2 Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0

William Cartwright

School of Mathematical and Geospatial Science, RMIT University, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia

Abstract

With the arrival of the Internet, Cartography was able to publish maps on-line,
quickly and with no distribution or printing costs. However, the way maps are
constructed for Web delivery differs little from computer graphics and discrete
multimedia products. Now, accelerated by relatively inexpensive access to the
Internet, the availability of small, inexpensive, mobile computers and the avail-
ability of social software have changed the way in which users access informa-
tion via the Internet. This is being facilitated via blogging, building products like
Wikis and using Aggregator and Social services. The Internet is now being used
in a way where users ‘build’ their own information resources by placing their own
information on-line or linking to many distributed resources. Information is stored
virtually and accessed when needed and in formats best suited to a particular use.
Information is not developed or stored as one complete unit, but ‘built’ on demand
using Web-provisioned resources.

This chapter considers whether cartography needs to address the concept of

‘decomposing the map’ in the era of Web 2.0, whereby a complete product will
be replaced by cartographer-built components in conjunction with user-provided
information. Users would ‘construct’ their own mapping product from both cartog-
rapher-provided components and their own information.

2.1 Introduction

When interactive multimedia was new innovation was paramount. ‘Multi-media’
became ‘ multimedia’ and products became integrated, seamless and content-rich.
Users were offered a smorgasbord of media applications. Computer displays
harnessed to adjunct output and input device were the delivery mechanisms and
hyperlinks and interactivity were the ‘glue’ that held them together. For cartog-
raphy this offered designers the opportunity to move beyond ‘just’ single screen
‘snapshots’ and to be able to assemble products of more generous proportions.
These initial products excited users and producers alike. They provided the means

11

12 William

Cartwright

for experts and ‘armchair travellers’ alike to explore geography using richly
furbished cartographic composite offerings. Initial products were ‘packaged,’
with the author/producer deciding the product content, and the user the navigation
paths to follow and the type of display to view. Later, products were dynamically
‘built’ ‘on-the-fl y,’ once generous databases were fi rst cobbled to, and later became
integrated with multimedia products. Then, almost as if discrete media had never
been the focus of concentrated effort, distributed media using the World Wide Web
changed the access method, and along with the strategies for delivering ‘good’
product.

The Web, Berners-Lee’s communication tool that enabled scientists to collabo-

rate virtually, albeit initially only using text (via HTML-facilitated documents),
provided the means to make documents available (almost) instantly. Media that once
demanded the movement of voluminous tomes of text or, later CD-ROM-packaged
‘rich media’ products, were replaced by the Web’s ‘pull’ technology that enabled
documents to be found on a computer somewhere else in the network, retrieved, and
then used on one’s own computer. No paper products to print then post or fax, no
CD-ROMs or fl oppy disks to burn and then mail. For cartography the Web provided
the means to make maps ‘available for all’. Initially the mapping products published
via this medium was quite modest, static counterparts of their discrete multimedia
forbearers. Rudimentary maps were the rule of the day, and ‘simple’ meant that
download times could at least be tolerated when graphics products were transferred.
Function dictated form, and maps were simple, inelegant and basic – but they were
available immediately. Quite quickly more elaborate products replaced these simple
mapping products as software was developed and download times improved. Soon
the maps produced for the Web became as useful and usable as discrete multimedia
products. Then maps generated from databases ‘on-the-fl y’ were possible, with
processing being initially server-side biased, but later both server-side and client-
side ‘generated’ maps became de-rigueur. Large databases could be interrogated
and the forthcoming data analysed and visualized. What was once the domain of
large cartographic offi ces was ‘ported’ to the map users computer. The user could
become a producer-user.

The Web, and mapping products later became mobile, delivered via the tele-

communications conduit of large telecommunications companies as proprietary
product or via the Mobile Internet. Maps became smaller, demanding a re-think
about what constituted ‘good’ design. Maps had to be displayed on small, low-
resolution devices. And, the user was mobile! Again, function dictated form, and
the maps produced for this delivery medium were simple products for navigation
and ‘at-location’ geographical information provision. How these maps were used
differed from desk-bound or notebook computer products and speed of delivery
and consumption (again, whilst mobile in most instances) dictated their design and
use.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 13

