Did you know that state CIOs named GIS on their Top 10 list of “Priority Technologies” for 2008? The National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO) has released a brief titled “Governance of Geospatial Resources: “Where’s the Data? Show Me” - Maximizing the Investment in State Geospatial Resources.”

The new brief provides a plethora of information. Has some buzzwords and non-nouveau elements, but work checking out, especially if you work with geospatial technology in local/state government.

[via NSGIC via BlinkGeo Geospatial Organizations/Associations Feed Blend]

Curious as to what this year's hurricane season has in store?

xkcd has the answer:

1. Difference: Subtracts the darker of the two constituent colors from the lighter color (which is the background for the PDF).
2. Exclusion: Produces an effect similar to that of Difference mode but lower in contrast.
   

As a member of NACIS, North American Cartographic Information Society, I get issues of the quarterly magazine Cartographic Perspectives. Typically it is filled with articles on how to make pirate maps with ArcMap, the history of projections, or other subjects interesting to cartographers.

I was much amused to see that the Winter 2008 issue carried an opinion piece by Michael Peterson titled “Maps and the Internet: What a Mess It Is and How to Fix It”. It apparently is a response to a keynote given at the International Cartography Conference that discussed the disparity between map-making tools and the lack of knowledge required to use these tools.

Personally, I found the opinion in Cartographic Perspectives to be short-sighted and lacked understanding of the trends occurring in digital web-mapping. Generally the article is a doomsday scenario about how the lack of net neutrality, internet addiction, government restrictions on access, Google Map, system administration and open-source software is harming mapping and cartography.

The last point is perhaps the most humorous, where Peterson complains that open-source software is difficult to maintain and has less than appealing interfaces. What he fails to mention is how powerful and compelling these tools are now when used appropriately, particularly OpenLayers - which is essentially a drop-in replacement for other mapping libraries. Map servers are getting easier to setup and maintain, geo-hosting sites are showing up, and user-interfaces are getting better.

In fact, he runs the gamut of naysaying the current mapping solutions on the web without actually providing any suggestions or solutions. His only real suggestion on “How to Fix It” is to say:

“…organizations like NACIS and the International Cartographic Association (ICA) have a major role to play in defining the function and form of Internet Maps.”

I do agree with some of his overall sentiments. Modern mapping as it is largely represented at this moment has achieved putting maps online and digitized. It has not, however, truly pushed into becoming a new type of medium and utilizing the capabilities of dynamic data and queryable, modifiable interfaces. You can begin to see the emergence of these now, and I believe that the next 6 months will see a whole new round of mapping paradigms. I also think that cartographers and geographers have a wealth of experience and knowledge to share and help guide this {re,e}olution, but that it also won’t be entirely in their control.

We just put up another "demo" site - this time working with Sanborn to provide visualization for their wildfire risk model outputs they have created for the Texas Forest Service. For information on the data, there is contact information on the "About" tab.

From a technical stand-point, we added a few new features to this viewer...

Dealing with Multiple Tile Layers

The viewer is pulling in multiple tile services, representing multiple layers in a map, as opposed to a single "fused" tile layer. This is the first time I've implemented multiple layers using the ArcGIS Server Tile Cache code, and it turns out it's currently a bit of a pain. For this site, we've got 7 tile layers, and to do that with the current tile server code, I needed to create 7 map services (mxd's), and then configure 7 tile services in the TileServer. Clearly this should be streamlined. For example, the url http://204.133.225.164/tileservice/txfirewfsi/023131001.ashx pulls a specific tile from the txfirewfsi tile service. (shown below)

However, I'm thinking that it would be nice to be able to add a layer name in the url -'parcels' in this case -   http://204.133.225.164/tileservice/txbasemap/parcels/023133.ashx. This way you could specify the fused tiles, or just a specific layer.

Adjusting Layer Transparency

This was easy, if not obvious. Adding in a Dojo.slider, and hooking up some events was pretty simple. However, it turns out that changing the .Opacity property of a VETileSourceSpecification has no effect after the layer has been added to map. Instead you need to delete the layer and re-add it with the new opacity. Since the browser is caching the tiles, this is actually very fast.

