mashups there are now increasingly itself). These companies, such as NAVTEQsophisticated tools offered by the corpor- and Tele Atlas (both subject to recent acqui-ate online mapping companies – Microsoft, sition bids), have copyright on Google MapsYahoo, and Google – for making maps. and any derivatives that are made from it.Google, for example, introduced a feature In the UK the Ordnance Survey (OS) hasin 2007 called ‘My Maps’ while Microsoft well-known restrictive licensing contracts.has ‘Collections’. These evolved from the OSM therefore collects its own data – itskinds of map mashups people were creating members drive, bicycle or train around thethrough the API. This suggests that map country with GPS units and upload theirmashups have become trivially easy to make, waypoints into the project’s main map.and more importantly, much more visible. These waypoints are then symbolized andThis is because they can be shared and em- labeled. The community of amateur carto-bedded in other webpages as ‘live’ map graphers is facilitated through a ‘wiki’ toservices (ie, not just as images of map, but ensure quality control.with the ability to zoom, pan and query) How successful could a project like thisthrough the use of keyhole markup language be? I must admit I am quite skeptical but must(KML). KML is a file for sharing geospatial grant the tremendous strides the project hasdata, along with GeoRSS, both of them based taken. Several European countries are nowon a common standard web format known completely mapped. A related campaign byas XML (extensible markup language). Many the British newspaper The Guardian, calledof these standards are coordinated through ‘Free our Data’, seeks to loosen restrictionsthe Open Source Geospatial Foundation on access to publicly funded data and has(OSGEO). often cited the OS as a primary case in point There are also dozens of independently (Arthur and Cross, 2006). If the campaign isdeveloped cartographic tools online that pro- successful, copyright would be abandonedvide functionality only previously available on OS maps, mirroring the US situation. Itas part of commercial software packages. would also reduce the need for the OSM in Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • Jeremy W. Crampton: Cartography 95the UK. However, there are few signs that decided to start an alternative project basedthe campaign will succeed and for the mo- on an open access model in which anybodyment OSM continues. could contribute. Despite frequent criticism of this model that it would lead to errors orV Crowdsourcing and geocollaboration deliberate vandalism, a recent investigationCrowdsourcing is a form of emergent col- by the science journal Nature revealed thatlaboration in which multiple people work its error rate was roughly equal to that oftogether on a common project (the word the Encyclopedia Britannica’s online materialwas coined as a pun on outsourcing (Howe, (Giles, 2005). Additionally Wikipedia’s con-2006). The participants may be widely dis- tent has far outstripped that of Britannica,tributed and each person’s contribution may with over two million articles in Englishbe only a fraction of the total effort, but alone.through facilitated collaboration a common An interesting cartographic applicationresult emerges. Social networking and book- of Wikipedia is Wikimapia, which locatesmarking sites, such as MySpace or Digg, are entries on a Google map mashup and as aan example of how people are connected Google Earth layer. Users can add their owntogether or to information they find useful places, but with four million Wikimapia places(this journal uses it on its website). Partici- the bulk are created automatically frompants may not even be explicitly aware that Wikipedia. A similar mapping of geographicthey are part of a collective whole. While content is offered by Google Books, whichcrowdsourcing is being proposed as a way can ‘scrape’ the georeferenced data out ofto improve business (Rheingold, 2003; books and map it. For example, one couldSurowieki, 2004; Tapscott and Williams, view a map of all the places mentioned in the2006; Libert and Spector, 2008) it also has Dictionary of human geography (Johnstonsome interesting implications for mapping. et al., 2000), novels such as A tale of two cities Group collaboration is not new. It is cen- (Dickens, 1980), or histories such as The his-tral to many political movements and labor tory of cartography (Harley and Woodward,organization inspired by Marxism (and it is 1987). If one treats books as elements ofironic that much of the recent attention to the crowdsource, you could also compareit is directed at business management). The all the places mentioned in books publishedunderlying principle is that the whole is in say the eighteenth century comparedgreater than the sum of the parts. It is also to the twentieth century, or all the placesused in many applications, including intelli- mentioned in books published in Europegence and problem-solving (Page, 2007). versus North America.Amazon runs a site called the Mechanical Another fascinating example with ob-Turk in which problems can be posted and vious cartographic application is Microsoft’scollectively solved – they call it ‘artificial arti- Photosynth technology. Photosynth