The document discusses the distinction between Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) and Coerced Geographic Information (CoGI), highlighting the unawareness of many users regarding the utilization of their contributed data. It outlines five criteria for evaluating data contribution platforms and notes a trend towards more commercial and less transparent systems. The authors emphasize the need for clarity regarding data collection, usage, and access in the context of user-generated geographic content.

1. Coerced Geographic Information
The Not-so-voluntary Side of User-generated Geo-content
Grant McKenzie & Krzysztof Janowicz
Department of Geography
The University of California, Santa Barbara

2. Background
“Volunteered Geographic Information”
… is the harnessing of tools to create,
assemble, and disseminate geographic data
provided voluntarily by individuals.
~ Michael Goodchild (2007)

3. Background
“User-Generated Content”
Geo

4. Background
“Crowdsourced Data”
“User-Generated Content”
Geo

5. New Platforms

6. New Platforms
DATA

7. Private Data Silos
DATA

8. Private Data Silos
?
DATA

9. Private Data Silos
?
DATA

10. Motivation
VGI CoGI Volunteered Geographic Information Coerced Geographic Information

11. Motivation
VGI CoGI Volunteered Geographic Information Coerced Geographic Information
● Are users aware of what is being done with their data?
● As a research community it is important that we realize many
individuals contributing data are unaware that their data are being
used for research purposes.

12. Motivation: flickr Example
Photograph
Caption
Tags

13. Motivation: flickr Example
Photograph
Caption
Tags
(Exif metadata)

14. Motivation: flickr Example
Photograph
Caption
Tags
(Exif metadata)
Gazetteer
● Popular Places
● Rich attribute data

15. Motivation: Foursquare Example
“Gamification”
...the use of game
thinking and game
mechanics in non-game
contexts to
engage users.

16. Motivation: Foursquare Example
?
“Gamification”
...the use of game
thinking and game
mechanics in non-game
contexts to
engage users.

17. Contribution
● Five criteria that should be considered when contributing to
or consuming data from any given application.
● Three point scale from VGI to CoGI for each criteria
● Examples of Applications and their VGI/CoGI rating

18. Criteria
I. Equivalent bi-directional data access
● The value of traditional VGI platforms is that it is as easy to
access the data as it is to contribute.
● Example: OpenStreetMap, for example allows users to
download entire planet files.
● Not necessarily true for CoGI platforms
● Example: Twitter restricts consumption of data through a limited
API.
● Example: Strut offers no ability to consume the contributed data,
i.e., data one-way street.

19. Criteria
II. Limited terms of use
● Restrictions on how the data can be used once consumed.
● Conventional VGI systems have very open (often free to all) licenses.
● More commercially oriented systems often claim the rights to
contributed data and restrict the terms of use.
● Other platforms act as data silos, allowing no external reuse of the
data.

20. Criteria
III. Awareness of contributed data
● Are users are aware of the data
that they are contributing?
● Example: Users may not be
aware that their IP address is
being recorded
● ...or that their location may be
inferred through Wi-Fi
positioning
● CoGI platforms range in their
level of transparency regarding
what is being collected.

21. Criteria
IV. Awareness of data usage
● Transparency on how contributed
data is used
● Sites like OpenStreetMap offer a
reasonable level of transparency
when it comes to data usage.
● Less likely that Foursquare users are
aware that their check-ins are being
used for
● Target advertising at their friends
● Predictive policing

22. Criteria
V. Active user involvement
● Active vs. Passive user involvement
● Active: The act of downloading an
application and contributing data to it
indicates active involvement in the user-generated
content process.
● Passive: Geosensors such as Bluetooth,
RFID tags or CCTV cameras do not offer
users the option of contributing data but
rather collect content generated by users

23. Scale & Examples
All criteria can be assigned a value 0 - 2 0 = Highly CoGI, 2 = Highly VGI
Platform I II III IV V Total
OpenStreetMap 2 2 1 2 2 9
flickr 1 1 1 1 2 6
WikiMapia 2 2 1 2 2 9
Foursquare 1 1 1 0 1 4
Google Map Maker 1 1 1 1 2 6
Brightest Flashlight App 0 0 0 0 1 1
I. Equivalent bi-directional data access
II. Limited terms of use
III. Awareness of contributed data
IV. Awareness of data usage
V. Active user involvement

24. Conclusions
● Increase in user-generated geo-content (UG-GC)
● Large number of platforms eager to provide tools for data
contribution
● VGI still thriving as a method of data contribution
● Commercial entities realize the power of UG-GC
● New division of UG-GC, one that is not-so-volunteered
● Lack of clarity regarding data
● What is collected
● How it will be used
● Who has access
● Integration with existing personal data

25. Coerced Geographic Information
The Not-so-voluntary Side of User-generated Geo-content
Grant McKenzie & Krzysztof Janowicz
grant.mckenzie@geog.ucsb.edu
stko.geog.ucsb.edu | grantmckenzie.com
Department of Geography
The University of California, Santa Barbara
Image Ref: http://g3o.me/ir