Maps were produced for the Web by cartographers, who packaged their design

and delivered products as complete packages. This was done using various methods
of map composition, but the cartographer was composer/producer. The availability
of relatively inexpensive Internet access, small, but powerful computers and Social
Software changed this ‘one size fi ts all’ way of map composition, production and
consumption. Producer/users used Web 2.0 and the freely-available Web sites that
allowed virtual information repositories to be built, accessed and used in a collab-
orative way. Users built their own products, and collaborated with other Web users
by sharing data and joining forces for mapping programs. The way in which prod-
ucts were produced changed from maps and atlases being ‘pre-composed and built
for users’, to a situation where maps and atlases were composed on-demand and
‘on-the-fl y’. Perhaps this was similar to what happened when cartography embraced
printing and atlases were ’assembled’ from what were once discrete maps.

2.2 Communication systems and maps

Communication systems that have been adopted by cartography can be grouped
into four loosely defi ned eras:

• Inscription
• Printing
• Electronic Iconography
• Global electronic publishing

However, with the rapid advancement and changes in communication it is reason-

able to add two more that have developed most recently:

• Personal / global electronic publishing
• Collaborative global electronic publishing and communication

It is this last communication phase, and its relevance to cartography that this

paper focuses on – the use of contemporary collaborative communication systems
using the World Wide Web. More particularly, the paper looks at what has been
described as Web 2.0, the use by individuals and groups of individuals to provide
and share information by utilising the Web in a different manner. The way that users
of Web 2.0 communicate differently is that they do not require materials packaged
by publishers – they do this themselves, and, they are computer literate, equipped
with versatile computers and appropriate software and, perhaps most importantly,
ready to use the Web in different ways.

It is this last communications system, and it application to cartography that is

the focus of this paper. This ‘New Cartography’ uses the Web 2.0 as a different,
collaborative form of communication.

14 William

Cartwright

2.3 Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is the use of the World Wide Web by individuals and groups of individuals
to provide and share information by utilising the Web in a different manner. The
way that users of Web 2.0 communicate differently is that they do not require mate-
rials packaged by publishers – they do this themselves, and, they are computer
literate, equipped with versatile computers and appropriate software and, perhaps
most importantly, ready to use the Web in different ways.

The Web 2.0 has been described as:
“… the transformation of the original Web of static documents into a collection

of pages that still look like documents but are interfaces to full-fl edged computing
platforms. These Web-based services are proliferating so fast because they can be
built using shared, standardized programming tools and languages developed, for
the most part, by open-source software community” (Roush, 2005, p. 49).

It has been made possible by three broad technology trends:
• Inexpensive Internet access;
• Inexpensive wireless computing devices;
• The Web as a platform for personal publishing and social software (Roush,

2005).

These information access methods include Voice-over Internet Protocol ( VoIP)

Infoclouds, Wiki software, Blogging, MMS, Wi-Fi, Aggregator services, Social
services, Location Based Services ( LBS), etc. The paragraphs that follow briefl y
describe a selection of these access and sharing methods under two headings: 1)
Collaborative information sites; and 2) Social software.

2.3.1 Collaborative information sites

Flicker is perhaps the most popular photograph-sharing Web site (www.fl ickr.com).
As well as posting digital images users can also add comments and tags. This allows
for photographs to be found by using in-built search routines.

Folksonomies are collaborative knowledge structures. They are built collabora-

tively by groups of users with a common interest in a particular structure tag digital
data for later access and use. The structure of the knowledge database is not hierar-
chical, but an extensive, un-bounded one.

Wikis - Web sites that allow the free posting of content. The content is not

moderated, but maintains its integrity by the continual review and modifi cation by
contributors. Contributors can choose to post content anonymously or with their
details provided. These sites provide powerful community-built (Web) informa-
tion resources. Perhaps the best example of Wiki software is Wikipedia (http://
www.wikipedia.org), which Began in January 2006 (Associated Press, 2006). This
Web-accessible encyclopaedia delivers fi ve billion pages a month. It has over one

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 15

million English-language articles and it publishes in more than 120 languages
(Stross, 2006). As well, Digital Universe is a similar non-profi t commercial-free
Web storehouse of information (http://www.digitaluniverse.net). Examples such as
Placeopedia, Openstreet, or Geowiki are emerging from the similar communities
(Pulsiver and Caquard 2006).

2.3.2 Social software

Social Software Services began when we used SMS (Short Messaging System), and
later MMS ( Multimedia Messaging Service) on cell phones, instant messaging on
Internet-linked computers and email. MMS has increased in popularity in countries
where third-generation (3G) cellular telephone services have been introduced. MMS
via 3G services appends images (still and motion) and sound to the text messages
of SMS.

