Paul,
I'm afraid I must pick you up on one point you made in your reply to
April. You suggest that users of historical mapping "are as small a user
base as are my equally specialized users of Antarctic data", this is not
so; both commercial and leisure users use historical mapping a great
deal. For example the building industry carry out a lot of site searches
into the history of a site before undertaking building work, and if they
don't you can be sure the legal profession will. Leisure users carry out
lots of research into family or building history using maps. It is
certain that here at the NLW the vast majority of our map users come to
look at historical mapping. This is in fact a growing market; if this
were not so companies like Alan Godfrey would not be publishing so many
printed facsimile OS maps to sell to the public; nor would so much
effort have been put in to digitising old OS maps, by people like
Landmark or the BGS, for sale online.
I think it unwise to extrapolate a trend from a highly specialised and
in mapping terms unusual (due to the general lack of a built
environment) area of research, such as Antarctic data. I can readily see
why current information is much more useful than out-of-date information
in this case.
I shall hold off on the faggots for now!
Huw
A Paul R Cooper wrote:
>I don't disagree with April's points; indeed, for historical purposes I
>have every version of the Antarctic Digital Database that has been
>published, though these are not available to the general public. I could
>readily provide them for anyone who requires them! However, as you say,
>it is not either/or, it is both/and. Of course we need the historical
>backup of older maps (I am responsible as line manager for the curation
>of the British Antarctic Map collection), and we need to retain the
>history of our digital data. This is, of course, the weakness of the OS
>model of data supply - as you say, there is an assumption that only the
>most recent version is required. For most users, this is true, though.
>Those doing historical research into maps and geography are as small a
>user base as are my equally specialized users of Antarctic data. The
>major users of map data require current data - the Building industry,
>local authorities, leisure users and most others that I can think of
>want to know what is there NOW, not in the past. I have several thousand
>users of Antarctic map data; I can only recall a very small number who
>were interested in change with time - and in those cases, I was very
>happy to work with them to get what they wanted (both I and my
>colleagues have published on coastal change in Antarctica). Anyone
>wishing to use older data will require our input anyway; it is difficult
>to distinguish between real change, lack of knowledge and inaccurate
>mapping in Antarctica.
>
>The reason for a controlled interface is very simple - it is very easy
>for the untrained user to create a persuasive but completely misleading
>map without such control! The user can select what layers are visible
>and can zoom and pan to the area of interest, and can even obtain
>further information about particular features - the functionaity is
>greater than that of a printed map. All that the user requires is an
>Internet connection and a web-browser; I forget the latest statistics,
>but more than 50% of the population has access to these in the home;
>given the availability of Internet access via public libraries, it is
>available to 100% of the population.
>
>Finally the complete freedom given to the more technical user is
>available to anyone; free software is available that allows the user to
>visualize the data, and the skills required to install and run it are
>available to anyone with a modicum of IT knowledge - any school leaver
>should be able to manage it these days.
>
>What I am saying is simply that publishing printed maps is in many
>cases simply not an economic option. Over the last few years, we have
>only printed maps where we could be certain that there would be a
>reasonable uptake, and we only have to cover the actual printing costs,
>not the FEC of the map creation (which would have to include Antarctic
>operating costs as well as the usual overheads). We actually do
>distribute hard copy of other maps that are finished but not published
>to other Antarctic Map libraries. However, in those cases it is far more
>cost effective for us simply to do "print on demand" for users of the
>maps.
>
>Please don't think I am saying that printed maps are dead and gone - of
>course they aren't ansd we need to maintain collections for all the
>reasons you have stated. But in many if not most areas of map use,
>digital information provides more flexibility and much added
>functionality than any printed map can. I suspect that the true
>successor to the OS maps we all know and love will descend from the
>in-car GPS devices, rather than from the printed map.
>
>Please don't burn me at the stake!
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 13 June 2006 13:06 >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>All
>
>I have to put an oar in here and I warn you that it will come down
>closer to Dr Oliver's side!
>
>Paul Cooper hits two crucial points in one sentence: "digital
>provision
>means that the user always has the most up-to-date information
>available."
>
>First, it is very short-sighted (no offence to Paul, all map
>publishers
>and dealers think this way) to assume that the user always wants the
>most up-to-date information. In libraries and archives, the great
>majority of our daily business is with people who don't want the most
>up-to-date information, their interest is in historical information.
>In
>the early 1990s I attended a meeting of map librarians in the US where
>the USGS representative proudly and with great fanfare announced that
>the agency was now in a position to offer the very latest data in
>digital format, with no mention of anything older than that. The
>resulting "thud" as the jaws of the map librarians hit the floor
>probably registered about a 5 on the Richter scale. Certainly, lots of
>users want the most up-to-date information, but maintaining only a
>digital database with no access to the older data (which passes out of
>existence in the overnight satellite upload from field surveyors'
>instruments) means there is no historical data for everyone else.
>
>Second, exactly who is this "user"? It's only the very small and
>privileged group of people who can justify access to the digital
>provision. Sadly, this leaves a lot of people out in the cold (pardon
>the Antarctic pun). Paul mentions an interface for the general public,
>but also that it is fairly controlled, with only the technical
>audience
>being given the full functionality of digital data. And who has access
>to OS's MasterMap? The Legal Deposit Libraries are working hard to
>carry
>forward the voluntary annual snapshot of LandLine Plus data into the
>MasterMap age, but that's only six libraries; some people associated
>with higher education can access it via Digimap; some people can
>afford
>to buy a small piece of it from an OS agent. What about everyone else?
