Modern Cartography and Spatial Data Analysis

Article

Introduction

This paper was a keynote address at ICA 1999 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with theme name "Touch the Past, Visualize the Future". It speaks of the digital transition of geographic practices and operations, and society's increasing interest in geography. It also discusses the impact of the digital transition with regard to the production and dissemation of maps and geographic products.

It also discusses the paradox of the marginalization of cartography within the digital world, combined with the need for cartographic good practices is visual communication, in the future "digital earth".

Digital Transition

• the communication of code and explosive growth of digital communications in the last 30 years, along with the decrease of technology costs, speed has thrusted geographic disciplines to the forefront.
• digital products are in demand, combined with the Internet, flourishes the distribution of data through such protals as CEONet, FGDC, etc.
• digital impacts are just beginning; full impact still yet to be seen
• these improvements yet to impact field work; when this happens, it will strongly aid the geologist/field work/data collection operation for rapid updates to data to the end user
• vision: field work shared instantly, remotely, bypassing the traditional stages of cartographic production
• investments of digital libraries, metadata and search agents help develop networks of massive archives
• geography of map production changing; traditional to dynamic, online
• is this a good thing? How can we examine/archive temporal data?
• networks are replacing the centrifugal system of traditional map production

The Stuff of Maps

• web-based geographic services: Terraserver, MapPoint, HomeVision, MapQuest
• traditional impedance to integrate data based on place
• geographic information and maps: usually slow, generic, static, flat
• digital transition eliminates these problems via multi-valent documents; ability to link images, text, etc. which refer to the same subject and handle/integrate them as one entity

Paradox

• GIS moving into mainstream, tools can be increasingly used by anyone
• Geoinformatics/geographic information science leading the way; cartography second class
• GIS hype is on visual effect and scalability
• GIS caveats: "faster producing rubbish"

Digital Earth

• Al Gore's vision of virtual discovery and 3-D visualization, encompassing all sorts of information via GIS
• Challenges: scale, resolutions, symbology

Recommendations

• adhere to principles of geoinfo communications
• anticipations of full impact of digital transition
• common purpose; what does geoinfo mean?

Comments

• digital GIS is the way to go for future developments
• quality must be adhered to and respected in light of the power of digital product production

Discussion

• how do you feel about the digital transition?
• how has this affected your interest in geography/GIS?

Basic Paradigm

The diagram illustrates the different disciplines. Cognition depicts how you analyze and process things, mentally, like how I have mentally chosen to describe this diagram from left to right. Formal studies shows how techinques are used to solve problems. Communication depicts the protrayal of information to users.

Linking all of these is the middle item, multimedia/visualization. Arguments are made that too much emphasis is being put on the technical side of GIS, solutions in search of problems, and not enough effort put into recognizing problems. Arguments are also put that the GIS framework is backward; systems, software are built in anticipation of problems, yet should be built after a problem is addressed and how to tackle it are discussed.

My take on this is that yes, technology develops faster than other areas, hence the amount of software waiting to solve problems. However, the technology is built from a context of market pressures, products sales, etc., which cannot wait for researchers to complete analysis of problems. Yes, technology does not always take into account the problems at hand at a conceptual level, but it that technology's problem? It is the researchers and organizations who choose to go the technology route, not the engineers or systems people.