Voice-over-

Internet-Portocol (

VoIP), delivered using networks like Skype,

provide free peer-to-peer Internet-connected phone services and, for a relatively
modest charge, links to fi xed-line and cellular phone subscribers.

Blogs – personal electronic ‘journals’. Users build their electronic journals

on-line using sites like Blogger, LiveJournal, Movable Type and WordPress (Roush,
2005). These sites allow users to easily ‘build’ and maintain blogs that may consist
of text, images, audio and video content.

Delicious (del.icio.us) - users deposit URLs, comments and tags that enable them

to index and retrieve selected Web pages. This type of software provides powerful,
free methods for assembling a comprehensive directory of useful Web sites.

Gmail – provided by Google. This service provides users with almost unlimited

storage space via the Web. Subscribers also gain access to powerful Google search
engine. But, it must be noted that there are some privacy concerns with this service,
as Google stores the contents of all email messages, outgoing and incoming.

Infoclouds are aggregations of personal digital data. Individuals ‘point’ to infor-

mation that resides on the Internet, rather than store the information locally or on
purpose-built Web sites. Users invoke infoclouds to retrieve and display the infor-
mation of interest to them, or for specifi c applications.

Podcasts are MP3 recordings published on the Internet. ‘Listeners’ can subscribe

to specifi c ‘shows’ and then download the complete show for later listening on MP3
players. Apple’s iPod made this type of program popular.

Location-Based Services ( LBS), sometimes referred to as L-commerce, began

when Telco’s saw increased revenue generated from the provision of location with
services. The industry sees that the biggest potential money earner is mobile location
entertainment, especially amongst teenagers (Gisler 2001). And, LBS may soon be
‘personalised’ by applications like Siemens proposed ‘ Virtual Post-Its,’ where users

16 William

Cartwright

of GPS-enabled cell phones can leave virtual post-it notes by sending a message
from the location about which the post-it refers. When the message recipient is
within a certain proximity of where the message was dispatched a message is sent
from the server (Technology Review, 2005).

2.4 Web 2.0 and Cartography

What impact will Web 2.0 have on cartography? Currently cartography provides
users with maps and map-related products in both paper and digital form. But,
over the last decade by far the most widely-used method for the dissemination of
geographical information recently has been the World Wide Web. In this time, it has
grown from 40 million users worldwide in 1996 (van Niekerk 1996) to around 1
billion during 2005 (Peterson 2006). The products delivered by the Web are by-and-
large the products of cartographers and, particularly products that are provided as
‘packaged’ products, whereby users are unable to sometimes make their own maps
from supplied databases, but otherwise cannot make personal contributions. The
Web 2.0 works somewhat differently – users want to make their own contribu-
tions, they share documents and they are attuned and skilled at composing their own
compilations of rich media to facilitate ‘self-help’ information provision.

Fig. 2.1 OpenStreetMap. Free, editable map of the World. http://www.openstreetmap.org/

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 17

Looking at some mapping examples developed using Web 2.0 provides a

snapshot of the interest that Web 2.0 has generated. The following images show
mapping examples developed and delivered by groups of individuals using Web
2.0. OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/) makes available a free, edit-
able map of the World. Users can download the image for free and then annotate it
with their own, additional information. The map is shown in Figure 2.1.

Other resources include GPS Traces, a public collection of road centerlines (see:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces), MapStraction, providing a common API
for Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft’s javascript mapping APIs (see: http://www.
mapstraction.com/) and CivicMaps Tile Engine v0.5, a Web mapping engine for
insertion into individual sites that present maps with clickable thumbtacks. (see:
http://maps.civicactions.net/).

Examples such as Placeopedia, OpenStreetMap, or GeoWiki are emerging from

the similar communities (Pulsiver and Caquard, forthcoming).

Also, individual users are creating ‘ Mashups’ – collections of maps using the

resources provided via the Web. They provide the ability to assemble Web pages
that are a combination of: Geolocation + Googlemaps + Additional information
(added by the individual).

The following images show the types of maps that are produced with Mashups.

