another low cost alternative is a windows mobile phone or trimble handheld (juno); the latter has a good outdoor screen the former generally not. If the morons at ESRI would port arcpad to something other than windows mobile there would be more options, but such is the way of the tech companies.
Arcpad is a good piece of inexpensive software for field use, it is just unfortunate that ESRI doesn't have the insight to move it to some other platform. That is a major reason that I, for one, am waiting on tech developments before trying to update any kind of field computer system.
Terry Pavlis
-----Original Message-----
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of wrc
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons.
Mark,
As I have already mentioned, the first issue is to have the student know
where he/she is on whatever map you provide them. This you can do via a free
hardcopy of a Google image - but you have to know how to overlay a
convenient - and conveniently scaled - grid on the hardcopy. There is a bit
of a learning curve (I can help here), but you can do this using ArcGIS
(someone in you University must have a copy!), or some other cheap or free
GIS package that will let you do the same. Garmin Etrex GPS units are
currently retailing on the Web for less than $100. Admittedly low tech, but
at least your students will be reassured that they know where they are on
their map. They can easily track their outcrop locations, and using a cheap
Silva compass even plot dips and strikes on the hardcopy as they go. The
rest goes into their notebooks.
Going up a large notch, buy a bluetooth GPS unit for $40 (rather than $300).
However now you need a bluetooth computer such as an Asus EEE - Amazon has
them for as cheap as $229, or $329 for the latest model. They have a long
battery life and having used one for three years now they would seem to be
rugged enough for the Arizona desert - and no sign of a blue screen! At
this level you can also use Excel as well as Goops to record your data in
whatever esoterically designed spread sheet you can come up with. Once the
UTM data is in a spreadsheet it can be supplemented with bedding/cleavage
dip and strike data, descriptions of rock and even thin section data. The
data is secure and can easily be communicated to anybody. It can also be
imported into most GIS or draughting programs. Going up an even larger
notch to fully ruggedized computers will indeed, as you point out, cost big
bucks - very nice but I am not sure so very necessary if you don't have the
money.
Good luck - know what you are up against!
Bill C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark P. Fischer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons.
> Like many others who posted, I concede that there is a huge advantage to
> going digital. I wish I could do this. However, as a field camp
> instructor at a mid-sized university, in a nearly bankrupt state, I have
> never been able to solve the obvious problem that nobody has touched on
> yet - cost. If I have a class of 40 students, and want to give each of
> them any sort of meaningful time using this technology, I'm looking at
> 20-30 ruggedized laptops, software, etc. (yup I know Move is free to
> academics - I'll probably be contacting you soon). Realistically, I'm
> looking at an annual replacement cycle of 2-3 years just to keep up with
> hardware and software changes, not to mention damage (students already
> lose or break my Bruntons ($275) and GPS devices ($300) at a rate of 1-2
> a year!). Even if I buy the lowest end ruggedized laptop, we're talking
> about $10-$20k at least! This is simply not possible at my university,
> and I imagine the same is true at many others. And, we have a relatively
> small field camp. What will the big camps with 60+ students do?
>
> Writing an NSF or other grant can get you started, but after that, where
> does one get the money to keep these things going? I'd love to hear how
> folks do this. Is the replacement cycle much shorter than I imagine, the
> hardware much cheaper, or am I missing something else?
>
> Ciao,
> --Mark
>
>
> Professor Mark P. Fischer, Ph.D.
> Assistant Chair & Graduate Program Director
> Dept. of Geology & Environmental Geosciences
> Northern Illinois University
> DeKalb, IL 60115-2854, USA
> Phone: 815.753.7939
> FAX: 815.753.1945
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Ryan Shackleton wrote:
>
>> I thought this experience might be worth sharing, from the perspective
>> of a (formerly) curmudgeonly map-and-paper geologist.
>>
>> Midland Valley ran an internal field trip several years ago in which all
>> of the company geologists mapped a well known area in northwest Scotland
>> (in two different groups, so as not to leave the office unattended!).
