For those of you attending the AAPG next week Ryan is one of our "tame"
Americans and he'll be at the convention if any of you want to chat to him
about the trial he describes.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Shackleton
Sent: 08 April 2011 17:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons.
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
|
