Tag: GSS Monthly

GIS Meets March Madness: Using Spatial Data to Analyze Basketball Team and Player Performance

Even if you aren’t a basketball fan, you’ve likely heard the term “March Madness” over the years. It refers to a time when the best U.S. college basketball teams compete for the championship title. Demonstrating the diversity of GIS, a Harvard University professor has introduced an interesting method of analyzing basketball team and player performance using GIS spatial analysis techniques.

At the MIT (Massachussets Insitute of Technology) Sloan Sports Analytics Conference 2012 (March 2-3, 2012), Harvard Professor Dr. Kirk Goldsberry presented Court Vision, “a new esemble of analytical techniques designed to quantify, visualize, and communicate spatial aspects of NBA performance and unprecedented precision and clarity.”

Dr. Goldsberry argues that conventional performance metrics, such as shooting percentage, ignore spatial information. This is odd, Dr. Goldsberry explains, because basketball is a spatial sport. For example, the NBA players with the top shooting percentages are all forwards or centers, who typically shoot from shorter distances than players in the guard position. Without analyzing the spatial shooting tendencies, key scoring phenenom remain misunderstood and coaches and players are missing out on an opportunity to accurately analyze and refine their strategies.

Who’s the Best NBA Shooter?

“Data: Using game data sets for every NBA game played between 2006 and 2011, we compiled a spatial field goal database that included Cartesian coordinates (x,y) for every field goal attempted in this 5-year period. This data set includes player name, shot location, and shot outcome for over 700,000 field goal attempts. We mapped the shot data atop a base map of a NBA basketball court (Figure 1). Although a regulation NBA court is 4,700 ft2, (50ft x 94ft), almost all (>98%) field goal attempts occur within a 1,284 ft2 area in between the baseline and a relatively thin buffer around the 3-point arc; we call this area the “scoring area.” We divided the scoring area into a grid consisting of 1,284 unique “shooting cells,” each 1 ft2 (Figure 1). To quantify shooting range, we applied spatial analyses to evaluate shooting performance across the grid and within each shooting cell.”

NBA field goal attempts 2006-2011 (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry).

NBA field goal attempts (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

“Our composite shot maps from 2006-2011 NBA game data. The first map summarizes the density of all field goal attempts during the study period. The second map reveals league-wide tendencies in both shot attempts and points per attempt. Larger squares indicate areas where many field goals were attempted; smaller squares indicate fewer attempts. The color of the squares is determined by a spectral color scheme and indicates the average points per attempt for each location. Orange areas indicate areas where more points result from an average attempt, and blue areas indicate fewer points per attempt.”

“We derived metrics that described spatial aspects of shooting performance throughout the scoring area. The most basic metric is called “Spread,” which is simply a count of the unique shooting cells in which a player has attempted at least one field goal. The raw result is a number between 0 and 1,284 and summarizes the spatial diversity of a player’s shooting attempts. By dividing this count by 1,284 and multiplying by 100, we generated Spread%, which indicates the percentage of the scoring area in which a player has attempted at least one field goal.”

“Spread describes the overall size of a player’s shooting territory. League leaders in FG% generally have a small Spread value since they tend to only shoot near the basket. For example, since centers generally thrive in limited areas near the hoop they tend to have lower Spread values than shooting guards. Kobe Bryant has the highest spread value in the NBA (table 1); Bryant’s value of 1,071 indicates he has attempted field goals in 1,071 of the 1,284 shooting cells or 83.4% of the scoring area. In contrast, Dwight Howard has attempted field goals in only 23.8% of the shooting cells. Although Spread% favors players who simply shoot frequently, it also reveals that some players like Dwight Howard who do shoot a lot, only do so in limited court spaces. For example, Al Jefferson attempted 400 more field goals than Ray Allen during the study period, yet his Spread value is only 595 (46.3%), while Ray Allen’s is 952 (74.1%). Visual depictions of the spread variable expose the stark differences in individual players’ spatial shooting behaviors. Via the graduated symbol cartographic technique, figure 2 reveals the spatial structure of Al Jefferson and Ray Allen’s field goal attempts during the study period. Jefferson is highly active in the central areas near the basket, and clearly favors posting up defenders on the right side of the court. Meanwhile, Ray Allen is highly active behind the 3-point arc; he attempts many 3-point field goals, but is relatively inactive from mid-range areas.”

Spread variable for Al Jefferson (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

Spread variable for Ray Allen (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

“These Spread visualizations reveal a player’s basic shooting tendencies, but tell us nothing about potency. Shooting skill requires more than just attempts; the best shooters in the league are able to make baskets at effective rates from many court locations. To describe the spatial potency of players we created a metric called “Range,” which is a count of the number of unique shooting cells in which a player averages at least 1 point per attempt (PPA). PPA varies considerably around the court. As anyone who has ever shot a basketball knows, the probability of a shot attempt resulting in a made basket is spatially dependent; some shots are easier than others, and some players are unable to shot effectively from most court locations. Range accounts for spatial influences on shooting effectiveness. It is essentially a count of the number of shooting cells in which a player averages more than 1 PPA; we chose PPA over FG% because it inherently accounts for the differences between 2-point and 3-point field goal attempts.”

“By dividing this count by 1,284 and multiplying by 100, we generated Range%, which indicates the percentage of the scoring area in which a player averages more than 1 PPA. Steve Nash is ranked first. He has a Range value of 406, indicating that he averages over 1 PPA from 406 unique shooting cells, or 31.6% of the scoring area. Ray Allen was ranked second (30.1%), Kobe Bryant (29.8%) was third, and Dirk Nowitzki (29.0%) was fourth (table 2). Figure 3 visualizes the shooting range of these four players.”

“Steve Nash has the highest Range% in our case study, but does this mean he is the best shooter in the NBA? That obviously remains debatable; however it is certain that over the last few NBA seasons, Nash and Ray Allen are the most effective shooters from the most diverse court locations. The average shooter in the NBA has a Range% of 18.5, meaning they score efficiently from 18.5% of the scoring area. Nash and Allen are the only two players in the league whose Range% values exceed 30%; only a handful of players in the league average more than 1 PPA from at least 25% of the scoring zone (table 2), and unsurprisingly, despite being among the leaders in FG%, Dwight Howard (Range% = 6.5) and Nene Hilario (Range% = 3.7) are not on that list. Whether the Range% metric is the best way of quantifying shooting range or not, it seems to capture pure shooting ability better than FG% or eFG%.”