>> We had several goals for the trip, but one of the main goals was to test
>> digital vs. traditional methods of field data collection. To this end,
>> one geologist carried a rugged tablet with a sketching application
>> (Windows Journal) to replace their field notebook, and map based
>> software to replace their field map (2DMove, as this was before, and in
>> preparation for, the development of FieldMove). The rest of us employed
>> our own methods of traditional data collection on paper and field map.
>> Being a more traditionally trained field geologist (and user of mylar
>> maps, rapidographs, etc), I was VERY skeptical of the digital tablet. I
>> thought using the tablet would be too slow, too difficult to use, and
>> not worth the effort of bringing batteries into the field, etc. I won't
>> go into any more detail about the field trip, but I basically changed my
>> opinion of digital geology for the following reasons.
>>
>> At the end of each day in the field:
>> 1) The digital geologist had their map and data fully computerized and
>> integrated into structural modeling software, whereas the rest of us
>> spent our evenings inking or copying our field maps and entering data
>> into the computer.
>> 2) As a consequence of 1), the digital geologist's field map and
>> notebook were instantly backed up by copying files to a hard drive.
>> 3) As a consequence of 1), the digital geologist was doing more
>> analysis, using better tools, and developing better field plans for the
>> next day than the rest of us. Most of the map and paper geologists
>> spent a significant portion of their time entering data in the evenings,
>> leaving less time to do analysis and plan for the following day.
>>
>> There were other advantages as well, but those were the most eye- opening
>> because they improved the efficiency of time spent in the field, and the
>> quality of the field interpretation on a daily basis.
>>
>> The main disadvantages of the digital geology tools (in my mind) are:
>> 1) Batteries. Without them, the digital tools become useless, so access
>> to civilization, or the ability to recharge every night are a must.
>> 2) Ease of use: it's tough to beat the "user interface" of a paper and
>> pencil, although with a little practice, I think this can be overcome.
>>
>> It's worth mentioning that no one is saying we should stop teaching
>> traditional mapping techniques or leave our field notebooks at home.
>> Those are still very valuable tools and skills, and I don't plan to give
>> them up. However, from my very limited experience, mapping directly
>> into the computer provides a lot of advantages that are well worth
>> taking the time to explore.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Ryan Shackleton
>> Software Engineer/Structural Geologist
>>
>> Midland Valley Exploration Ltd.
>> 144 West George Street
>> Glasgow G2 2HG
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 141 332 2681
>> Fax: +44 (0) 141 332 6792
>>
>> www.mve.com
>> The structural geology experts
>>
>>
>> On 07/04/2011 4:36 PM, Pavlis, Terry L wrote:
>>> I'd like to start a new thread, based on this discussion of mapping. I
>>> love this discussion and I am glad it has come to this forum because
>>> this is a topic that I think really needs to thought about more in our
>>> community. It is really the whole subject of high tech field geology.
>>> I'll start by shamelessly advertising a paper we published last year in
>>> geosphere that outlines some experience with the subject--you can read
>>> it for details.