>Legal deposit of digital data is becoming the law, but until the nuts
>and bolts are in place (still several years off) an entire generation
>of
>digital data is being lost to future users.
>
>I admit that, despite my fascination with Google Earth, I still think
>a
>map on a piece of paper looks better than a map on a screen. Chris
>Perkins once scolded me for only talking about paper maps; I scolded
>him
>right back for only talking about digital maps! There is not only room
>for both, there is need for both. Most importantly, let's not forget
>the
>one crucial thing that paper maps have that digital maps don't yet
>have:
>longevity.
>
>I'll get off the soapbox now.
>
>April Carlucci
>Cataloguing Manager and Curator of Modern Maps
>British Library Map Collections
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: A forum for issues related to map & spatial data librarianship
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Paul R Cooper
>Sent: 13 June 2006 09:07
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: More interesting maps from north Devon
>
>I guess that we have very different perspectives. However, my own
>perspective is that we are moving more and more to a purely digital
>means of distributing map data, with printed maps only being provided
>in
>cases where there is a justification for a particular sheet. That is
>our
>own position - we have data to provide a wide range of maps on demand
>and do so for our users, but we only publish printed maps where we can
>see a significant and ongoing demand. I see public access to maps
>moving
>in the direction of web accessibility of maps that the user can tailor
>in various ways. I am providing access to Antarctic maps via this
>means;
>for the general public a fairly controlled interface is being provided
>with controlled symbology and intelligent choice of data layers to
>ensure appropriate choices for the scale of display; For the technical
>audience I provide access to the digital features. Now, I would see
>provision of a service like the former being a good use of the NIMSA
>funding, and there are already moves in that direction. I suspect that
>Google Earth willl move the OS in that direction faster! I think that
>the funding of the OS in particular and mapping in general may also
>have
>to change in the medium term so that we use a service provider model
>not
>a publication provider model.
>
>However, I think the tension between us will not go away, and the
>debate is a healthy one! From your side, of course a printed map has
>advantages, in particular that it can be provided at a sheet size not
>usually accessible to the man (or woman) on the Clapham Omnibus. It is
>also easier to use as a planning tool than the web offerings. However,
>I
>see these both as indicating the present immaturity of the technology,
>not as a reason for not going down the digital route. And, of course,
>the curatorial problems of digital data are very different from those
>of
>paper maps! From my side, digital provision means that the user always
>has the most up-to-date information available, can manipulate it in
>ways
>that are useful to the user, and (best of all!) will not find that the
>area of interest spans the corners of four maps!
>
>There is room for both; as I implied above we provide digital
>information, customized maps and printed maps. Each has its proper
>audience; each provides different facilities; each has advantages and
>disadvantages. However, it is unlikely that we will ever move back to
>a
>position where printed output is the leader with the others following
>behind; it is more likely that we will print general, regional maps
>and
>keep the detailed information for other publication channels.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 12 June 2006 22:00 >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Paul Cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>>While I would agree with many criticisms of the OS, I am afraid I
>>
>>
>can't
>
>
>>agree with the "innovatorily stagnant" one! The OS is pretty much in
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>forefront of providers of geographic information; has developed the
>>Digital National Framework and from a data point of view is one of
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>leaders in the field. Their adoption and promotion of the "TOID"
>>
>>
>system is
>
>
>>clearly a move forward in data management, and while it has
>>
>>
>problems,
>it
>
>
>>is probably the way forward. However, most of this doesn't appear in
>>published maps -
>>
>>
>
>- and THAT is the nub of the problem. I agree completely with the
>quality
>of the database: but the sad fact is that the ordinary man and woman
>in
>the street - whose taxes finance an accountancy device called NIMSA
>which
>converts a 10 per cent shortfall in OS's operations into an apparent
>operating profit - has to rough it with 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 maps
>mostly
>drawn at least 25 years ago, with no flexibility of output, and an
>insult
>to anyone of sensibility masquerading as a 1:100,000! OS must be glad
>that
>the Ramblers Association and Cyclists Touring Club are so busy with
>rights-of-way and traffic law issues that they don't have time to
>decry
>this state of things!
>
>I would be less indignant were it not that repeated promises of a new
>generation of small-scale maps generated from the Landline/Mastermap
>data
>have so far come to nothing.
>
>Richard Oliver
>(Away for rest of the week)
>
>--
>This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
>subject
>to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email
>and any
>reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from
>release
>under
>the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
>records management system.
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
>
>Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
>www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>
>The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>
>*************************************************************************
>
>The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
>legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are
>not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
>[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed
>or copied without the sender's consent.
>
>The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
>author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
>British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
>author.
>
>*************************************************************************
>
>--
>This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
>to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
>reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
>the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
>records management system.
>
>
--
Huw Thomas FRGS
Pennaeth Uned Defnyddiau Di-destun / Head of Non-Text Materials Unit
Isadran Data Llyfryddol / Bibliographic Data Section
Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru / National Library of Wales
ABERYSTWYTH
Ceredigion SY23 3BU
Ffon / Tel: +44-1970-632990 (Direct line)
ebost / email: [log in to unmask]
Y We / WWW: http://www.llgc.org.uk
Nid yw'r neges hon o angenrheidrwydd yn adlewyrchu barn LlGC
This message does not necessarily reflect the opinion of NLW
|