The following images depict the shooting ranges of Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitzki, and Kobe Bryant. According to Dr. Goldsbery, “these four players had the highest range values, but these graphics reveal that they achieve them in much different ways. For example, when compared to the three others, Dirk Nowitzki shoots relatively few 3-point shots and performs much better in the mid-range areas on the left side of the court, while Ray Allen excels in the corners of the court where Steve Nash rarely shoots.”

Steve Nash shooting range (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

Ray Allen shooting range (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

Dirk Nowitzky shooting range (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

Kobe Bryant shooting range (Source: Dr. Kirk Goldsberry)

“Steve Nash has the highest Range% in our case study, but does this mean he is the best shooter in the NBA? That obviously remains debatable; however it is certain that over the last few NBA seasons, Nash and Ray Allen are the most effective shooters from the most diverse court locations. The average shooter in the NBA has a Range% of 18.5, meaning they score efficiently from 18.5% of the scoring area. Nash and Allen are the only two players in the league whose Range% values exceed 30%; only a handful of players in the league average more than 1 PPA from at least 25% of the scoring zone (table 2), and unsurprisingly, despite being among the leaders in FG%, Dwight Howard (Range% = 6.5) and Nene Hilario (Range% = 3.7) are not on that list. Whether the Range% metric is the best way of quantifying shooting range or not, it seems to capture pure shooting ability better than FG% or eFG%.”

To view Dr. Goldsberry’s complete paper, click here.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

March 16, 2012
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: The FAA is Taking Them Seriously, Should You?
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are making inroads as geospatial data collection devices (aerial photography). The laws governing the use of UAVs varies widely from country to country. In some countries, UAVs are being used, as we speak, for snapping aerial photographs for digital mapping (GIS). In the U.S., however, the commercial use of UAVs is prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

However, that is changing.

Current FAA UAV Policy

The FAA published a UAV Fact Sheet in July 2011. Summarized:

Recreational UAVs (model aircraft). Recreational use generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic.

Experimental UAVs. A Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC) is the only method available for civil users operate UAVs. While it allows for research and development, market surveys and crew training, it prohibits operating UAVs for profit-making entities.

Public UAVs. The Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process is available to public entities, including military, law enforcement, and other governmental agencies who want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Applicants apply online and the FAA evaluates the request. The FAA issues a COA generally based on the following principles:
- The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace and includes special provisions unique to the proposed operation. For instance, a COA may include a requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and/or only during daylight hours. Most COAs are issued for a specified time period (up to one year, in most cases).
- Most COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic control facility and may require the UAS to have a transponder to operate in certain types of airspace.
- Due to the inability of UAS to comply with “see and avoid” rules as manned aircraft operations do, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase” aircraft must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside of airspace that is restricted from other users.
To read the entire FAA Fact Sheet, click here.

To see how UAVs might be used for digital mapping, click on the following image to display a video (~ 5 minutes).

Fast forward to 2012. The FAA is revising the rules governing the usage of UAVs, including commercial usage. Read a USA Today article about it by clicking here.

Last month, President Obama signed into law a bill that orders the FAA to figure out how to integrate commercial UAV usage into the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). This is exciting times for UAVs.

As a result, on March 7, 2012 the FAA issued a press release asking “for public input on the agency’s selection process for six unmanned aircraft system (UAS) test sites. Once the pilot program is established, the agency expects it will provide valuable data to help the FAA safely and efficiently integrate UAS into the same airspace with manned airplanes”.

The FAA also posted, on the Federal Register, a Request for Public Comment regarding the selection of the six test sites. You can read a detailed discussion presented by the FAA by clicking here. You can view a March 2012 FAQ on this discussion, published by the FAA, by clicking here.

UAV technology is going to move forward very fast. As it’s clear the FAA will open up commercial usage of UAVs in the U.S., you should see a lot of really cool UAV techology developments continuing to surface. I think it’s so significant that I’ve invited some UAV experts to speak at our Field Technology Conference this September in Portland, Oregon and have made it part of our keynote session. Look for more details on registering for the Field Technology Conference in the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, following is a short Youtube video of last years conference.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
March 9, 2012
GIS Taking a Bite out of Crime
Information is power. Geographic information is information, turbocharged. While privacy is certainly a major issue we need to deal with as geographic information becomes mainstream, geographic information is a fantastic tool for fighting crime.

Just this week, another crime-fighting GIS website was announced. Witness Confident, a charitable organization based in London, introduced streetviolence.org, a website for reporting crimes in your neighborhood. While the initial service is focused on London, Witness Confident is interested in hearing from other geographic regions.

According to the witnessconfident.org website, streetviolence.org buy enabling:
- victims of street robberies and attacks to contact the police online, post witness appeals and alert their community,
- witnesses who can help, to contact the investigating officers at the click of a button,
- people to better see whether any incident poses a real threat to them or the family,
- the police to update posts with links to CCTV and photo-fits and with news of arrests and convictions, and
- the public to have fresh meaningful information about street violence (whether reported to the police or not).
An interactive map displays the reported incidents.

Some other crime-related GIS websites and technology:

Family WatchDog

GPS Foils $86,000 Bank Robbery

Applying GIS Technology to Crime Analysis

Colorado Bureau of Investigation Convicted Sex Offender Site

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
February 23, 2012
LightSquared Snuffed by NITA, FCC
The more than year-long battle between wireless start-up LightSquared and the GPS industry peaked earlier this week when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), tasked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the potential interference problem between LightSquared’s mobile wireless proposal and GPS receivers, issued a statement and report with the following conclusion:

“The federal agencies and LightSquared have invested significant time and resources to identify and analyze proposed solutions to address the impact of LightSquared’s planned network implementations. Based on the testing and analyses conducted to date, as well as numerous discussions with LightSquared, it is clear that LightSquared’s proposed implementation plans, including operations in the lower 10MHz would impact both general/personal navigation and certified aviation GPS receivers. We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment.”

