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