Atlases can be considered as the original mashups, combining and integrating several pieces of geographic and spatial information. Globes enabled viewers to gain a better appreciation of the world, including land and oceans. But atlases combined the advantages of graphics with the printing press. Today, we look at the world through advanced digital technologies that allow us to learn, understand and share in ways that are not only new, but revolutionary. The power of new technologies should provide hope, nurture communication and cause improvements in quality of life to be realised. Is this true? What is the future for the atlas?
Atlases can be considered as the original mashups, combining and integrating several pieces of geographic and spatial information. Globes enabled viewers to gain a better appreciation of the world, including land and oceans. But atlases combined the advantages of graphics with the printing press. Today, we look at the world through advanced digital technologies that allow us to learn, understand and share in ways that are not only new, but revolutionary. The power of new technologies should provide hope, nurture communication and cause improvements in quality of life to be realised. Is this true? What is the future for the atlas?
In 1570 Ortelius working with Mercator developed the first atlas, calling it ‘The Theatre of the Round World’. Quite rightly he saw it through the eyes of an artist. Many maps and carto graphic products from the earliest times included a sense of artistic endeavor. By comparison, I wonder if we would consider our web mapping today as having a similar quality as compared to being technically proficient?
The early atlas creators also had a sense of discovery and exploration in creating their products. While the craftsmanship of creating those products was evident, and a population that was still attempting to explore the world hungered for new information, is this also apparent today?
I think the atlas has a great future.
But I also think many today are settling for less and are content to build the new atlas of today through data with out questioning it and learning more about the information, including how it was collected or even what it’s significance is. Not to paint every one with one brush, but we could be doing more, much more.
Some times I wonder if we are in a plateau where “how it looks” is more important than “how it got to look the way it does.”
We need to ask ourselves, is being technically proficient alone, a step toward greater use and expansion of the spirit Ortelius and Mercator had, or is it a step backwards, narrowing the number of people who can actually assemble, create and communicate about the world and all that we see around us?
I’ve little doubt that some will become more proficient than others technology wise and exhibit true mastery of products and technology. But a point often over looked is that these same peo ple control the flow of media and information.
With today’s web mapping tools the reverse ought to be true — data is neutral and can be accessed for any purpose. But do we teach that — the critical analysis skills for constructing new awareness?
At what point does technology enable more — not less — people to build digital globes and maps?
And, are we satisfied that the data we seem to like for free, is really the data we need to build the future atlas to take us into the next millennium? After all, I could walk to work for free, but some how paying for a tram ticket makes more sense when going 10 km. I can also get free internet in Berlin, but I can not imagine operating a magazine through web services using that service.
How many times have you listened to an exciting presentation, realising the technologies and methods the people were using in their work resulted in some very interesting and useful informa tion — of the kind that could solve problems that much of the free information does not even approach. Nor can it.
When Samuel de Cham plain set out from France to discover Quebec City and the Great Lakes for the first time, his trip was financed and promoted for its goals. For certain no one knew exactly what he would find, but the attempt was made with the realisation that discovery, exploration and knew knowledge would ensue.
It was Diego Gutiérrez of Spain who developed the most intricate maps of what was called the Fourth Part of the World — America — in 1562. Who would have imagined that his work was used to solve boundary disputes in South America. In light of the current attention being paid to the Arctic and mapping those areas of the north today as claimed by many nations, can we expect the same from the web maps we have online?
The world is not finished yet…there is much more to explore and learn about.
By the fact that we argue over the Arctic and do not seem to know what is beneath the oceans around the world as much as we know about Mars, should cause us to scratch our heads and ask some big questions. To be frank, as bad as the Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is: it has caused more people to look at and ‘see’ the ocean than any time before.
Do you suppose that icebergs have been breaking apart all along, but we only got excited about it because satellite images could be there only recently to provide the images (such as those recently) so we could observe it? This is another example of why we need to ask about the quality of free data, by the way.
I under stand that free data has a role and place. But the point here is that the atlases we are attempting to create for our world are becoming increasingly oriented toward homogenous data that fewer and fewer people seem to question. In all the web mapping going on, would we recognise bogus data if it was right in front of us? Because information is readily available, does that mean we ought to drop responsibilities to question it and remain quiet when or if we know better information should be available? These are important questions I think, because they lean toward the value of the data and whether or not we or others wish to take a risk to discover and explore — much like the explorers did.
Ideally, I think we need to see a combination of free and no so free geo data. We need to under stand the role of different sources of data, where they fit and don’t. But most of all we need to keep in mind the vision for the atlas of our future and what we expect to be in it and where it will lead us.
It seems clear. Today’s geospatial tools including GIS, GNSS, surveying, CAD, remote sensing, laser technologies etc — are all point ing toward the acquisition of better data, more up-to-date data and geodata that is useful for solving pollution, water, climate, engineering and other problems.
Why don’t we have Digital Building Atlases? Why don’t we have Digital Health Atlases that couple maps into economics, out comes into funding and environment into legislation? If you were Captain Cook standing on the bow of a ship, knowing all the geotechnologies of today are in your cabin behind you, what would you be thinking?
For more information:
Engines of Our Ingenuity — The First Atlas
Wiki — French Explorer Samuel de Champlain
The 1562 Map of America by Spanish Explorer Diego Gutiérrez