Fig. 2.2 Simple map produced by the author using the Quikmaps site. http://quikmaps.com/

18 William

Cartwright

Fig. 2.3 The author’s map using PlaceOpedia. Geolocation+Maps+ Wikipedia+ Flickr.
http://www.placeopedia.com/

Fig. 2.4 frappr - maps created by individuals, who then invite others to join.
http://www.frappr.com/applegeeks

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 19

There has been a revolution about how user/producers go about actually collecting

data and producing maps. They are being produced by ‘New Cartographers,’ as well
as cartographers that are new to cartography. To assist in their endeavours books
have been written about New Cartographies. Three examples are:

1) Mapping Hacks: Tips & Tools for Electronic Cartography, Schuyler Erle,

Rich Gibson, Jo Walsh (Oreilly & Associates Inc., 2005)

2) ELSE/WHERE: MAPPING — New Cartographies of Networks and

Territories, Janet Abrams and Peter Hall (University of Minnesota Design Institute,
2006. ISBN 0-9729696-2-4). This book was a project that explores the “techniques
and contemporary applications of mapping”. (For further information see the Web
site at: http://design.umn.edu/go/project/elsewheremapping or the blog at: http://
www.elsewheremapping.com/)

3) Gibson, R. and Schuyler E., 2006, Google Maps Hacks (Oreilly & Associates

Inc., 2006)

Conferences also have addressed New Cartographies. For example, Futuressonic

(http://10.futuresonic.com/off_the_map.html) was held in Manchester in July 2006.
The theme of the event was: “to consider how evolving mobile, locative and mapping
technologies, often created by independent developers working collaboratively
with open source tools, are opening up new cultural possibilities across the world”.
Sounds like ‘mainstream’ cartography. As well, during August/September 2006 the
Royal Geographical Society / Institute of British Geographers held their confer-
ence in London. One of the sessions is devoted to New Cartography – Rethinking
Maps – organised by Martin Dodge and Chris Perkins (University of Manchester)
and Rob Kitchin (NUI Maynooth, Ireland). The topics presented at the conference
illustrate the interest in providing maps ‘differently’:

• Deconstructing the Map
• Performing Cartographies: Wayfi nding Within The Airport
• MAPS withOUT Borders
• OpenStreetMap.org – Citizens Mapping the World
• Emergent Mapping: The Possibilities for Cartographic
• Multiplicity and Resistance
• Tools and social uses for collaborative map building
• Maps, Race and Foucault
• European topographic mapping and the aesthetics of landscape
• cartography
• Spatial Diaries? Personalisation and Refl exivity in Maps
• Maps & Orientation
• TheirWork: An Online Map You Can Contribute To

20 William

Cartwright

2.5 Questioning how to deliver geospatial information
using Web 2.0

Some problems are emerging due to the ability that the computer-savvy have to
access information using these tools. A “New Digital Divide” is being expounded
by blogger Godin, who splits Web users into the ‘ Digerati’ and the ‘Left behind. His
perceived differences are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 The New Digital Divide. Re-drawn from Godin, 2006.

THE NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE

The Digerati

The Left Behind

Uses Firefox

Uses Internet Explorer

Knows who Doc Searls is

Already has a Doctor, thanks very much

Uses RSS Reader

RSS?

Has a blog

Reads blogs (sometimes)

Reads BoingBoing

Watches the Tonight Show

Bored with Flickr

Flickr?

Gets news from Google

Gets news from Peter Jennings

Where does this place cartography – as part of Godin’s ‘Left Behind’ or

‘ Digerati’?

Therefore, the question that this chapter asks is: Is there still a need to have the

map as one ‘whole’?” That is, should we consider that users may wish to compose
their own ‘maps’ or ‘atlases’ by perhaps using only some cartographer-provided
information, and then supplementing this with information that they source them-
selves, or construct in their preferred manner. Are users, who are attuned to ‘self-
composition’ and fi nding information themselves more likely to assemble their own
‘experience’ of geography? They have the ability and tools available to do this. So
do we need to address how we should provide information via Web 2.0? Do we
still only provide ‘packaged’ geographical information, or do we need to re-think
how we can best include the user in this process. If we consider that many of the
fi rst atlases were ‘composite’ products, where publishers ‘composed’ paper atlases
from maps sourced from various cartographers, then this is not a new concept. The
difference is that the user becomes the publisher, and the cartographer just one of
the providers of information. Therefore, are New Rules for cartographic product
composition and delivery required?

