Should we still use the term geospatial or Is it time to go back to maps and mapping?

Details

By Matt Ball | 24 September 2012 | 1866

If you’ve been around the “geospatial” industry for more than ten years or so, you’ll have made some transitions in what you call your work, from GIS, to geospatial, and maybe geomatics or location intelligence. These terms have a short history that dates back to at most 50 years to the initial digital divide between computer-made maps and hand-drawn cartographic representations. 

We’ve all had difficulty describing geospatial technology to non-industry insiders, but there is a universal term that everyone recognizes, and that’s maps and mapping. Many have amended computer-based to mapping, and thus given a distinction of a transition, but now we’re all making maps with computers. At this point of computer software tool evolution and digital data capture dominance over paper, what about going back to the simpler, more universal, and better established terms?

Market Awareness

Maps are big news right now, because Google and Apple are locked in the “map wars” over access to maps on their handheld devices. The news this week surrounded Apple’s miss on mapping, with multiple accuracy issues and a lot of negative blow-back about a degradation of a trusted and valued service. This publicity on mapping is proving fruitful as it points to the difficulty and effort that go into creating an accurate and trusted map-based service, and perhaps also has people asking why these companies are investing so much and giving away their maps for free.

Google and Apple’s maps will be the standards if they have their way, as so much of our navigation is tied to the handheld experience and our access is on their controlled ecosystems. Granted, these maps are about features and navigation, and not about spatial analysis or precision, but all these varieties and professional value-added features are simply maps and mapping. While most that make money off of mapping insist on the professional labels that surround the term geospatial, why put up that barrier to common understanding? We should also consider the loss of the term to those that provide less sophisticated products.

Useful Adjectives

One element that would have to be embraced if any change were to occur would be the use of creative and descriptive adjectives to discuss the evolution that is underway with integrated sensors animating our maps and mapping platforms. Such real-time portals to changing events are termed by many as living maps, and with layers of analysis we already use the term intelligent maps. Here, adjectives enhance understanding and add some excitement to a term that everyone recognizes rather than getting caught up in, "what is geospatial?"

There are certainly industry-specific terms for maps and mapping, such as fire maps, hazard maps, crisis mapping, asset maps, etc. The emphasis in most discussions when talking about these technologies is the GIS, and the data and software underpinnings of the map. With the maturity of today’s tools, the underpinnings are becoming a given, and with more dynamic, colorful, and added dimensions that can be presented, the emphasis is moving back to the map. When focused on the map, what it conveys, the validity of the data behind it, and other map-centric details become more important and form interesting points for discussion.

Broader Community

The masses are mapping, they’re not geospatial analyzing. With the broad access to tools, novice users are able to piece together a map that has an element of analysis, and creative presentation. However, these amateur users no longer need a system to get to that next level. While most aren’t owning map analysis yet, with better guides to understand the power and possibility of spatial analysis we'll have so many more people making intelligent maps.

Ease of access to data and to quality online mapping services, means that professional status isn’t necessary to make a compelling map. With this access comes creative interpretations that will map all sorts of phenomena and interactions, opening up a new era of map depth. But it’s mapping, right? It’s less about gathering the data, understanding the complex Information Technology with geodatabases and server parameters, and processing the imagery and other inputs, and then analyzing that with a variety of parameters. 

The fact that mapping is on the ground, and in the hands of the people adds another dimension to mapping. To be sure, there will have to be precise measurements and certification for property lines and engineered infrastructure, but the sheer mass of geolocated information delivered through mobile devices means that there are an infinite number of potential mappers.

Geospatial was just an evolutionary term used in order to lump in more of the allied technologies and sensor inputs, and some have criticized that saying “geo” and “spatial” together is redundant. The integrated geospatial technology market is international and diverse, and “geospatial” hasn’t been a unifier. The industry should take ownership of maps and mapping. Instead of continuing to describe what geospatial means, we should take charge of the adjectives that highlight the professional value of what we do, and add excitement to an age-old pursuit.

Resources

• Hi Apple. Welcome to the Mapping World. How was your first day?, Prioleau Advisors Blog, Sept. 20, 2012
• The Apple/Google Map Wars: What Comes Next?, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2012

About Matt Ball

Matt Ball

Matt has been promoting the application of sensors, systems, models and simulation for the better stewardship of our planet for the past fifteen years. The first ten years of that span were as editor of GeoWorld magazine and show manager of the GeoTec Event. The past five have been as a founder of Vector1 Media, with publications Sensors & Systems, Informed Infrastructure and Asia Surveying & Mapping. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.