>>>
>>> Here though, I think it might be interesting to have a discussion on
>>> some specific issues. some of us were at a workshop last summer in
>>> Montana on teaching field geology, and this whole subject launched a
>>> huge, and as you might guess, very lively debate about the pros and
>>> cons of the issue. I can't distill all that here, or all the issues,
>>> but it would interesting to hear some opinions. As I see it there are
>>> two different issues:
>>> 1) use of computer mapping systems in a research environment (be it at
>>> a geological survey, a university, or applied work like
>>> exploration--anything done by professionals)
>>> 2) an undergraduate teaching environment
>>>
>>> on #1: I will start by making the bold statement that there is NO
>>> DOUBT the field computer systems can have a dramatic impact on results
>>> in field studies that involve professionals. Using these tools you can
>>> solve problems you could never solve with paper and pencil. How many
>>> times have you made field sketches trying to work out some local
>>> details of a little structural knot? I have endless sketches in old
>>> field notes doing that sort of thing. Similarly, how often have you
>>> fought the map shuffle problem? i.e. look at airphotos, back to topo
>>> map, draw the line, look back at the air photo, no that isn't right,
>>> erase, redraw line, etc. With modern field computer systems this sort
>>> of thing is very easily avoided. For the little structural knot, you
>>> can use real time gps to literally map out the knot. I have had
>>> numerous aha moments doing this, including in places where I
>>> previously tried to solve problems with the old fashioned sketch. It
>>> really works. If you haven
>>>
>>>
>>> 't tried it you should! The airphoto shuffle is totally avoided, with
>>> overlaying georeferenced imagery and maps, and with things like
>>> fieldmove, real time 3d display. (and don't tell me you have been able
>>> to do that for years with air photos, that is a very different
>>> process!) So bottom line, if you haven't tried field computer systems
>>> lately, you should try what is out there now. If you tried something
>>> as recently as 2 or 3 years ago, look again. The technology just keeps
>>> getting better and better.
>>>
>>> on #2: On the education issue, I think the jury is still out. We've
>>> been teaching our field geology classes "all digital" now for about 3
>>> years. The results are mixed. My general appraisal is this (and this
>>> is totally anecdotal, an education specialist would get on my case
>>> about proper assessment techniques): Good students do even better when
>>> introduced to high tech field tools, but poorer students generally do
>>> even worse. That is very unsatisfying for an educator, and I confess
>>> we haven't developed a solution yet. I think the problem lies in the
>>> fact that the poorer students are already overwhelmed by the whole
>>> field experience, and adding the tech side just makes it worse. One
>>> thing we've started doing--
>>> which will make many in this group stand up and cheer since you've been
>>> saying the same thing in this forum--is to force people to keep their
>>> old paper notebook for sketching. You can sketch with these devices,
>>> but it is always clunky--it makes inept artists like
>>>
>>>
>>> me look even more inept!
>>>
>>> I will state another opinion here though: I think it is tremendously
>>> important that we get students comfortable with this technology because
>>> it is what they will use. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
>>> I just wish we had a better idea how to teach with the technology. It
>>> is also an important development for all of us from a philosophical
>>> point of view (and there is more on this in the geosphere paper).
>>> However, the point is this: Geologists have long had a bad habit of
>>> being overly possessive about field data. This results from many
>>> factors, not the least of which is there is a disconnect between
>>> personal perception of the value of the field data vs the real value
>>> to the broader community. I personally put a lot of value on a few
>>> lines on a map there were obtained during miserable weather conditions,
>>> bears tearing up my camp, etc. However, when you really get down to
>>> it, it is just part of a broader knowledge base and it rather wasteful
>>> when that informati
>>>
>>>
>>> on dies with a person when his/her file draws are cleaned out after
>>> they leave this life. A great advantage of using field technology is
>>> the data are inherently archival, and so the information isn't really
>>> lost. That also potentially leads to a different mind set in students,
>>> because they can potentially begin to think in terms of collecting
>>> information "for the ages". Now we all know that is an overly inflated
>>> view of this, but my point is that with a different mindset that comes
>>> from this technology, it might ultimately free us from one of the
>>> cultural aspects of geology that has kept us back for a long time. I
>>> always like to quote Mark Brandon on this, which is something like
>>> "geologists are like cowboys and geophysicists are like mormons. The
>>> geologists always want to fight it out whereas the geophysicists band
>>> together to communally solve problems". (sorry Mark, it is a rough
>>> quote) The point here is that there is a reason geophysicists are like
>>> this, and we ge
>>>
>>> o
>>> logy types are not, and it largely has to do with the nature of their
>>> data. Field computer systems aren't the only solution to the problem,
>>> but they may ultimately help solve this cultural problem.
>>>
>>> sorry for long commentary, I said yesterday I would shut up, but I
>>> thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion. I'll sit by
>>> for awhile now and see what come along.
>>> Terry Pavlis
>
|