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 21

2.6 New Rules

New methods for depicting the earth and its cultural and natural attributes have
developed and many other graphic and non-graphic formats have become avail-
able to complement maps for presentation. In the ‘main stream’ cartographic world
this equates to the use of things like simple in-car alphanumeric read-outs, audio-
guided city guides and SMS (Short Message Service) - enabled cellular telephones
that deliver directional and location information to users. With the sheer number of
publications readily available through contemporary communications and multi-
media publishing systems the way in which we access information has changed
forever. The geospatial sciences are no different. It is argued that a new genre of
spatial artefact has now stabilised and become an accepted tool for exploring geog-
raphy and for mining geographical information. This has resulted in adapting new
ways to use these products and new ways of assembling data into a personalised
cartographic product. Information can be combined from multiple sources to create
‘montage maps,’ maps without a ‘data of data capture’ (that is, the fi nal visualization
may be a composite image that ensures the ‘best’ image for usage, for example,
a composite remotely sensed image that can be produced from separate fi les to
ensure global cloud-free coverage, but at each discrete point on the earth the data
is derived from different sources or different collection ‘date/time’ ‘stamps’’). In
many instances, this has led to the proliferation of geospatial products that have
been produced by ignoring the ‘rules’ that govern what cartography considers to be
good map compilation and design.

Traditionally, data and user were ‘merged’ by the provision of a particular

mapping product that was generated to meet a certain usage requirement for viewing
geographical information within a designated area. Contemporary products have
changed the process. Users can become the map drawer, data can be assembled
from many discrete and geographically dispersed sites and visualization products
can be generated using a plethora of depiction techniques that interpret data into
usable maps using software that is both available and inexpensive.

In the light of the tremendous impact that information technology has had on

the graphic arts in particular, and also on the possibilities for producing fairly
professional products by non-cartographers, the area of responsibility for cartog-
raphers perhaps needs to be re-defi ned as well. Consider that new technologies
enables non-cartographers to produce maps, which can nevertheless be viewed as
naive mapping products in the eyes of cartographers, as usable products (albeit
ineffi cient and probably scientifi cally inaccurate and artistically inelegant), almost
at the touch of a button. These can be developed and produced without a cartog-
rapher’s input whatsoever, as long as the producer has access to data, which data
providers are more than willing to make available to anyone who has the ability
to pay.

22 William

Cartwright

Does cartography therefore need to be re-defi ned in terms of cartographer and

also in terms of naïve producer/consumer as well? Consider that cartographers can
control most elements of the provision of products until the fi nal consumption of
the product, perhaps a division needs to be made between the actual ‘behind the
scenes’ elements of contemporary cartography and the ‘public face’ of cartography
- ‘consumer cartography’.

Therefore, what do we produce? Once the focus of map production, as paper

products, discrete media like CD-ROM and the Web, was for ‘packaged’ carto-
graphic products. Cartography did ‘compose’ products like atlases and map sets, but
predominantly cartography has focussed on delivering packages, and not packets of
information. Perhaps what is required for users of the Web 2.0 is a ‘decomposed’
map. A ‘map’ where users ‘build’ their own product, individually or collaboratively,
from resources that they choose. And, the resources chosen by users may not always
be those provided by cartographic fi rms. They may be composite products, discrete
or distributed, cartographer-provided, user-built or the result of a collaborative
enterprise.

2.6.1 Judging quality

How can quality be judged when a composite product is being ‘self-assembled’
by a user? With paper, computer-generated and Web products there were certain
elements that could be evaluated to ascertain ‘good product’. Web 2.0 demands a
different approach. This section addresses this issue.

2.6.2 Quality and printed maps

When printing was applied to map publishing the whole world changed! Information
could be made more quickly and the perennial problem of copying errors from one
document to another disappeared. When judging quality it needed to be considered
that printers had become part of the map production team and in many ways they
dictated the ‘look’ of maps due to their technologically-imposed specifi cations on
the map production process. After the printer was incorporated into map produc-
tion Cartographers had to adapt design and production to take into account the
particular restrictions which printing placed on maps. Therefore to judge quality
in maps the actual print quality was included, and sometimes print quality became
paramount. As well as the actual cartographic design and the completeness of the
map, judging quality of paper maps had to include the artwork itself – drawing or
scribing, the photomechanical processes used and, fi nally, the quality of the actual
print. Quality focussed on the producers defi nition of what was a ‘good’ map and
the actual drawing and replication specifi cations. In many cases the user was left
out from quality evaluation.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 23

