Course blog

In the “Introduction to Web Mapping”, the author, Jim Detwiler, provides an interesting discussion on the development of online cartography since the first map was placed on the Internet. Once a simple image held up with a few strings of HTML, maps are now expected to be highly interactive and specific. Most important in his overview, in my opinion, is the author’s insistence on arguing for the benefits of both paper and web-based maps. Reviewing the impressive development of online cartography since the first map was scanned and placed on the Internet, the author spends an equal amount of time on the benefits of paper maps – including its mobility as a service that doesn’t require Internet access, extreme high-definition quality that is incredibly difficult to put on a screen, and reliability as a product produced by certified experts rather than cartography hobbyists editing open source code. Interestingly, Detwiler helpfully injects an element of perspective supporting online cartography as he reveals European countries seem to value online cartography more because they don’t have the same kind of open-information regarding mapping that Americans do. As a result of the internet and online cartography, individuals from European countries are able to build for themselves a network of information regarding geography within their own living network.

While I am relatively new to John Green and his books, Detwiler’s discussion of cartography on and off the internet immediately reminded me of his novel Paper Towns and its preoccupation with paper towns – fictional towns arbitrarily created by mapping companies to ensure that a map is fairly copyrighted and not reproduced by a rival mapping company. Arguably most famous of these towns is Agloe, New York, the city prominently featured in Green’s novel. Strangely enough, because the town was published by the creators, the map’s users actually began to visit the point of the map labeled “Algoe” and had enough visitors to encourage the development of a general store. While more of a copyright trap than an innocent mistake, people actually visiting this spot on the map demonstrates the ramifications the error had that could have come from both experts and hobbyists alike. Both striving to preserve their ownership of the object they are working towards, expert cartographers and their ownership of their product and hobbyists and their ability to continue to contribute to a product they have worked on, today’s reading revealed to me the problem that both paper and electronic materials both suffer from. Both are created by an individual and, are therefore, susceptible to error, intentional or not. As objects providing security and guidance during travel, maps shouldn’t be error prone and hopefully, will become less so.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html?_r=0#10,34.155,-118.116

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

I found the Introduction to Web Mapping to be a great summary of the development of maps on the web. It was especially interesting since I took a course on GIS last year, and I plan on going into web design – and both relate to web mapping. Web mapping has had a huge impact on personal navigation; Google Maps has enabled anyone with a smartphone and signal to find anything. People no longer need to struggle over a large printed map, instead, Google Maps links people to their destination for them. But web maps have broadened more horizons than just navigation. Maps have always been incredible visual sources of information, and I especially enjoy New York Times’ interactive maps.

The lesson went over the definition of interactive maps, and states that most commonly interactive maps include the ability to zoom and pan. Other forms of interactivity include the ability to toggle map layers on and off, obtain detailed information about map features, and browse to web sites associated with map features. While the first maps on the web may have been overwhelmingly static, interactive maps are now commonplace.

One NYtimes map that was particularly horrifying to me was the College Football Fan Map. The New York Times mapped out the percentages of who was loyal to which college football team in each county across the nation. The map is interactive, so I immediately zoom in to my hometown. It is bright red, which was expected because I live close to Stanford. Next, I went south towards Los Angeles. Where was UCLA’s fan base? A tiny section of the Westside showed our tiny fan base in comparison to USC’s, which dominated most of Southern California.

Without visualizations like this map, it is a lot more difficult to interpret statistics and draw a conclusion from them. I immediately saw how small the area UCLA’s fans are located with New York Times interactive map.

Another NYTimes map that’s intriguing is the map of homicides in New York City. You can toggle different filters to see what ethnicity was the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, the month and time of day, and others. This map is an example of a tool that would be useful to the police force in order to prevent future murders, an outcome of a map that’s a little more useful than seeing how big you school’s fan base is.

 

Before I endeavor to attempt to explain the connections I made this week, I want to take a moment and remember Mapquest: printed sheets with turn-by-turn directions B.G. (Before Google) and the proliferation of mobile-based navigation applications.  *sigh.

Per usual, I jump from site to site when doing my readings online or on an electronic device.  I always mean to disconnect from the internet but it never pans out.  One of the advantages, and disadvantages I suppose, is that I could explore sites that are referenced in the readings.  In doing so this week, I stumbled upon a site that suits this week’s theme and my team’s research topic: Phototrails.