Read the entire letter from the NTIA to the FCC here (pdf).

Read the NTIA technical report here (pdf).

The FCC subsequently issued a statement including the following paragraph:

“NTIA, the federal agency that coordinates spectrum uses for the military and other federal government entities, has now concluded that there is no practical way to mitigate potential interference at this time. Consequently, the Commission will not lift the prohibition on LightSquared. The International Bureau of the Commission is proposing to (1) vacate the Conditional Waiver Order, and (2) suspend indefinitely LightSquared’s Ancillary Terrestrial Component authority to an extent consistent with the NTIA letter. A Public Notice seeking comment on NTIA’s conclusions and on these proposals will be released tomorrow.”

As promised, the FCC subsequently opened a Public Notice seeking comments based on NTIA’s report and conclusions. View the Public Notice here. Public comments close on March 1, 2012. If you have invested in GPS technology, you should enter your comments to protect your investment.

Submitting your comments to the FCC only takes five minutes. You don’t need to write an essay. Just state that you support the NTIA’s conclusion.

You can compose your comments in a text editor like Notepad, then save the file and attach it. Once you go to the FCC comment submission website, it will make sense. If you have any problems, email me.
1. Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here.
2. Type in the following information:
- Proceeding Number: 11-109
- Name of Filer: Enter your name
- Address Line 1: Enter your address
- City: Enter your city
- State: Enter your state
- Zip: Enter your zipe code
- Attach your comments
That’s it. Five minutes and you’re done.

You might have heard about another Public Notice that the FCC issued regarding LightSquared. It is in response to LightSquared’s petition to rule that GPS receivers are not entitled to interference protection. I wrote about it last week. You can read my article here. At that time, I was planning to submit my comments, but that was before the NTIA released its report and conclusions this week. I wouldn’t suggest you not enter a comment to the earlier Public Notice, but certainly I’d focus on entering comments on the latest Public Notice in support of NTIA’s report and recommendations.

For those of you who heard that LightSquared might have been a good idea in order to make wireless mobile Internet access more affordable, I have serious doubts about that statement. Here’s why…

Borrowing from my article last week, LightSquared is relying on Sprint’s infrastructure (~31,000 towers) for its terrestrial operations, and supplementing them with ~3,400 LightSquared towers at some point. I’ve used Sprint’s mobile phone service for about 12 years, and I used Sprint’s data card service for several years (not any longer). I pretty much know that Sprint is good for metro areas and poor for rural areas. Like other wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.), Sprint is strong in some geographic areas, and weak in others. Since LightSquared is focused on serving people (densely populated areas) rather than geographic areas (e.g., farmlands), their terrestrial service is not going to be even close to being nationwide. LightSquared’s solution for areas not covered by their terrestrial service is to use satellite communications for internet connectivity. If you want to know more about this, read Tim Farrar’s blog on the subject, which includes a map of LightSquared’s terrestrial coverage. I’ve asked LightSquared for the most current deployment map, but received no response. I’ve been unable to find it even in their FCC filings (maybe you can), but I have to believe that if it was something to be proud of, they would be showing it to everyone.

Furthermore, in a huge FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) document release last week by the FCC, documents reveal what LightSquared was planning to charge their wholesale customers (not retail) when customers were out of range of their terrestrial system and forced to use LightSquared’s satellite for wireless broadband. The wholesale cost of their satellite broadband service was to be $10 per megabyte (not gigabyte), an astonishingly high price for a company that’s been touting affordable, nationwide wireless broadband Internet service. If you want to read for yourself, click here. You can read about LightSquared’s objections to the FOIA document release here.

LightSquared bankruptcy looming?

Of course, after the NTIA issued its report and conclusions this week, there were many rumors that LightSquared would soon declare bankruptcy. In response, LightSquared financier Phil Falcone told Reuters “It is clearly not on our table” and that “There are other ways around this.”

Other rumors include a proposed spectrum swap that GPS World reported two weeks ago. Although it’s tough to rule out anything, this would be quite a stretch, especially for the spectrum mentioned in the GPS World article (1515-1525 MHz) since it’s still close enough to LightSquared’s 10L signal (1526-1536 MHz) that failed to pass the NTIA’s interference testing that it would likely require another round of GPS interference testing. Furthermore, one of the NTIA’s sticking points was the potential interference from LightSquared’s mobile devices, which operate (uplink) in the 1626.5-1660.5 Mhz range, so that would need to be addressed as well.

The beginning of a new era of GPS/GNSS technology.

Included in the NTIA report was a recommendation that, with time, GPS receivers could be redesigned in order to accomodate LightSquared’s 10L signal.

NTIA also reported that during the January 13 Excom (Position, Navigation, Timing Executive Committee) meeting, it was agreed that “federal agencies will move forward this year to develop and establish new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals and ensure that any such proposals are implemented without affecting existing and evolving uses of space-based PNT services vital to economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs.”

In summary, GPS/GNSS receiver designs will change in the coming years and move towards more efficient use of spectrum. To me, a critical statement in the NTIA letter to the FCC is “without affecting existing and evolving,” meaning that not only should GPS be considered but also GPS-like systems from other countries such as Russia’s GLONASS, Europe’s Galileo, and other evolving satellite navigation systems and applications.

For the latest news, join me next Monday on the ACSM Radio Hour (Monday, February 20)

The LightSquared situation is still very fluid. There seems to be a new twist almost daily.

This past Monday, I was a guest on ACSM’s (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) Radio Hour with Gavin Schrock and Laurence Socci, hosted by ACSM’s Curt Sumner. You can listen to a recording of the show here.

Due to the significant events that occured this week, I’m returning as a guest either next Monday or the following along with Gavin Schrock to discuss the latest developments. You can join us here at 8 a.m. Pacific/11 a.m. Eastern U.S. time on either day, or the show will be recorded and available for you to listen to at a later date.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
February 16, 2012
Higher Accuracy Geospatial Data is a Double-Edged Sword

There’s no doubt that geospatial data collected today is more accurate than it was five years ago and will be more accurate five years from now than it is today. A couple of items had me thinking (once again) about the challenge that higher accuracy geospatial is posing and is going to pose in the future.