2.6.3 Quality and computer-generated maps

With the ‘invention’ of the computer, everything changed in the scientifi c world
– including cartography. The mapping industry fi rst used computers as ‘number
crunchers,’ then to guide drawing instruments as CAD systems. The initial systems
used ‘mainframe’ computers, which required interaction via punchcards and then
keyboards, not graphic images. Eventually this type of system was applied to
graphics, and graphic artists, and cartographers were able to design and produce
graphics ‘directly,’ without the problems associated with having to produce artwork
‘blind’ of the fi nal appearance of the graphic product until a colour proof was
made through photomechanical processes. Cartography applied computer graphics
for artwork production and output. Initially, a fl ood of ‘crude’ (from a design and
consumption perspective) computer generated maps depicted everything about
everywhere. As long as the products were not the subject of too much critical anal-
ysis, all appeared to be well with the carto-graphics. But, still, some below standard
map products that resulted from the attempts to portray spatial information using
early computer graphics systems were foisted onto the user. Unfortunately many
inferior map products produced with these early computer systems were readily
accepted as substitutes for the precise and eleganty scribed and printed alterna-
tives only because they were produced quickly and by new computer systems.
Just because the results of many calculations could be displayed using the newly-
adopted computer drawing packages, users were sometimes willing to accept the
initial crude outputs only because they were produced quickly and from data which
resided on a massive, presumably more current, database. Once computer-mapping
systems became commonplace, Cartographers looked for ways of improving the
design of digitally-produced maps. The later generations of digital maps usually
make the earlier products pale in comparison. Initial digital products were woeful,
but some of their later products were wonderful examples of cartographic excel-
lence. With the implementation of computers into the cartographic process, quality
was determined differently. As well as the actual map itself, quality was also deter-
mined about the effectiveness of computer–assisted procedures. These included the
design and planning stages, data acquisition, editing and quality assurance, data
processing, map composition and production, replication and product delivery.

2.6.4 Quality and the Web

The Web provided cartography with a new method for disseminating maps. Some
of the early Web mapping packages used text-heavy interfaces to list the available
mapping inventory and the text provided hyperlinks to the actual maps themselves.
These maps were ‘packaged’ as either . GIF or . JPG images, or, once downloaded
users could view them as a low-resolution counterpart to printed maps. As the focus

24 William

Cartwright

on early Web mapping was on speed, some of these early Web-delivered maps
mirrored the graphics produced by early computer systems. Alternatively, the maps
provided were only scanned paper maps, like the extensive collection provided by
the Perry-Castañeda Library, at The University of Texas at Austin. But, if users were
willing to wait for a long download time, then images with better resolution could
be had. This method has been used with great success by digital map libraries like
Oxford University’s Bodleian Library, a repository to numerous historical artifacts
related mainly to Oxford and Oxfordshire. Later, maps were made available via
large databases and on-demand images were composed server-side and then deliv-
ered to the map user. The efforts of companies like MapQuest made this type of map
available globally. Then, using formats such as Scalable Vector Graphics ( SVG)
vector maps were provided on the Web. These were ‘scalable’ and the map could be
zoomed and panned with no loss of resolution. Using the Web for map publishing
meant that the cartographic industry could publish without the mass replication
costs of paper, information was provided world-wide and users had almost instant
access to mapping products. Quality was adjudged by speed of delivery, circulation
fi gures, accuracy associated with screen resolution and how the product had been
generally delivered by the Web. Quality was gauged by how the ‘rules’ of computers
and communications systems were applied. Users were still seen as consumers, and
not collaborators in geographical knowledge acquisition.

Users provided with maps from various resources, and from different cartogra-

phers, providers, etc. The Web mapping designer is restricted by reality: real reality
and the reality that the user considers to be real.

