User Generated Maps - Why Anyone uses them

1,293 views

Published on

Discussion of the intial results of why users, developers and contributers value maps generated by users.

Published in: Technology, Travel
  • Be the first to comment

User Generated Maps - Why Anyone uses them

  1. 1. Christopher J. Parker
  2. 2. Value is NOT Price!
  3. 3. Value is the Net Benefits  Value = Gains - Gives  "There is no universal definition of value, but a tailored construction of actual usability specifications to fit the needs of each individual situation" [1] http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  4. 4. Background
  5. 5. WE Have a Problem  For over 50 years [2] there has been a call for more specialist maps  Since Paul Rademacher created the first mashup in 2005 [3] home developers have been creating all kinds of maps  Academically, all of this is a mystery outside computer sciences http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  6. 6. YOU Have a Problem  Why would people use OpenStreetMap?  Who are your users?  What do they want?  Are their concerns being met? http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  7. 7. Why should we research value?  Value DOES NOT = Quality  Fit for purpose [4] & conforming to requirements [5]  Research to date has been conducted in ‘Computer Sciences’ and GIS http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  8. 8. Research Study 1 - Overview  Centred around “Volunteered Geographic Information” (VGI)  How should we think about ‘Value’ in VGI?  What are the user base relationships?  What are the important ‘benefits’ and ‘sacrifices’ with VGI based Maps?  What is the background for map user- groups? http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  9. 9. Initial Results http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  10. 10. Methods  Interview Google Maps & OpenStreetMap users, developers, and contributors  Break down interviews into 118 nodes  Looked for common themes and trends the in data http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  11. 11. User Relationships How can I make Our maps should be money from this? What is the best Is everyone different pulling together? licence DATA INFLUENCE VGI BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL MASHUPS DATA OWNERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS INFLUENCE OPINION Flame Wars What do I want to do? VGI MAP PROJECT Will I have to This doesn’t pay for this? OPINIONS have everything CONTRIBUTORS MAILING LISTS MAPS Can I trust this data? ‘Traditional’ What can I do with this? VGI/ Corporate Mashups Maps Mashups MAPS MAPS DATA Tradition DATA PREFERENCE What does VGI mean to me? Who takes the Blame? Don’t intrude on us USERS TRADITIONAL CORPORATE CARTOGRAPHY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY MAP PROGRAMS ‘Rich Picture’ by Parker (2009), base on the concept by Monk and Howard (1998) [6] http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  12. 12. Benefits and Sacrifices Legal Functional Knowledge Volunteered Geographic Information MAPS Emotional Background Social Moral Enhancement http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  13. 13. Benefits and Sacrifices (Cont.) Inaccuracies OK Incomplete data set Enables work Map is better activities than competition Functional Knowledge Volunteered Cant trust Geographic 100% Information MAPS Social Enhancement Increases Enables social community activities contacts http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  14. 14. Benefits  Background  Knowledge  Continual Improvement  Explore local  Anyone can contribute environment  Legal  Social Enhancement  Maps are free*  Enjoyable community  Functional  Enables social activities  Better than Competition  Increases social reach  Extra bits not on  Emotional traditional maps  Being emotionally  Personalisation is great connected to project  Good data!  Hope for the future  International Maps  Moral  More up to date  Benefiting others  Fitting ideology http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  15. 15. Sacrifices  Background  Knowledge  Ordinance Survey is  Social Enhancement the gold standard  Takes up time  Legal  Emotional  Functional  Concerned about  Can’t trust 100% data vandalism  Incomplete data set  Moral  Inconsistent tags http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  16. 16. Initial Conclusions  People are not making full use of VGI data  Not aware of it  Not understanding benefits  Performance and Functional (doing things) appear allot  Social interaction is very important  More research on user benefit is needed http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  17. 17. Future Research Study 1 What is the general value of Volunteered Geographic Information? 2 How do the extra details (fast food, pubs, toilets, bike racks) make a difference to the use of the map? 3 How is user understanding of information different from one user to the next? 4 Objective Vs Subjective volunteered information. http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  18. 18. Summary  The extra details are crucial.  Completeness is a myth, but you can give the users what they desire  Social Interaction drives volunteer activity http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  19. 19. YOU Have a Problem  Why would people use OpenStreetMap?  Who are your users?  What do they want?  Are their concerns being met? http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  20. 20. Thank You And now, your questions! http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/
  21. 21. References  [1] WHITESIDE, J., BENNETT, J. and HOLTZBLATT, K., 1988. Usability Engineering: Our experience and evolution. In: M. HELANDER, ed, Handbook of Human-computer Interaction. orth- Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp. 791-817.  [2] CRONE, G.R., 1968. Contemporary Cartography. In: W.G. EAST, ed, Maps and their Makers. Fourth edn. London, UK: Hutchinson & Co LTD, pp. 166-171.  [3] WIKIPEDIA, , January 26th, 2009-last update, mashup (web application hybrid) [Homepage of Wikipedia (En)], [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(web_application_hybrid) [January 27th, 2009].  [4] JURAN, J.M., 1964. Managerial breakthrough: a new concept of the manager's job. McGraw-Hill Companies.  [5] CROSBY, P.B., 1979. Quality is free. McGraw-Hill New York.  [6] MONK, A. and HOWARD, S., 1998. The Rich Picture: A Tool for Reasoning About Work Context. Interactions, 5(2), pp. 21-30. http://chris-researchblog.blogspot.com/

×