The first was an interview I did with Dale Lutz this week. Dale is the vice president of software development and co-founder of Safe Software. Dale is a great person to talk to about trends in geospatial data because Safe Software produces geospatial data conversion software tools. Essentially, the company’s software allows users to seamlessly merge geospatial data sets from different sources. For example, a user may have a requirement to merge data sets from AutoCAD, Esri, and Smallworld along with lidar data. Doing so manually can be a terribly laborious task. Not only does the user have to deal with different data formats, but also data of varying accuracy and unknown sources.

“One thing that is an ongoing issue, we see a lot of files that frankly don’t have the right coordinate systems in them or it’s missing, so then that relies on users to know,” said Lutz. “That kind of lack of metadata is going to pose a challenge for people as time goes on because folks aren’t going to remember and the file is going to get passed around. They are not going to know which datum it was collected with and they may not get exactly the correct answer.”

Dale succinctly summarizes the problem. After 20+ years in the geospatial industry, working in many places in the world, and teaching numerous workshops, matching spatial data is the #1 problem people ask me about. It’s fascinating to watch how diligent people are in acquiring the best data collection devices and collecting the most accurate data in the field, only to see it be diluted as it is integrated into a GIS or passed around without the metadata being communicated.

I’m guilty of it as much as anyone. On many mapping projects, I integrate data from several different data sources. Many times the data is a free download from the web with no metadata provided and no technical support. If I’m able to reach someone to ask a detailed question about the data, 90% of the time they will make their best guess as to the datum used and when the data was collected. Was it in the original NAD83 horizontal datum? HARN? NSRS 2007? And even, ugh, NAD27? The difference can be more than a meter or much greater. It doesn’t take much of an error to negate the value of the expensive high-precision GPS receiver you spent thousands of dollars to acquire.

Dale knows all too well. “When we used to deal with a MicroStation file that was accurate to a meter, we didn’t lose too much sleep, but now it’s more of an issue.”

Not only are horizontal datums an issue, vertical accuracy is a challenge of a different kind.

“It’s really doing a good job with the Z (elevation) that is the challenge we are working on. That’s been a big focus for us,” said Lutz.

Another item about geospatial data accuracy I ran into this week was a thread on an Autodesk discussion forum. It was an entertaining thread about parcel maps and how they don’t reconcile nicely.

The original poster summarizes the problem:

“I am trying to draw a parcel map in AutoCAD, using the distance and bearing info that was added by to the original hand-made drawing by the surveyor. The parcels don’t quite close perfectly… Does anyone know what the acceptable tolerances are for parcels of say 1 acre and under, 1-5 acres, and 5-20 acre sites? Will it ever close EXACTLY, or am I a dreamer?? WOuld you send the surveyor back out to take new measurements if, lets say, he was off by .3″? Or a foot? Or 4 feet on a huge parcel? I am new @ this and just getting started. Thanks!”

An obviously well-informed poster responded:

“That is one major open-ended question…

There are all kinds of things that come into play. Some of it is the age of the original plat. There are many places around our country where we have plats created in the 1700’s, using the proverbial “one-eyed goat and a rope”. Those surveys could have major errors, when compared to what we can achieve with today’s technology. But there’s a whole string of law that decides how all of that gets resolved, and it favors the “original survey” whenever possible. But above that, it favors any monuments that are found and recovered. Those typically hold precedence, even if they disagree with the legal record.

There are also standards that you may need to live to now, in our current age, especially if you’re doing something like an ALTA (Land Title) Survey. You have to make sure to perform within the standards set by the law. With today’s technology, this is often relatively easy, but you still may run into issues when dealing with older neighborhoods, laid out in past times when measurements were not as exact, and especially when original monumentation can’t be found… It can get worse; sometimes you find inconsistent monumentation, and have to try to sort through different surveys, figuring out which monuments were set when… It can become quite a puzzle.

Learning all of this stuff is what becoming a professional land surveyor is about. And it takes years to do that. So there’s no real way to explain it all in a forum post.”

Finally, in one sentence the same poster summarizes the colliding worlds of digital cartography, one of the newest digital technologies, and land surveying, one of the oldest professions.

“A jig-saw puzzle made by blind men with dull saws. As I sometimes describe it.”

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

February 10, 2012
Google Changes Privacy Policy and Terms of Service

Google announced it is revising its privacy policy and terms of service as of March 1, 2012. According to the announcement, Google will be streamlining over 60 privacy policies into one.

Google’s new privacy policy can be viewed by clicking here. Google’s new terms of services can be viewed by clicking here.

According to Google’s Blog, its “new policy reflects our desire to create a simple product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether you’re reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease. When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.”

Understand how Google uses your data

According to Google, “knowing a little bit about you can help make Google products better, both for you and for others. By understanding your preferences we can ensure that we give you the search results that you’re looking for, and by analyzing the search logs of millions of users in aggregate, we can continually improve our search algorithm, develop new features, keep our systems secure and even predict the next flu outbreak.”

Learn more about Google users your data by clicking here.

Finally, Google has provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about its new privacy policy and terms of service. View the FAQ by clicking here.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

February 1, 2012
More Mobile Devices, More Geospatial Trends

Granted, I’m a mobile device geek. I see tremendous growth for geospatial apps on mobile devices. Obviously, insane numbers of mobile devices are shipping. This past Christmas, Amazon shipped 4+ million of its Kindle tablet computers.

As I’ve written before, the future (and present) of our geospatial mobile devices largely depends on developments in the consumer electronics market. Since Apple introduced the iPad precisely two years ago and has sold upwards of 100 million units since then, the Kindle Fire is the first real threat to the iPad. It’s been successful largely because of its price, $199, about 1/3 the price of a comparable iPad. Yet, it’s functionality is quite striking. Since I bought my wife a Kindle Fire this past Christmas, she’s used her notebook computer noticeably less. Since the Kindle Fire runs Google’s Android 2.3 operating system, she can browse the web (Facebook, et al), check email, read ebooks, play Words with Friends. What else is there? The only reasons I see her using her notebook computer is to use office apps (Word, spreadsheet, PowerPoint) and to print documents.