Phototrails is committed to the exploration of “Cultural Analytics” which visualize patterns from Instagram photo uploads over space and time, which is what Ian Gregory mentions in his chapter, “Using Geographical Information Systems to Explore Space and Time in the Humanities.”  The large visual datasets aim to explain cultural rhythms and patterns in select cities such as, New York, Tokyo, Tel Aviv, over the course of three months.  What is neat are the relationships drawn from morning, afternoon, and evening uploads from 289 active users. (To aid this statement, please click here for the visual I am referring to.)  The utilization of advanced GIS Phototrails employs allows us to see operations in the Humanities continuing to narrate a story of scientific inquiry.  Furthermore, the results drawn from the rhythms and patterns invite further research on the social impacts social media, specifically photo based-apps, have on users.  Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this answer to Gregory’s question(s), rather the ones posed from critics in which he outlines.

When I read Gregory’s chapter, I was intrigued by two lines: “To date, however, this has proved highly problematic in the humanities.  A major reason for this is simply the complexity of handling large datasets that contain both a spatial and temporal component” (136).  Gregory highlights the challenges the Humanities encounter when integrating Geographic Information Systems into their academic research.  From what he mentions above, it seems as though Phototrails allays the “problem” with its work.  Furthermore, Gregory adds, “most studies in the Humanities focus on either time or space but rarely on both of them together” (140).  If I read his chapter correctly, which I might have missed the point, Gregory acknowledges the problems basic GIS software have when adopted by inquires from the Humanities. Additionally, he also recognizes the trajectory and interest in technologies paving the way for time and space working in concert with the Humanities.

Gregory concludes in what I call a bridge to Phototrails by foreshadowing the integration of time and space in GIS models.  It is as if they are speaking to one another across time and space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll start off by saying: I am not a fan of the common web-maps. I think Google Maps, MapQuest, etc… etc… are horrible and I hate working with them but that’s just my personal opinion. Despite my vendetta, the “Anatomy of a Web Map” was an interesting site. I thought it was interesting how the whole premise in the beginning is “tiles are revolutionary in the web-map field!!!” when they are commonly used in satellite image analysis, which just highlights the evolutionary process and history of mapping. While a map from Google might be divided into “tiles” a satellite map is divided in “scenes” based on the satellite’s orbit around the earth. I had some issues with “Anatomy of a Web Map”, mostly because it took forever to load, but also their emphasis on raster layers, tiles, and base-maps. As someone who has experience making physical paper, digital, and web maps, vectors layers are much easier to work with and base-maps make everything a nightmare. This site really made me aware of my mapping preferences. A map like Google maps, although commonly used, is incredibly weak. Many areas of the world either do not have any information or the information is wrong. A program like Open Street Maps is cool however because you can go in and add missing data and change the map versus accepting the map as truth.

I preferred the “Introduction to Web Mapping” over the “Anatomy of a Web Map” just because it’s more in line with how I like to make and use maps. Both sources can be applied to this great map I found of the most popular professions in American cities according to Linkedin profiles. And there is a map of the most popular professions in European cities on the same page as well. The link to the page is provided below. These maps are great examples of dynamic, interactive maps. The symbology is great, using colors to represent different qualitative data. While the base-map may use tiles to load the symbol layer doesn’t. This is in comparison to Instagram’s method of grouping pictures taken in close proximity more and more depending on the zoom level, which many people have written about. Each point in the symbol layer will be shown at any zoom level. This makes sense because the data is divided by city and isn’t group also by geographic region or state or etc….  This is one reason why I have a beef with tile-based web-maps and base-maps; sometimes the level of their data and dynamics are different to the dynamics of the actual data points.

MAPS!

 

This is a video of how progress made in technology creates new ways of viewing the past and finding new discoveries. If we take the comparison of  a digital map to a body, as in “the Anatomy of a Web Map” by Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter, we can see how new findings are added to complete the digital map of Stonehenge. The authors further explain that both bodies and web maps have systems and components that interact and intertwine. And that instead of cells, maps use data, and that instead of circulatory and digestive systems, web maps have style, servers and tiles. To explain a web map, a comparison between a web map and a digital map is made. According to “the Anatomy of a Web Map”, web maps are accessible on the computer while digital maps are viewed on electronic devices and are exclusive from the internet. What was particularly interesting to me was that the first digital map that I used was map quest. Map quest, according to the presentation, is the first initiate for digital maps. In the slide show, little tiles of a map are loaded instead of one big map, because it is faster. One tile can show a map of the world and zoomed in images increases the amount of tiles used. It was also interesting to find out that maps are made in advance and stored in cache. These changes in how we present and view the world is similar to how archeology finds the past through new technologies. The limitations of the internet, such as how it was too long to upload an actual map as it is noted by Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter, is a subtle effect of how we present the world. From this it seems that the way we work around the limitations of technology affects the way we represent information. On the article “Digital mapping project reveals Stonehenge Secrets” by Michelle Starr, it is said that “All of this information has been placed within a single digital map, which will guide how Stonehenge and its landscape are studied in the future. Stonehenge may never be the same again.” We can now view the Stonehenge not only digitally, but also we can see how it is fleshed out as archeologist find new discoveries. It is interesting to see that the more technology advances, the more it affects the way we view the world. We do not only use technology to navigate the streets, but also to find and renew the past.