Virtual Earth 3D

This was also the first time I tried throwing things into 3D mode. It took a few quick tweaks in the javascript, and some different CSS for the markers, but for the most part - it "just worked".

There are a few issues with the dojo menus that I'm going to sort out so I'll save the Url for the 3d page until that's dialed.

So, this took about 3 days to pull together -- if you are looking under the covers, the code is VERY "demo" and has some issues - there are a few weird things with the layer list checkboxes and I have not really tested in IE7, and all bets are off with IE6. I'd love to hear thoughts & ideas though.

A few people have been asking us what are the pros and cons of using SQL Server 2008 Spatial and PostGIS and as a Windows user, why would you still consider using PostGIS. Rather than simply providing some hand-waving saying "well if you just care about displaying data, then use whatever you feel comfortable with, but if you want to do real intensive sophisticated spatial analysis and geometric processing without having to purchase a bunch of expensive software, then PostGIS is probably better for you. Hell why must you think in either or propositions - just use both using the strengths of each.", we have tried really hard to quantify the similarities and differences between the 2 and to boot - we have also added in MySQL.

Our analysis can be found at Cross Compare SQL Server 2008 Spatial, PostgreSQL/PostGIS 1.3-1.4, MySQL 5-6

If you have any comments, suggestions of additions, things you felt we got wrong, then please don't hesitate to comment and we'll try to update our survey.

See update to http://sgillies.net/blog/690/no-wms-in-google-static-maps-api.

I've been living off of them for years, but have finally found a use for Python's weak references in my own code.

In Shapely, coordinate sequences, rings of polygons, and members of multi-part geometries provide proxy access to a GEOS geometry structure "owned" by the parent polygon or multi-part geometry. Through their lives they must carry references to the parent like this:

>>> point.coords.__p__ == point
True

so that an anonymous parent object isn't swept up by the Python garbage collector before a hobuism like:

>>> len(polygon.exterior.centroid.coords)
1

executes completely. The implementation is a bit tricky, but a Shapely user doesn't need to think about it: it just works.

Some sub-geometries are expensive enough to create that I've decided to cache them in the parent. Since the "child" already holds a reference to the parent, making a reference to the child from the parent creates a potentially problematic reference cycle. The example below shows cyclic references that prevent Python's automatic garbage collection from freeing objects. The garbage attribute of the gc object below contains references to objects that aren't freed.

>>> import gc
>>>
>>> class ReferencingThing:
...     ref = None
...
>>> gc.enable()
>>> gc.set_debug(gc.DEBUG_SAVEALL)
>>>
>>> for i in range(2):
...     a = ReferencingThing()
...     b = ReferencingThing()
...     a.ref = b
...     b.ref = a
...
>>> gc.collect()
4
>>> gc.garbage
[{'ref': <__main__.ReferencingThing instance at 0xb7dbec4c>},
 <__main__.ReferencingThing instance at 0xb7dbeb8c>,
 {'ref': <__main__.ReferencingThing instance at 0xb7dbeb8c>},
 <__main__.ReferencingThing instance at 0xb7dbec4c>
 ]

A Shapely user demonstrated to me such a bug that was causing geometries to pile up in his application. A weak reference, which is not enough to keep an object alive, does not so block Python's automatic garbage collection. Here is the non-leaking weakly-referencing version of the code above:

>>> import gc
>>> import weakref
>>>
>>> class WeaklyReferencingThing:
...     _ref = None
...     def reference(self, ob):
...         self._ref = weakref.ref(ob)
...     def dereference(self):
...         return self._ref()
...
>>> gc.enable()
>>> gc.set_debug(gc.DEBUG_SAVEALL)
>>>
>>> for i in range(2):
...     p = WeaklyReferencingThing()
...     q = WeaklyReferencingThing()
...     p.reference(q)
...     q.reference(p)
...
>>> gc.collect()
0
>>> gc.garbage
[]

I've also come across a pattern for weak attributes that provides a nicer syntax.

The annual map subscription will cost $77,875 with quarterly updates. The cost to import the maps had not been determined at the time of the meeting.

Virtually all of us use search engines several times a day. While not quite extensions of our brains, clearly lots of information is now accessed by “googling” rather than remembering. I think most of us would think of these search engines as more or less essential services in the sense that governments use that term – i.e. they must be available for the public good.