is a wayficial intelligence’. Some observers have sug- of seamlessly integrating visual data such asgested this as a new model for the workplace photographs. These photos can originate(with ‘turkurs’ instead of workers!). from a multitude of different sources from cell The low access barriers to the internet phone cameras to high-end digital camerashave enabled crowdsourcing on a previously and taken under different conditions. Theyunachievable scale. Perhaps the best-known can be stitched together by detecting com-crowdsourced project is Wikipedia. Origin- monalities between pictures (a window in theally known as Nupedia and based on a closed Notre Dame cathedral for example). Withmodel of hiring experts to write articles, the the proliferation of photo-sharing websitesencyclopedia struggled to grow. Growing such as Flickr you do not even have to takedissatisfied with the progress, Jimmy Wales the pictures yourself; they can simply be Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • 96 Progress in Human Geography 33(1)gathered from there. The result is a place Yet it is also true that these systems are tak-or object that can be navigated in three ing place in a larger context of economicdimensions (the BBC created a number of production and a ‘culture of military andPhotosynth buildings for its series ‘How we security practices’ (Pickles, 2004: 152). Abuilt Britain’). Perhaps in the future we will short story called ‘The watched’ written 30be able to create Photosynth landscapes as years ago by the British writer Christophera new form of mapping. Priest (Priest, 1978/1999) explores implica- MacEachren and colleagues at the tions of surveillance. Priest imagined Morville-Penn State GeoVISTA lab have long been like ambient sensors called ‘scintillas’ the sizeinterested in the possibilities of what they of confetti, which transmitted audiovisualcall ‘geocollaboration’ or using distributed information wherever they were scatteredmapping tools in scientific or crisis contexts (and could be crowdsourced together, al-(MacEachren and Brewer, 2004; Cai though Priest did not use that term).et al., 2005; MacEachren et al., 2005; 2006a; One might also raise other objections.2006b; Hopfer and MacEachren, 2007). For example, is ubiquitous and pervasive The crowdsourcing approach is part of computing a modern descendant of thesomething Google calls the ‘geoindex’. This panopticon (Misa et al., 2003; Dave, 2007;is not an application (although it could be), Kitchin and Dodge, 2007)? In an age wherebut an idea or plan whereby the world’s infor- information is insistently recorded, perhapsmation becomes tied and searchable by we need to develop an ‘ethics of forgetting’place. So, for example, as we move through (Dodge and Kitchin, 2007). Much work inthe environment we could draw upon place- this vein has emerged from the critical carto-relevant information from a multitude of graphy tradition, but one of its lessons isdifferent sources – or, as Peter Morville that open-source tools can be used by theputs it, we will live in a world of ‘ambient traditionally disempowered for counter-findability’: knowledges and counter-mapping (Wood, 1992; Harris and Hazen, 2006). (Pickles We will use the Web to navigate a physical and his colleagues have founded a ‘counter- world that sparkles with embedded sensors cartographies collective’.) The emphasis on and geospatial metadata, even as we diminish the need to move our bodies through space. ‘multitude’ in crowdsourcing has suggestive Mobile devices will unite our data streams in an links to the collective action envisaged by evolving dance of informed consumers seeking Hardt and Negri (2004). I hope to say more collective intelligence and inspiration. And in about these topics in a future review. this ambient economy, findability will be a key source of competitive advantage. (Morville, 2005: 13) VI Net neutrality and the digital divide Net neutrality is the idea that content onOffered uncritically, such a vision will raise a the internet should not be differentiallyfew eyebrows. These tools by themselves do processed; for example, access to a websitenot ensure a more democratic playing field. should not be slowed down or acceleratedThe conflicting possibilities of mapping have according to how much it has paid. Propon-been noted by Pickles: ents of net neutrality argue that it would create a tiered content model based on price They provide more powerful tools for local control, with access to say MSN.com much planning agencies, exciting possibilities for data more speedy than to a ‘mom and pop’ web- coordination, access and exchange, and permit site. Telecoms argue that such a pricing model more efficient allocation of resources, and a more open rational decision-making process. is a logical extension of differential access (Pickles, 2004: 148) pricing (for example, the internet connection Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • Jeremy W. Crampton: Cartography 97speed you buy). Currently both the US The debate about whether GIS is a domainFederal Trade Commission (FTC) and Con- for experts or the rest of us raged throughout last month’s Geo-Web 2007 conference ingress are examining the implications of net Vancouver, British Columbia. According toneutrality regulation. Michael Jones, Google Earth’s chief tech- A related issue is the digital divide nologist, by giving everyone access to GIS(Chakraborty and Bosman, 2005) or the un- tools, you’ll end up with ‘a big number of usersequal access to the information economy. converging on a truth.’ Locals, he insists, are closer to most GIS data than experts and haveNot only are there spatial variations in inter- a vested interest in its accuracy. (Hall, 2007)net access, for instance (Crampton, 2004;Zook, 2005; 2006), but there are also know- The magazine noted that, while Vint Cerfledge archipelagos, such as in the political (now the chief internet evangelist at Google,blogo-sphere where the left predominantly but previously responsible for inventing thelinks to the left and the right to the right packet switching technology behind the(Adamic and Glance, 2005). Not all informa- internet) reckoned this democratization totion is equally accessible in a world where one be ‘a good news’ which could lead to anbillion people have never made a phone call. online geospatial portal of knowledge he dubs the ‘Geopedia’, Jack DangermondVII Conclusion: deprofessionalization (ESRI’s CEO) was more skeptical aboutor reprofessionalization? user-provided content. ‘He worries that evenThe fields of new spatial media and GIS are the best-intentioned amateur could pro-being torn in two distinctly different direc- vide inaccurate data that could lead to ations. On the one hand is the FOSS geoweb, disaster. “Who wants to dig a hole and runand on the other hand are efforts to accredit into a pipe?” Dangermond asks’ (Hall, 2007).mapping expertise through professional While ESRI does recognize the power ofcertification and ‘bodies of knowledge’ the geoweb (ESRI, 2006) and in 2007 re-(DiBiase et al., 2006; 2007). These competing leased an open source virtual earth calleddirections mirror the larger tensions between ArcExplorer, there appears little chance thatopen and closed source, or between trad- they will embrace the open source model byitional news media and political blogs. For releasing their source code.example, in his new book journalist Andrew If the geoweb is to be understood not justKeen excoriates the ‘cult of the amateur’ as the amateur version of what the profes-enabled by the internet as a dangerous depro- sionals do, it will need to gain recognition offessionalization (Keen, 2007). In this light its own professionalism. How can it do this?there is no doubt that this debate is but the I would suggest the following inherent fac-latest chapter in the ‘GIS wars’ of the 1990s tors advantage the geoweb:(Schuurman, 2000). The confrontation between the geoweb (1) ‘crowdsourced’ data as, for example, inand traditional GIS has recently blossomed Wikipedia;into a more overt debate, though one as yet (2) open source tools and services;taking place largely outside academia. Dur- (3) participation and syndication (the webing the summer of 2007 several conferences as platform).about the geoweb brought together playersfrom both the GIS industry and the online A remaining issue concerns users. Will theymapping industry. One conference attracted become more discerning and critical of thethe attention of Computerworld, which geoweb? What forms of map literacy arewrote: required? Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • 98 Progress in Human Geography 33(1) Much of the innovation surrounding the universe and the effect of adding another zero. Santageoweb is occurring online in blogs. Although Monica, CA: Pyramid Film and Video. Butler, D. 2006a: Mashups mix data into global service.only a few articles about the geoweb are in Nature 439, 6–7.journals (Miller, 2006; Ellison, 2007; Pearce — 2006b: The web-wide world. Nature 439, 776–78.et al., 2007; Zook and Graham, 2007b) it is Cai, G., Wang, H., MacEachren, A.M. andeasy enough to see that this situation will Fuhrmann, S. 2005: Natural conversationalchange rapidly as geographers and others interfaces to geospatial databases. Transactions in GIS 9, 199–221.use virtual earths and mashups to visualize Chakraborty, J. and Bosman, M.M. 2005: Measuringtheir data. Therefore, I conclude with a very the digital divide in the United States: race, income,useful online resource for tracking geoweb and personal computer ownership. The Professionaldevelopments. Planet Geospatial (http:// Geographer 57, 395–410.planetgs.com) is a blog plus RSS feed run by Cosgrove, D. 2001: Apollo’s eye: a cartographic genealogy of the earth in the western imagination.James Fee that can be read in news aggre- Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.gators such as Bloglines or Google Reader. It Crampton, J.W. 2004: The political mapping ofis a one-stop subscription to dozens of blogs cyberspace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.covering the geoweb. Dave, B. 2007: Space, sociality, and pervasive computing. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34, 381–82.Acknowledgement DiBiase, D., DeMers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp,Thanks to John Krygier for his helpful K., Luck, A.T., Plewe, B. and Wentz, E.suggestions. 2006: Geographic information science body of know- ledge. Washington, DC: Association of AmericanNote Geographers. 