 

Work Cited:

 

Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter, “Anatomy of a Web Map”

http://www.cnet.com/news/digital-mapping-project-reveals-stonehenge-secrets/

 

Our constucted world is a replica of our natural biology. Everything needs structure, systems, connections, matter, or data, to make a cohesive unit.   Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter point out in there insanely creative webpages that the body and web maps share interatcing components that are often found intertwining. Such as the central nervous system and mapping units like styles, tiles, and servers. We are very privileged to live in a world where almost everything can be accessed with a simple search. I barely remember a world without web mapping, like mapquest and google maps, even though it was not until 2005 that these technologies began to be mastered. This monitoring systems can do alot more than give directions.  People have implement these technologies as a way to better our understanding of the world; these maps can be found in argiculture managment, precision farming, climate change, methane leaks, sea level, pinterest, instagram, and so much more. My mother actually pointed to me to many of these maps, due to her current job placement at ESRI. She inspired to me to think about all the different ways maps can interact with anthropogical work. Although one example in my researching had me intrigued to learn more.

 

Californias love their wine, and the wonderful Salinas Valley offers an excellent placement for own our vineyards. In 1998, one vineyard implimented GIS, which would look at the irrigation systems and as well as indicate the frost zones. These technologies only developed and cultivated a precision farming operation. They now could look at the soil moisture levels, the company of harmful bugs, prospective placements, and even harvesting tactics. The entire vineyard was now under the operation of GIS. It no longer was about simply knowing your land and plants, but instead hyperfocusing this view into the soil and every aspect of the happenings of the vineyard.

 It is so fasinating seeing how different people interact with technology. We are monitoring everything down to our daily movement.  These maps give us so much power, but what are we to do with it. I hope that these maps will help the minds and actions of those desperate for change. They are a resource of growth and a proven help in prosperity. I can’t wait to learn how to develop and interact with our own maps and data! GIS day here we come!

Resource:  http://www.esri.com/esri-news/arcnews/fall13articles/world-class-vineyard-uses-gis-to-finetune-all-its-operations

Our reading this week was all about mapping. Both Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter’s “Anatomy of a Web Map” and Jim Detwiler’s “Introduction to Web Mapping” were intended to teach people to create their own web maps, but “Introduction to Web Mapping” is less instructive, as it includes more information about the history of web mapping. Detwiler lists four generations of web mapping, as recognized by BYU researcher Brandon Plewe, the last of which is characterized by 3D globes and immersive environments. These are elements of applications that strive to create more realistic renderings of our environment; examples include Google Earth, Microsoft’s Virtual Earth, and NASA’s WorldWind.

Although “Anatomy of a Web Map” considers Google Earth to be separate from the realm of web mapping, the application is included in Detwiler’s article as a global web mapping technology. Both articles seemed really interested in exploring the popularity of interactive elements in modern map-making, whether they take the form of “pop-ups” over locations of interest or the ability to zoom and pan. I think it can be interesting too to see how this interactivity ends up being utilized by consumers. A service like Google Maps can be kind of overwhelming—even though it gives us the power to explore almost any area we can think of, the first place most people want to search for is their own address, and its only obvious function is generating directions. Google occasionally showcases certain interesting places, but a lot of other websites have popped up featuring coordinates of beautiful locations, lists of embarrassing street view incidents, and rules for innovative games.

Most of these “guides” have popped up independently of Google and each has their own philosophy behind how to best supplement Google Maps. Time wrote briefly at one point about Oessa, a blog that is especially active in featuring creative Street View locations and includes coordinates in every post so that readers can explore the photographed area on their own. In an interview, the blog’s creator said that she did not find Google Maps compelling in and of itself, but that the world was inspiring and she appreciated that Google allowed her to access it. Although an application like Google Maps can be considered an impressive achievement in web mapping, it is still a tool, and it is often employed in ways that its creators did not exactly intend or foresee.