In a similar fashion, the computer gaming industry is going to push geospatial apps to an entirely new level. Look, for example, at augmented reality technology. I’ve written, with great anticipation, about augmented reality (AR) for quite some time. As witnessed at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this month, augmented reality is a hot topic in the world of consumer electronics.

In some cases, AR is combined with other emerging geospatial technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Clearly, the hardware technology is developing quickly in the gaming world, and just like consumer mobile devices are transforming geospatial data collection, augmented reality hardware/software will migrate to the professional geospatial user community. Imagine the Call Before You Dig technician being able to “see” the underground infrastructure on his/her table computer without having to break out a shovel. Imagine the groundskeeper being able to “see” the underground irrigation system on a table computer to know where to look for a faulty valve. Imagine the first responder, in a building filled with smoke, being able to clearly “see” doorways, hallways, stairwells, exit signs, etc.

The hardware to accomplish the above is developing fast. The data? Not so much. I wrote a piece about this a few months ago. If you’re in the geospatial industry, the opportunities are endless.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

January 27, 2012
Rules, Decisions, and Consequences
This week, I’m pleased to present to you the third essay in a series by Earl F. Burkholder: educator, professional land surveyor, and professional engineer. Earl and I have been sharing thoughts since we had a chance to sit down and talk at the 2010 ACSM/GITA annual meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.

By way of background, Earl is a surveying engineering educator who retired in July 2010. Licensed both as a professional engineer and as a professional surveyor, his career includes five years working for an international engineering firm, 13 years teaching at Oregon’s Institute of Technology, 12 years at New Mexico State University, and being self-employed for five years during which time he incorporated Global COGO, Inc., to promote use of 3D digital spatial data via the global spatial data model (GSDM). He wrote a book, “The 3D Global Spatial Data Model: Foundation of the Spatial Data Infrastructure,” which was published by CRC Press in April 2008.

His education includes a BSCE from the University of Michigan, a MSCE from Purdue University, and sabbatical study at the University of Maine, Orono. He served two four-year (non-consecutive) terms as editor of the ASCE Journal of Surveying Engineering and has been involved in the ABET accreditation process since the early 1990s. He was chair of the ABET Related Accreditation Commission (now known as the Applied Science Accreditation Commission) in 2000-2001. As of October 1, 2011, he is chair of the ASCE Geomatics Division (GMD) Executive Committee.

Rules, Decisions, and Consequences

(Is there really more than one set of rules?)

The first essay in this series asked the question, “Does the ability/authority to do something justify doing it?” The second essay looked at “Elements of the decision-making process” and asks “Is it necessary or possible to legislate morality?” This essay looks at rules, decisions, and consequences and asks, “Is there is one set of rules for individuals and another set of rules for businesses, corporations, and governmental entities?” Looking back at the previous article, the apparent answer is ‘yes’ – one set of rules governs personal decisions based upon values while non-personal decisions are made in the context of laws/authority. But that raises more questions. Since all decisions – personal, business, governmental, or corporate – are made by individuals (personally and/or collectively), in what way can accountability for a given decision be established? The path to personal accountability based on values is quite straightforward – “the buck stops here.” In the non-personal arena the criteria are different. Here an individual is responsible directly to the organizational hierarchy but is otherwise largely isolated from personal accountability¹. Within an organization and depending upon circumstances, a person is accountable to the foreman who is accountable to the project manager and on up the line to the Vice President, to the CEO, to the Board of Directors, and ultimately to the stockholders. Isolation of personal accountability is much the same in the governmental arena same except that ultimate responsibility rests with the voter – individuals speaking with a collective voice. And that brings us back full circle to the legislating morality question. Admittedly the scenario just described is a gross over-simplification but it serves to help clarify the context of choices made by humans.

¹Choices here may not be easy. In the movie, “A Few Good Men” starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson (1992), two soldiers were on trial for the death of a third. As it turns out, the two were following orders of their Commanding Officer who had ordered a “code red.” They were not convicted of murder but sentenced to a dishonorable discharge. Upon hearing the verdict, one soldier turned to the other and asked, “What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.” His buddy replied, “Yeah we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.”

The more I’ve looked at various issues, the more I realize that honest open discussion is an essential part of finding appropriate answers. I quite agree that, in many cases, answers are not singularly “right” or “wrong” but, of necessity, solutions must include elements from conflicting positions – compromise. Therefore, I will continue asking questions with the expectation that others will also ponder the issues and that subsequent discussion of various perspectives will contribute to a broader understanding of the issues. The unproven presumption here is that an improved understanding of the issues is a prerequisite to finding acceptable solutions. Recent Congressional, legislative, and bureaucratic stalemates could probably be used to dis-prove that presumption.

The on-going LightSquared debate provides the context for my comments. I recently listened to the webinar moderated by Alan Cameron of GPS World in which Javad Ashjaee and Eric Gakstatter discussed current LightSquared issues. Javad summarized various technical issues while Eric raised questions primarily of concern to users in the GPS precise surveying user community. And, reading a recent (December 2011) press release from the Coalition to Save Our GPS, I am lead to believe that LightSquared is unequivocally committed to having their way in the establishment of the ground-based transmitter 4G network. A press release by LightSquared dated December 14, 2011, quotes LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja as saying “LightSquared has had the legal and regulatory right to use its spectrum for eight years over two administrations.”

As I became aware of the LightSquared debate last spring and the learned about the possibility of detrimental impact on precise GPS surveying operations, my first reaction was quite simple – spectrum rights should be re-allocated to avoid conflicting uses. However, as I learned more about the issues, I realized that simple answers are not that simple. I am reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell (1959), “It is one of the rarest gifts to be able to hold a view with conviction and detachment at the same time.” Therefore, I feel obligated to look at both sides of an issue before committing to a position. I was under the weather the first weekend in July 2011 and spent most of two days in bed. It was during that time of forced rest that I tried to sort out and understand the underlying LightSquared issues. It did not take long to realize that I needed more information and that the ideas I wanted to share could not be conveyed in a single article. That is when and how I settled on this series of six essays. Although the LightSquared debate continues to evolve and a reasoned position may be somewhat fluid, I press on in my attempts to “flush out” the underlying questions formulated last July.