2.6.5 Quality and Web 2.0

The use of Web 2.0 as a means for providing geographical information presents
different problems for assuring quality. Problems might arise with a conglomerate
product related to ‘self-constructed’ Web 2.0 products. Consider the use of Wikis
and if a Wiki Atlas (or Watlas?) was constructed. To guarantee quality and assured,
concise information, a number of questions arise:

• Who takes ‘ownership / custodianship of the product?
• Who guarantees the quality /integrity of the product?
• Who maintains the product?
For conventional cartographic products these assurances are provided by cartog-

raphy. A major issue if self-composed products are to be used with confi dence might
well be quality assurance. Therefore, methods would need to be developed for
assuring quality with conglomerate products, assuring quality with user-produced
products and the means for informing users about the source of conglomerate infor-
mation resources.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 25

2.7 How might this be achieved?

If New Media is looked-upon as a vehicle to achieve this conglomerate hard/soft
presentation tool, then there are a number of elements that need to be addressed
to ensure that an effective artefact is provided. Design decisions need to be made
that relate to how the user is able to modify the tool provided (shown as the fi xed-
malleable continuum ‘side’ of the cube in Figure 2.5) so that users can ‘mould’ the
tool into a form that best suits their usage of the tool. The amount of interactivity
provided, or perhaps no interaction at all will also change the visualization device.
Products can be passive, and provide the ability for ‘armchair travel’ in a way that
readers of travel-related novels would appreciate. Or, the product may be merely
‘reactive,’ whereby it would react to, say where a mouse was located on a screen
or the ‘path’ that a user was taking while exploring information. The product could
be fully interactive, and offer users many ways to interrogate the system. And,
facilitating what could be called a ‘High Technical Precision’ – ‘Art Installation’
continuum is the ‘Geometrical Integrity’ – ‘Graphical Intensity’ edge of the cube
in Figure 2.5. Design decisions related to this continuum can bias a product either
towards a technology focus or an art focus, or somewhere in-between, allowing
for a product that was ‘tuned’ to particular user likes. Art/technology attributes
‘dialled-in’!

Traditionally, to ensure that the products so designed are usable and useful, in

a geographical context, they were designed according to ‘Geo-Carto’ rules. This
assumed that historical ‘rules,’ developed to ensure that cartographic artefacts

Fig. 2.5 Geographical reality and interactive multimedia.

‘Cartographic Outliers’ -
artefacts produced
outside conventional
geo-cartographic ‘rules’

GEOGRAPHICAL
REALITY

Malleable

Fixed

Passive

Reactive

Interactive

Graphical integrity

Geometrical integrity

26 William

Cartwright

provided tools had integrity and were effective for information communication,
are considered and that current and developing methodologies and preferences are
employed. Overarching these considerations is the need to provide visualizations
that accord to geographical reality, whereby, for design functionality, information
is not so distorted that the real geographical reality is so warped that it cannot be
properly be visualized or understood.

What users of social software and collaborative Web sites would include in their

composite products can be seen to be ‘outside’ the Geo-Carto’ rules. They might
be considered to be ‘Cartographic Outliers,’ products that are deemed to be unable
to be evaluated according to conventional cartographic practices. However, these
products are important to individual users and they would wish them to be part
of any comprehensive product that delivered their ‘personalised’ conglomerate
product, one that comprised cartographer-built and user built/specifi ed (and linked)
components.

But how to design these products? Consider that any cartographic artefact needs

to be designed according to certain guidelines, and these guidelines, once assem-
bled, defi ne the ‘look’ of the product and its utility. Historically, rules have evolved,
rather than being specifi cally constructed. Take for example a topographic map, the
evolution of hundreds of years of work related to design, trialling, redesign, and so
on. Viewing a topographic map in terms of the edges of the cube in Figure 2.5, it
could be considered to be fi xed, that is, users are unable to modify how it is used,
and it is passive, the user does all of the ‘work’. This is illustrated in Figure 2.6.

A product providing both art and technology bias ‘provisions’ would need to

provide more, and it could be ‘built’ using a number of cubes, each containing
preferred elements, and assembled in such a way that the fi nal combination came
close to an ‘ideal confi guration. In this way ‘fi xed’ New Media elements, fi xed
insofar that existing technology provides little or no malleability tools, can be
assembled to build a unique product. In the example shown in Figure 2.7 a tool
could be constructed containing both fi xed/passive elements, like topographic maps,
as well as passive/graphic elements like photographs or videos (which are passive

Fig. 2.6 Topo

cube.

Fixed

Passive

TOPO CUBE

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 27

from the user’s perspective, but dynamic from the perspective of the media). This
would be analogous to a cartographic Lego set.

This ‘Cartographic Installation’ would have different confi gurations according to

needs and preferences of different participants in a particular cartographic applica-
tion, from design to development to consumption. Separate confi gurations might be
needed for:

• Designer - to trial ideas and build prototypes;
• Producer - with a focus on the elements needed for an effi cient production

process;

• User - with particular application needs;
• Commentator - needing a model upon which to base informed decisions;
• The commentator as a Theorist, only interested in abstract views of geography;

and

• Non-participant - wishing to view geography from afar, perhaps the ‘armchair

traveller’ who wants to use tools as a built environment that needs no personal
input at all to experience the ‘journey’.