I am intimidated of web mapping because I feel as though I am inexperienced with many technologies and software, however, web mapping comes across as a very important yet complex part of the digital world. I really enjoyed the presentation of Alan McConchie and Beth Schechter’s, “Anatomy Of a Web Map,” because it was very interactive. The way McConchie and Schecter broke down the aspects of web mapping through large and colorful font PowerPoint slides made it somewhat easier to understand. I also liked how they compared web maps to bodies and the cells of bodies to data in web mapping.

In terms of the presentation and my intimated feelings towards web mapping I learned that tiles were revolutionary in the history of web mapping and that there is a difference between the original MapQuest Maps and Google Maps. Web Maps are viewed in a browser or the Internet like Open Street Map or Google Maps (both browsers use tiles). MapQuest did not use tiles, which made it difficult to view the maps on the Internet. Tiles allow for maps to load faster than a big map. As zoom levels increase on maps the number of tiles increases exponentially.

One of the web mapping sites that stood out to me was OpenStreetMap because anyone can use it for mapping. It is comparable to Wikipedia as a search engine but for web mapping. There is a community of mappers that use OpenStreetMap to map roads, trails, highways, railways, etc. all over the world. When I searched my small two square mile town in New Jersey I found that it was mapped along with all the roads and city boundaries. I could even access how long ago it was mapped and who mapped it. I think this is very impressive website especially because it is web map community driven. Even though it may not be perfectly reliable, it allows for people to practice web mapping and build off of other mapper’s work.

 

https://www.ivpn.net/internet-censorship/

The above link is a map of internet censorship and restrictions around the world. Every country with data available is depicted in white pink or red (free, partially free, not free) and countries in grey are not clickable as data was not available for these countries.It is an interesting example because while this is a map, it is not used for traditional mapping purposes such as giving directions. It is instead a comment on rights violations that takes the form of a map, like a creative data visualization.

When you click a country a rundown appears of the country’s stats, like population, internet penetration, freedom on the net, obstacles to access and limits on content. These are portrayed with numerical values. Net to these are Yes or No questions which either have a check mark next to them (if this type of violation occurs in the selected country) or an X if the violation does not occur. For example, has a blogger or ICT user been arrested for political or social writings? Is there a law which allows for censorship or punishment? The list goes on. Russia, a semi free internet country, checks yes to these two questions, although it does not block social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube), there is no law to increase surveillance or restrict anonymity, and there has not been a localized or nationwide ICT shutdown. A free country, like the US, has no checkmarks next to these questions, although the sidebar says that 12/40 user rights have been violated and 4/25 obstacles to access. A Not Free country like China has 19/25 obstacles to access and checkmarks next to almost every rights blocking initiative.

Although this is a map, is it a true example of webmapping? According to the anatomy of web map it is not. Although it has a zoom factor, it does not seem like the amount of tiles increase on each level because there are no more details once you zoom in (you can simply see the same countries closer up). There are no vector layers (as these are only applicable in maps that show you how to get form point A to B).Also, it seems that this map has not been updated since 2012 as the Sudan is only one country (South Sudan is not present on this map). It counts as a slippy map, but most of the additional data is housed beneath the map instead of on the map itself. So it is a web map, but perhaps it is more convenient as a data visualization than as a device for planning trips or looking into people’s houses.

What I found most interesting about the web-mapping article was that it was displayed and loaded in tiles. I had never noticed before, but when you zoom in there is indeed different places and different tiles that it takes you. I had always wondered why MapQuest ceased to exist and I guess now I know why, because it was always one big image. Also what I thought was interesting was that you had to be connected to the Internet in order to figure out where you were going. However, your phone is still able to track your location when you are not connected to Internet so I am unsure of how this works. When I was abroad I could always look on Google Maps and see exactly where my location was. This came in use when it came to my pictures. Even though I wasn’t connected to WiFi or cellular data, my phone was able to locate where I was taking my pictures and separated them by place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, this could not be possible without web mapping. Even when my photos were all taken on the same day and I only moved around a little, they still appeared on the map in different locations (pictured above). While I do think this is useful and handy, I also find it a little creepy. When I was abroad I was shocked that I could see where I was on the map even though I wasn’t connected to Internet. There was nothing except for my phone and Google knew where I was. Web mapping is incredibly useful and I can’t picture our society today without GPS while driving (help us all if that day ever comes…) but there is still a sense of privacy I would like to maintain that I think may just be gone forever. However, I guess that is what happens with all of technology in today’s age; privacy is slowly diminishing as more and more things are being posted to the web with tags and metadata linking them to companies and specific people. Web mapping has definitely made this more possible by focusing on specific regions to locate who took what images and where.