In the realm of geographic information this issue will arise in the not very distant future in a much more pointed fashion. Today, individuals, governments, and private corporations are increasingly relying on the information infrastructure provided by Google and Microsoft (and others) for a very wide range of activities from 911 to regional security, urban planning and disaster response. For some this might be a reason for concern, just as is already the case for the control of the production of oil, or the transmission of telephone calls. In fact, given the direct privacy and security concerns associated with geographic information, some may see this as more than just an item of concern – perhaps even a threat!

The first issue is of course the availability and accuracy of the service itself. While the job has been done rather remarkably, a quick look at the south of France over the past few weeks in Google Earth, will show it is far from infallible. The view is given by the KML file (http://www.galdosinc.com/ImageError.kmz ). This may be corrected before this goes to press – so the image did/does look like: 

You will notice that there are errors of several hundred meters, and a section of highway is duplicated.

Of course this is a rare event and only impacts a small area of France – but for some this would be an issue.

In addition to the issues of data quality and availability some will have issues about such an infrastructure being located in the United States where it is subject to US law and in times of uncertainty to the whims of US politicians. Will Europeans sleep well knowing that the bulk of the geographic information about their nations is located in California or at least on the West Coast of the U.S. While presenting a benign face, all of these search engines are “for profit” organizations, and their win scenario is not necessarily in common with that of national governments or their citizens. This is not to say there are any untoward motives – it is just to state the obvious.

The French government has made a great deal of noise about having a national Google Earth replacement, inspired in part by jealousy and national pride, and in part by the concerns raised above. GeoPortail (http://www.geoportail.fr/) is, however, unlikely to attract the number of viewers comparable to GE/GM (even in France), and in spite of its government support, risks falling into the abyss already inhabited by the “magnetoscope” of years ago.

The French are not alone in expressing these concerns.

Furthermore there is clearly a tension between the development of major search engine “globes” and the mission of cross border/jurisdiction initiatives like the European INSPIRE, and any number of National SDI programs in nation states around the world. At least some of the original objectives of these programs have already been realized by the global maps that the search engines have deployed. Of course the national governments played a major role in collecting or funding the collection of much of this data (and continue to do so) on which such maps depend. In many cases this does mean that the national or regional mapping agencies do need to rethink their role and mission in life. At the same time, the search engines may think to pass on some of the revenue generated (if even indirectly) through the use of government financed data. I cannot say that I know the right way forward here, but this is a tension that will not go away, and will likely intensify as the search engines drive to more large scale models of the world.

One might also wonder, why we need more than one of these globes? At least why would one need more than one from a user perspective? There is only one world after all. It may make perfect sense from a competitive standpoint to have as many globes as the market will bear, but does it make sense in terms of modeling, understanding, monitoring and observing our planet. Does it not represent a tremendous waste of energy to have this duplication?

Looked at through the lens of environmental degradation, this proliferation of globes driven predominantly by advertising, might be seen to be seriously out of place. Are we fiddling while Rome burns? At the same time one could very much argue that it is the ad driven globes and not INPSIRE that have taken us closer to regional and global understanding. The question now is whether or not this the right way forward into the future? This is not a question with a simple answer. Multiple search engines might be equally an argument to ensure the viability of the capability rather than just waste through duplication.

One wonders if we might somehow strike another sort of bargain between governments and the major search engines; one that supports a common earth model for government and its citizenry, while still enabling ad-based competition amongst the search engines?

Embracing standards is a start. Both Microsoft and Google now support KML. This has enabled MS Virtual Earth Imagery to be displayed on Google Earth, and will enable the live visualization of all sorts of geographic and geographically related information in these globes in the near future. Perhaps the search engines could extend this further to open up their tile structures so that anyone could directly access their imagery and other data layers?

Of course standards alone are not sufficient. Cloud computing, especially geographic cloud computing demands huge server farms and large amounts of electrical energy. Someone has to pay for this. Could this be a shared responsibility, perhaps not unlike the “international” space station? While Google and Microsoft doubtless have considerable experience and expertise in the operation and deployment of large server farms this expertise could be distributed amongst other organizations as well. Could we create a distributed geographic computing infrastructure (e.g. image servers, map servers etc) onto which Microsoft and Google (and others) layer their advertising and other value adds? This could then be fed by the government information departments and private sector organizations that have it as their business mission to create and update geographic information (e.g. land registries, building permits etc). Such a platform could then support access control as required by nation states (like it or not these still regulate corporations), deal with issues of privacy (these also vary considerably from one country to another), and recognize the true input of governments in the cost side of data generation.