1. John Hanke, Director of Google Earth and Maps, — 2007: Short papers – introducing the first edition stated at the 2007 Where 2.0 Conference that of geographic information science and technology Google ‘sees location-targeted ads as being a body of knowledge. Cartography and Geographic very, very large business opportunity’ (Hanke and Information Science 34, 113. Seefeld, 2007). DiBona, C., Cooper, D. and Stone, M. 2006: Open sources 2.0: the continuing revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.References Dickens, C. 1980: A tale of two cities. New York: NewAdamic, L. and Glance, N. 2005: The political American Library. blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided Dodge, M. and Kitchin, R. 2007: ‘Outlines of a world they blog. Retrieved 23 June 2008 from http:// coming into existence’: pervasive computing and www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/Adamic the ethics of forgetting. Environment and Plann- GlanceBlogWWW.pdf ing B: Planning and Design 34, 431–45.American Association for the Advancement of Ellison, J. 2007: Google Earth and California state GIS. Science (AAAS) 2007: High-resolution sate- GEO: Connexion 6, 48–49. llite imagery and the conflict in eastern Burma. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Washington, DC: The American Association for 2006: The geoweb – a vision for supporting col- the Advancement of Science. laboration. ArcUser Magazine January–March.Anon 2007: The world on your desktop. The Economist Retrieved 23 June 2008 from http://www.esri. 6 September. com/news/arcuser/0206/geoweb.htmlArmstrong, J. and Zúniga, M.M. 2006: Crashing Erle, S., Gibson, R. and Walsh, J. 2005: Mapping the gate. Netroots, grassroots and the rise of people- hacks. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly and Associates. powered politics. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Fairhurst, R. 2005: Next-generation webmapping. Green Publishing. Bulletin of the Society of University CartographersArthur, C. and Cross, M. 2006: Give us back our 39, 57–61. crown jewels. The Guardian 9 March. Gibson, W. 1984: Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.Bar-Zeev, A. 2008: Keyhole, Google Earth, and 3D Giles, J. 2005: Internet encyclopedias go head to head. worlds: an interview with Avi Bar-Zeev. Carto- Nature 438, 900–901. graphica 43, 85–93. Gillmor, D. 2006: We the media. Grassroots journalismBoeke, K. and Eames, C.E.R. 1978: Powers of ten: by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, CA: a film dealing with the relative size of things in the O’Reilly. Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • Jeremy W. Crampton: Cartography 99Gore, A. 1998: The digital earth: understanding our MacEachren, A.M. and Brewer, I. 2004: Developing planet in the 21st century. Retrieved 23 June 2008 a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geo- from http://www.isde5.org/al_gore_speech.htm collaboration. International Journal of GeographicalHall, M. 2007: On the mark: will democracy vote Information Science 18, 1–34. the experts off the GIS island? Retrieved 23 June MacEachren, A.M., Cai, G., McNeese, M., Sharma, 2008 from http://www.computerworld.com/ R. and Fuhrmann, S. 2006a: Geocollaborative action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&ar crisis management: designing technologies to meet ticleId=299936 real-world needs. ACM International ConferenceHanke, J. 2007: Distinguished innovator lecture. Proceeding Series 151, 71–72. Retrieved 23 June 2008 from http://webcast. MacEachren, A.M., Cai, G., Sharma, berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21135 R., Rauschert, I., Brewer, I., Bolelli, L., &p=1&ipp=15&category= Shaparenko, B., Fuhrmann, S. and Wang,Hanke, J. and Seefeld, B. 2007: The evolution of the H. 2005: Enabling collaborative geoinformation geoweb. In Where 2.0 Conference 29 May. San Jose, access and decision-making through a natural, CA: O’Reilly. multimodal interface. International Journal of Geo-Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2004: Multitude. War and graphical Information Science 19, 293–317. democracy in the age of empire. New York City: MacEachren, A.M., Pike, W., Yu, C., Brewer, Penguin. I., Gahegan, M., Weaver, S.D. and Yarnal, B.Harley, J.B. and Woodward, D., editors 1987: 2006b: Building a geocollaboratory: supporting Cartography in prehistoric, ancient, and medieval human-environment regional observatory (hero) Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago: University collaborative science activities. Computers, Environ- of Chicago Press. ment and Urban Systems 30, 201–25.Harris, L.M. and Hazen, H.D. 2006: Power of Mejia, R. 2007: These satellite images document an maps: (counter) mapping for conservation. ACME atrocity. The Washington Post 10 June, W20. 4, 99–130. Miller, C.C. 2006: A beast in the field: the Google mapsHelft, M. 2007: With simple tools on web, amateurs mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica 41, 187–99. reshape mapmaking. The New York Times 27 July, A1. Misa, T.J., Brey, P. and Feenberg, A., editorsHopfer, S. and MacEachren, A.M. 2007: Leveraging 2003: Modernity and technology. Cambridge, MA: the potential of geospatial annotations for col- The MIT Press. laboration: a communication theory perspective. Monmonier, M.S. 2002: Spying with maps: surveillance International Journal of Geographical Information technologies and the future of privacy. Chicago: Science 21, 921–34. University of Chicago Press.Howe, J. 2006: The rise of crowdsourcing. Retrieved Morville, P. 2005: Ambient findability: what we find 23 June 2008 from http://www.wired.com/wired/ changes who we become. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly archive/14.06/crowds.html Media.Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, O’Reilly, T. 2006: The open source paradigm shift. M. 2000: The dictionary of human geography. Oxford: In DiBona, C., Cooper, D. and Stone, M., editors, Blackwell. Open sources 2.0: the continuing revolution, Sebastopol,Keen, A. 2007: The cult of the amateur. How today’s CA: O’Reilly., 253–71. internet is killing our culture. New York: Doubleday/ Page, S. 2007: The difference. How the power of diversity Currency. creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. 2007: Rethinking maps. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Progress in Human Geography 31, 331–44. Pearce, J.M., Johnson, S.J. and Grant, G.B. 2007:Kitchin, R. and Kneale, J. 2002: Lost in space. 3D-mapping optimization of embodied energy of Geographies of science fiction. London: Continuum. transportation. Resources, Conservation and RecyclingLabott, E. 2007: Google Earth maps out Darfur 51, 435–53. atrocities. Retrieved 23 June 2008 from http://www. Peterson, M.P., editor 2003: Maps and the internet. cnn.com/2007/TECH/04/10/google.genocide/ Amsterdam: Elsevier.Libert, B. and Spector, J. 2008: We are smarter Pickles, J. 2004: A history of spaces. Cartographic than me. How to unleash the power of crowds in your reason, mapping and the geo-coded world. London: business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Routledge.Livingstone, D.N. 1996: In defence of situated mes- Priest, C. 1978/1999: The watched. In Priest, C., siness: geographical knowledge and the history of The dream archipelago, London: Earthlight Books, science. GeoJournal 26, 228–29. 186–264.MacEachren, A.M. 1998: Cartography, GIS and the Rainie, L. and Horrigan, J. 2007: Election 2006 world wide web. Progress in Human Geography 22, online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American 575–85. Life Project. Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009
  • 100 Progress in Human Geography 33(1)Raymond, E. 1999: The cathedral and the bazaar. Turner, A.J. 2006: Introduction to neogeography. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 12, 23–49. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.— 2001: The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux Vinge, V. 2001: True names by Vernor Vinge and the and open source by an accidental revolutionary. opening of the cyberspace frontier. New York: Tor. Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly. Webb, R. 2006: Cartography: a popular perspective.Rheingold, H. 2002: Smart mobs: The next social Nature 439, 800. revolution. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Weber, S. 2004: The success of open source. Cambridge,— 2003: Smart mobs: the next social revolution. MA: Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Wood, D. 1992: The power of maps. New York: GuilfordScharl, A. and Tochtermann, K. 2007: The geospatial Press. web. How geobrowsers, social software and the web 2.0 — 2003: Cartography is dead (thank god!). Cartographic are shaping the network society. London: Springer. Perspectives 45, 4–7.Schuurman, N. 2000: Trouble in the heartland: Zetter, K. 2007: Eyes in the skies document human GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human rights violations in Burma. Retrieved 23 June 2008 Geography 24, 569–90. from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/Stallman, R. 1999: The GNU operating system and eyes-in-the-ski.html the free software movement. In DiBona, C., Zook, M.A. 2005: The geography of the internet industry: Ockman, S. and Stone, M., editors, Open sources: venture capital, dot-coms, and local knowledge. voices from the open source revolution, Sebastopol, Oxford: Blackwell. CA: O’Reilly, 53–70. — 2006: The geographies of the internet. AnnualStephenson, N. 1992: Snow crash. New York: Bantam Review of Information Science and Technology 40, Books. 53–78.Surowieki, J. 2004: The wisdom of crowds. Why the Zook, M.A. and Graham, M. 2007a: Mapping digiplace: many are smarter than the few and how collective geocoded internet data and the representation of wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and place. Environment and Planning B: Planning and nations. New York: Doubleday. Design 34, 466–82.Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. 2006: Wikinomics. — 2007b: The creative reconstruction of the internet: How mass collaboration changes everything. New Google and the privatization of cyberspace and York: Penguin Group. digiplace. Geoforum 38, 1322–43.Taylor, D.R.F., editor 2005: Cybercartography: theory and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Taylor, D.R.F. and Caquard, S. 2006: Cyber- cartography: maps and mapping in the information era. Cartographica 41, 1–5. Downloaded from http://phg.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 16, 2009