This third essay considers the impact of two different sets of rules used in guiding decisions. I find it instructive to look at consequences of not following the rules, both personal and non-personal. In the first essay I stated that I naïvely believe each person should and will act responsibly. We all know that simply is not true. Yes, it would be grand indeed if everyone acted responsibly and was held accountable for their decisions and actions. With exceptions, this falls under the values category and most people are decent, moral, upright and caring. But, sometimes we rationalize to our own detriment².

The following statements are offered for contemplation. Answer only to yourself.
1. The rules were made for others. I don’t need to follow posted speed limits because I am a good driver and I know how to handle my car. Or, I can talk on my cell phone while driving because I am careful and I would never cause an accident.
2. Many of us often consider ourselves innocent if we break the law and don’t get caught – speeding, cheating on taxes, purposefully deceiving an opponent, and the like. A moralizing statement is, “We are what we do when no one else is watching.”
3. In cases of civil disobedience, the end justifies the means – or not.
4. If I am willing to accept the consequences, I can do whatever I want.
5. Consideration of Ethics is meaningless to someone who has nothing to lose.
² Dear Abby, Las Cruces Sun News, December 18, 2011. “The Cold Within,” by James Patrick Kinney

Six humans trapped in happenstance in dark and bitter cold,

Each one possesses a stick of wood, or so the story is told.

Their dying fire in need of logs. The first woman held hers back.

For of the faces around the fire, she noticed one was black.

The next man looking across the way saw not one of his church

and couldn’t bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.

The third sat in tattered clothes – he gave his coat a hitch.

Why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought of the wealth he had in store

and how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.

The black man’s face bespoke revenge as the fire passed from sight,

For all he saw in his stick of wood was a chance to spite the white.

The last man of this forlorn group did naught except for gain –

Giving only to those who gave was how he played the game.

The logs held tight in death’s still hands was proof of human sin.

They didn’t die from cold without, they died from cold within.

The second essay made the point that choosing to live a moral life is an arbitrary choice but, in the long run, most people conclude that it is a smart choice. Of course, if we were more consistent in learning and applying values there would be many fewer fines, lawsuits, and court cases. Rationalizing and justifying our own actions is a process that deserves careful thought and consideration.

What about non-personal decisions? This is not to suggest that persons are excused from consequences of values based decisions in life or in an organizational context. But, the immediate focus is to look at the impact and consequences of organizational policies and actions. Note – it is not my intent to disparage the capitalistic system – arguably, there is none better in the world. But, I do believe a critical examination is legitimate.

Is it said that a corporation is a legal entity without a conscience. Does that excuse a corporations from including morality as a criteria in the decision making process? On the surface, the answer is “yes.” Although many criteria can be applied, the primary motivation for a business or corporation is to earn money for the owners/stockholders. And corporations have free reign so long as their activities are legal. Secondary motivations include building/marketing products and/or providing services to society. The decision to be a good corporate citizen, to provide meaningful employment for others, or to operate “green” may rank high as priorities, but these secondary motivations often boil down to being a “means to an end.”

What about the consequences of bad corporate decisions? That topic is really too huge to tackle but within, the context of the LightSquared debate, I offer several examples and raise a red flag. What about Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? The first two examples have already played out with devastating impact for many persons. Why should the consequence of those bad corporate decisions affect so many (innocent) persons? Do the fines and prison terms for corporate officers involved balance the harm done? Hardly! The impact of the next two examples and the subprime mortgage debacle, caused in large part by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, is well documented. Many people, some culpable and some not, have had their lives turned upside down during the mortgage crisis. But the consequences have not all been realized. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2011) has, only recently, sued the former Chiefs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for misleading investors. A recent book, Reckles$ Endangerment, by Morgenson and Rosner (2011) chronicles the history and events leading to the mortgage crisis of 2008. It is not a difficult read and well worth the time. And, here is the RED FLAG. With the aggressive lobbying actions taken recently by LightSquared, the parallels with events described by Morgenson and Rosner are uncanny indeed. Every civic-minded GPS professional needs to read that book and react to unfolding events.

Conclusion. Although two set of rules may be a fact in modern society, the quality of life for many is enhanced to the extent our decisions (both personal and non-personal) do not cause detrimental consequences for those affected by same. Let’s agree that the golden rule does not say, “Those with the gold make the rules.”

The fourth essay in this series will look at the influence of lobbyists, some motivations for decisions, and the need for checks and balances. At this point, the challenge of extracting coherent arguments from the deluge of unfolding events appears rather formidable – stay tuned.

Reader input and suggestions are always welcome.

Earl F. Burkholder, PS, PE, F.ASCE

Global COGO, Inc.

Las Cruces, NM 88003

[email protected]

www.globalcogo.com

References

Morgenson, Gretchen and Joshua Rosner, 2011; Reckles$ Endangerment, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, NY.

Russell, Bertrand, 1959; Wisdom of the West, Crescent Books, Inc., Rathbone Books Limited, London.

Ahmed, Azam and Ben Protess, 2011, S.E.C. Accuses Former Chiefs of Freddie and Fannie of Deception, DealB%k, New York Times, NY

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
January 6, 2012
Three Geospatial Trends/Technologies for 2012

A friend of mine is in the bathroom fixture business. When I talk to him, it really makes me appreciate the geospatial industry. While there isn’t much uncharted territory and innovation in bathroom fixtures business, the geospatial industry is ripe for opportunity and innovation. Yes, two out of three of my geospatial technology trends are mobile devices. As I wrote last month, I think the geospatial bottleneck is data. Mobile devices help ease the bottleneck by providing a widely deployed data-collecton platform. How many people do you know who own a smartphone or tablet computer that didn’t own one three years ago? They are proliferating like crazy, and geospatial apps can turn them into geospatial data-collection devices allowing more fuel (data) to flow into the GIS engine.

Following are my three geospatial trends/technologies for 2012.