Many (including the author) are doubtful of the ability of governments to deliver on such a mission. Clearly this would require that such a system be built and maintained by private sector corporations and that at least a part of their motivation will need to be profit. So how would that be any different from the situation today? The differences are subtle but important. There would be one, common, base infrastructure of servers and data that would be publically maintained and would be provided to the world at large, subject to national and other access control policies. Governments would pay for the creation and maintenance of this infrastructure through the private sector. Search engines and advertisers like Google and Microsoft would build on this government funded, but privately provided infrastructure. They may even host parts of it.

In a world of increasing global integration, this is not a totally crazy idea. Microsoft already co-operates with the US Census Bureau’s Data Modernization program. Google is building increasingly deep connections with NOAA, NASA and other similar organizations for its Google Ocean initiative. Deeper cooperation, combined with greater internationalization, could give rise to a new level of private-public partnership on a planetary scale. For some this prospect will seem utopian, while for others it is likely their worst nightmare. I have mixed feelings, however, this develops in the future.

What is clear is that these issues are not going to go away. At their base, these issues are about key societal concerns such as the limits to personal freedom, the role of government in our society, and the tradeoffs between individual liberty and preservation of the planet. There is much more going on here than just cool technology!

Looking through the local paper for pictures from last night's parade in town, I can across an article entitled

Sex offenders may be tracked by GPS

HARRISBURG (AP) — Sex offenders who are released from prison should be monitored more widely by global positioning satellite technology so law enforcement officers do not lose track of them as often, Pennsylvania's auditor general said Tuesday.

Auditor General Jack Wagner urged state lawmakers to require at least five years of GPS monitoring for sex offenders who do not comply with Megan's Law, requiring them to register their address with State Police upon their release from prison.

The last part is kind of funny, because it is not the initial releasase from prison where they loose track of people.. it is the subsuquent moves they do after the fact.  I am all for "release from prison, get tracked right off the bat".

When we took Finder! out of private beta July 2nd, Matt Constantine also added a tool for doing statistical analysis of data downloads. We’ve been running it for 21 days and thought we’d share a little bit of what we’ve learned with the community.

1) Users love to download and have done so 18,143 times, but are a bit less excited about uploading, only 775 times (roughly 4% contribution rate which really is not all that bad when it comes to web participation).

2) When it comes to downloading KML dominates:

3) When it comes to uploading Shapefile dominates:

4) Quite a few people look at metadata (5,164 views) but prefer FGDC to ISO 19115:

The stats draw some stark yet relatively obvious conclusions. A good percentage of the data users are interested in seeing, natively resides in GIS file formats, shapefile specifically, but users much prefer consuming this data in GeoWeb formats, specifically KML. This is probably not a surprise to anyone, but for those in the GIS industry this could serve as a meaningful number for how the market wants to consume data.

Also I think the metadata statistics could serve as an indicator that the broad market does have an interest in metadata and understanding the veracity and accuracy of data they consume. This has been a topic the GIS side has been quiet vociferous about and increasingly looks to be something the GeoWeb will need to address.

A second bit of trivia is the top ten most popular data sets by download:

1. STARBUCKS, Store closures in the lower 48 states, USA, 2008
2. Priceviewer.com, WalMart Store Locations, USA, 2007
3. bicycleshops.us , Bike Shops by address, USA, 2008
4. WITS, Shia Violence in Iraq, Iraq, 2004 - March 2007
5. CARMA, United States Power Plant Emissions, United States, 2000/2007/Future
6. HRSA, Critical Access Hospitals in the lower 48 states, USA, 2007
7. Census, State Government Tax Collections, USA, 2007
8. CDC, Outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul from Tomatoes Update, USA by State or County, June 14th 2008
9. 500 Year Flood Plain - Johnson County, Iowa
10. Openstreetmap Geofabrik, German Subway System,Germany , 2008