Fig. 2.8 Multimedia elements and a participant.

Fig. 2.7 Cubes used to assemble a unique product.

Fixed

Passive

Passive

Graphical
integrity

28 William

Cartwright

Each of the users would assemble their own combination of New Media elements

and then exploit this installation in their own manner (Figure 2.8).

This ( virtual) cartographic installation could be as large as the user requires, with

new ‘slices’ added to enhance and extend the coverage and utility of the product
(Figure 2.9).

Users put-together maps from various resources, and from different cartogra-

phers, providers, etc. Cartographic input may be in the form of providing (some
or all) components or suggesting a pathway through the assembled information,
so as to view meaningful information. (This type of ‘pathway’ was proposed by
Monmonier (1992) as ‘graphic scripts’ - a sequence of cartographic “events’ could
be pre-programmed, and users would be taken through a (geographically) logical
set of steps. Also, an ‘engineered’ method of moving through such a matrix was
proposed by Cartwright (2004) and called ‘Engineered Serendipity’.

2.8 Conclusion

Web 2.0 and the software now available presents a new view on what is done
when provisioning users with cartographic materials. It offers a new publishing
genre and a different way of delivering New Media. Small, portable and generic
devices have changed the way that we access and use Web-delivered information,
including cartographic information. And this information is delivered locally via
discrete storage media like CD-ROM and nationally and globally via the Internet
using the various Web consumption methods. Social software has changed what

Fig. 2.9 Building a complex New Media Cartographic installation.

Delivering geospatial information with Web 2.0 29

users consider to be the methods to fi nd, store and access information. They also
are part of Web-enabled collaborative publishing consortia. Cartography needs to
ascertain how best to apply its skills, in other areas that have been enabled by Web
2.0. These are basically non-cartographic, but they need to be spatially defi ned /
controlled if they are to provide usable geographical information. This can be done
with the confi dence that the theory and outlooks are basically unchanged, but the
tools and methods of delivery are different and need to be explored, appreciated
and applied.

References

Abrams, J. and Hall, P., 2006, ELSE/WHERE: MAPPING — New Cartographies of

Networks and Territories, University of Minnesota Design Institute.

Associated Press, 2006, “A Free Online Encyclopedia”, Monday, March 06, 2006.
Cartwright, W. E., 2004, “Engineered Serendipity: thoughts on the design of

conglomerate containing geoviz tools and geographical new media artefacts”,
Transactions in GIS, January 2004, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 1-12, Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.

Gibson, R. and Schuyler E., 2006, Google Maps Hacks, O’Reilly.
Gisler, M., 2001, “Rome mobile location services conference attracts industry

leaders”, WLIA Newsletter, Wireless Location Industry Association, www.wlia-
online.com/publications/romeconference.html, Web page accessed 26 November
2003.

Godin, S., 2006, “The New Digital Divide”, http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_

blog/2005/05/the_new_digital.html, Web site (Blog) accessed 30/3/2006

Peterson, M. P., 2006, “The Internet and Multimedia Cartography”, in Multimedia

Cartography Ed. 2, Cartwright, W. E., Peterson, M. P. and Gartner, G., Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.

Pulsiver, P. L. and Caquard, S, 2006, “Toward a New Generation of Community

Atlases - The Cybercartographic Atlas of Antarctica”, in Multimedia Cartography
(Edition 2), Cartwright, W. E., Peterson, M. P. and Gartner, G.(eds), Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.

Roush, W., 2005, “Social machines”, MIT Technology Review, Aug 2005,

pp. 45-53.

Schuyler E., Gibson, R. and Walsh, J., 2005, Mapping Hacks: Tips & Tools for

Electronic Cartography, O’Reilly & Associates Inc.

Stross, 2006, “Digital Domain - Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”,

The New York Times, March 12. Web page http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/
business/yourmoney/12digi.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

30 William

Cartwright

Technology Review, 2005, “Prototype – Virtual Post-Its”, Technology Review,

September 2005, p. 25.

van Niekerk, M., 1996, “Money on the Net, but not yet”, The Age, February 17, pp.

B1 and B6.