1. Building Information Modeling (BIM)

Over the past 40 years, fed/state/local government and commercial entities have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy developing outdoor GISs for applications ranging from land parcel management to utility pole management. I guess it was the case of tackling the “low-hanging fruit” since we had GPS, aerial photography, and other sensors that allowed us to collect outdoor geographic data relatively efficiently. Also, the ROI (return on investment) case for many outdoor GIS can be clearly visualized and stated. The ROI for BIM hasn’t always been easy to visualize, and the cost of populating a geodatabase with BIM information can be a challenge. But, I think we’ve turned the corner and realized the potential for BIM is astounding. Take a look at some of the following articles weve written on the subject over the past few years.

Is the Geospatial Bottleneck Software or Data?

Visualization in Transportation Symposium

INTERGEO 2011: The World’s Largest Geospatial Conference

As Data Collection Technology Advances, So Does BIM

BIM, Son of CAD and GIS

2. Smartphone Adoption

Who can ignore the rapid adoption of smartphones around the world?

“Crackberries” (Blackberry) have been around for many years and are largely thought of as the defacto standard for smartphones. However, the Blackberry is giving way (but still growing) and being overtaken by Apple and Android-based smartphones.

Today’s software developers have the challenge of deciding which operating system platform to support. Should it be iOS (Apple), Android (Google), RIM (Blackberry), or Windows Mobile (Microsoft)? Although some companies with the software development resources choose to support all four, more than likely a company will select two. Which two? With RIM fading a bit, I’d say they can be dismissed first. Google and Microsoft make software development a lot easier for developers than Apple does, but who can ignore the huge iPhone market?

Nonetheless, a huge number of geospatial apps are being built and deployed for smartphones. Take a look at some of these articles.

Android Beating iPhone and Blackberry in Smartphone Operating System Market Share, says Nielsen Research

RIM Nose Dives After Another Disaster Of An Earnings Report

2011 Showed Better LBS Market Gains, But Was It All About Google?

On the Edge: Driving Reality Home

CSR, Navizon Debut Indoor Location and Navigation Systems

Location Apps Popular in Japan Quake’s Wake

3. Tablet Computer Adoption

Given the tremendous consumer acceptance of the Apple iPad, the geospatial industry really hasn’t adopted the Apple iPad as much as one would think. I’m even surprised by its lackluster adoption by geospatial professionals, but I understand. The iPad isn’t exactly a computing powerhouse. It’s a sleek, attractive sports car with an engine built for efficiency and beauty, not for brute-force computing.

However, what Apple has done is attract a number of manufacturers to pay attention to the tablet computing market.

Also, it has brought the prices of tablet computers down to consumer price levels. The days of $4,000-$5,000 tablet computers are numbered, even the “ruggedized” ones.

How can an organization justify $4,000 for a “ruggedized” tablet computer when they can purchase a consumer tablet computer, running Windows, for well under $1,000? Yes, in some cases you can justify the data is worth the capital expense, but in an era of severe budget cuts, it’s inceasingly more difficult to justify the expense.

The Apple iPad Factor

The Apple iPad Factor – Continued

Dry Corp, LLC Introduces Waterproof Case for Smartphones and Tablet Computers

GammaTech Introduces Rugged, Convertible Notebook Computer

A Look at the Rugged Handheld Algiz 7

Juniper Launches Mesa Rugged Notepad

Take a look here for a list of consumer tablet computers from NewEgg.com. Consumer tablet computers for well under $500.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

December 16, 2011
You Say You Want A Revolution?

After last week’s column, “Technology: Friend or Foe?”, I received a bit of mail. Usually when I write about technology wiggling its way into our lives, the mail I receive is from readers who are apprehensive, concerned, and even frightened of the paradigm shift we are experiencing and going to experience in our lives at the hands of the digital revolution.

If you think about it, the past 30+ years (1980-2011) really dwarfs the previous 30 year period (1950-1980) in terms of lifestyle changes. With the exception of transportation (automobile/air travel) and some medical advancement, the 1950-1980 period was relatively static and stable. It was commonplace for people to work for the same company for 30 years and retire. In fact, you could even wind the clock back another 10 years to 1940 and not see a drastic change, although World War II was a major focus in the 1940s and did challenge the stability of day-to-day family lifestyles.

However, the lifestyle changes we have gone through in the past 30 years (even the past 15 years) have been radical. Thanks to the Internet, I haven’t had to commute to an office in more than 10 years. I’m constantly connected to my family, friends and work colleagues with my mobile phone via talk, text, or email. Sometimes, I will go months without writing a physical check to pay a bill.

The upside is that we are spending less time on mindless “busy work.” Growing up, I recall watching my parents spend a full evening going through canceled checks and bank statements in order to balance their checkbooks. I recall my father making a trip to the bank on Friday afternoon to withdraw cash for the weekend activities (no ATMs). I recall trading a $10 bill for a roll of quarters at the bank in order to make a long distance telephone call back home during my military service days. Back then, there were telephone booths at nearly every street corner. When’s the last time you remember seeing a telephone booth?

These lifestyle changes are the result of the digital revolution…and it’s just beginning.

Following is a great blog post from marketing guru Seth Godin called Pre Digital:

A brief visit to the emergency room last month reminded me of what an organization that’s pre-digital is like. Six people doing bureaucratic tasks and screening that are artifacts of a paper universe, all in the service of one doctor (and the need to get paid and not get sued). A 90-minute experience so we could see a doctor for ninety seconds.

Wasteful and even dangerous.

Imagine what this is like in a fully digital environment instead. Of course, they’d know everything about your medical history and payment ability from a quick ID scan at the entrance. And you’d know the doctor’s availability before you even walked in, and you would have been shuttled to the urgent care center down the street if there was an uneven load this early in the morning. No questions to guess at the answer (last tetanus shot? Allergies to medications?) because the answers would be known. The drive to the pharmacy might be eliminated, or perhaps the waiting time would be shortened. If this accident or illness is trending, effecting more of the population, we’d know that right away and be able to prevent more of it… Triage would be more efficient as well. The entire process might take ten minutes, with a far better outcome.

School is pre-digital. Elections. Most of what you do in your job. Even shopping. The vestiges of a reliance on geography, lack of information, poor interpersonal connections and group connection (all hallmarks of the pre-digital age) are everywhere.

Perhaps the most critical thing you can say of a typical institution: “That place is pre-digital.”

All a way of saying that this is just the beginning, the very beginning, of the transformation of our lives.

Geospatial technology is in the same place. We are being teased with digital geography (GIS), but this is only the initial adoption wave. There is a geography component in nearly every part of our day-to-day lives. The following image captures the adoption of geospatial technology. We are clearly still in the “GIS Professional” part of the curve, and arguably entering the “Application Users” era and clearly on our way to mainstream “Society” adoption.

Esri International User Conference

I wrote a column late last year, “Will We Be a Billion Times More Geospatially Intelligent in Thirty Years?” The premise behind it is that geospatial technology will grow exponentially instead of linearly.

Red = Linear Growth, Blue = Cubic Growth, Green = Exponential Growth (Source: Wikipedia)

In essence, if you follow the linear model (red line), technology will progress only 30 steps in the next 30 years. With exponential growth (green line), technology will progress a billion times in the next 30 years.

How much paper are you pushing (pre-digital)? How much inefficiency is in your organization because of a lack of information or geographic (location) awareness? Location awareness isn’t necessarily the location of an outdoor asset (utility pole, manhole, parcel). It could be the location of a document (paper or digital), the location your lymph nodes (medical GIS), or even your key ring.

Thanks, and see you next week.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

November 30, 2011
Technology: Friend or Foe?

More than 20 years ago, I was tasked with training a group of foresters to use new field data collection technology that would require them to change their field procedures. Needless to say, most of them vehemently opposed the change. Even with pressure from the organization to adopt the technology, some continued to rebel to the point that they would use their legacy methods (pencil/paper) in the woods, only to return to their truck and enter the data from the paper to the handheld data recorder.

I admit it, I hate to change too.

In fact, my notebook computer is way past its retirement age (four years old). The sound doesn’t work any more, some screen pixels don’t work, the battery lasts abut 45 minutes, and it’s running Windows Vista. I’ve actually bought another notebook computer, but haven’t made the transition. The pain of trying to find all of the software installation CDs, etc. of all the software I have on this computer is still greater than the pain of no sound, a so-so screen, and a lousy battery. So, I carry two notebook computers with me when I travel. It’s pretty sad.

Sometimes we don’t have the luxury of choice and we are forced to change. Today’s world is not what it was when I was growing up. It’s changing, and it keeps changing. My father worked for the same organization for 30+ years. We had dinner every evening at 5:30 p.m. when we all sat around the dinner table. That’s the life I knew. Set it on cruise control and enjoy the ride.

However, that way of life is over. It was great while it lasted, but I doubt it will ever exist again.

At 24, after my four-year stint in the U.S. Air Force and picking up my college degree, my first job out of college was at a high-technology start-up company. At the time, I had no clue how that experience would help prepare me for today’s economy.

As many of you know, at a small company (especially a start-up in the high-technology industry) it’s all about getting the job done. Pulling all-nighters, working through lunch, and working 12-hour days is a regular part of life. “Whatever it takes” is a common phrase. The concept of comp time, sick days, and even vacation days (at times), are luxuries only enjoyed by others. On more than one occasion, I watched my vacation days evaporate on December 31. It’s not a particularly healthy lifestyle if you don’t pay attention to work/family balance.

However, it did prepare me for the harsh reality of the new economy, one in which job security is minimal and one in which you need to prove your worth on a weekly basis, making it tough to avoid pulling your weight, and some extra. In short, one needs to bring their “A” game every week.

I’ve spoken with many, many people who dream about “the way things used to be.” They say it was an easier and less stressful time, and they generally hold a negative view of technology because they feel it has cost jobs. They say that computers have replaced people.

I agree, it was an easier and less stressful time. However, I submit that pressure and stress forces us to find more creative and innovative solutions. Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs is the #1 non-fiction best seller, according to the New York Times. It’s clear that Jobs produced some of the most innovative and successful products and services of our time. Yet, he created a highly stressful and uncomfortable work environment. Emotional outbursts and “on-the-spot” firings were not unusual and directed at those who weren’t producing at the level Jobs deemed essential. Obviously, it wasn’ t the healthiest environment, but is there a better way to squeeze the highest performance from people?

It reminds me of a quote from Tom Landry, who for many years was the coach of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team. He said “Leadership is getting someone to do what they don’t want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve.”

Reading that statement makes me think back to the group of foresters I mentioned above. None of them wanted to change. They really didn’t see the benefit of the electronic devices over their proven pencil/paper technology. They thought it was great for the data processing folks who didn’t have to transcribe the paper notes any longer, but thought the field foresters were the ones who were paying the price by hauling around the handheld devices. Eventually, they succumbed to the technology and it became the “new normal.” Years later, many of them told me that they eventually tossed out their pencil/paper and couldn’t imagine going into the woods without their handheld computer. I’m sure there were a few die-hards who bought enough time until their retirement to avoid the pain of change, but the others had no choice to transition to the electronic age.

One of the major changes the world is facing today is geography. With respect to our profession, digital geography (GIS) has a tremendous amount of upside. It’s not just a tool for scientists any longer. Digital geography in everyone’s lives is becoming more ubiquitous, from GPS navigation systems in your car to different location-based services (LBS) apps on your mobile phone.

On the other hand, physical geography is working against some industries. It used to be that having a “local office” allowed companies to charge a premium for their service. Before the Internet revolution, how did you buy an airline ticket? When’s the last time you visited a travel agent? What happened to travel agencies? Whereas they had a valuable geographic advantage that linked the services providers (airlines, cruise lines, hotels, rental cars, etc.) to the consumer, that advantage disappeared almost overnight with the Internet revolution. At the end of the day, 90 percent of the travel agencies didn’t offer enough value beyond the geographic advantage to justify their existence.

Think about other industries that rely on physical geography to justify their existence. Realtors, insurance agents, etc. I just recently dumped Allstate as my automobile insurance provider and signed up with GEICO. Allstate has a local agent, or three. GEICO doesn’t, as far as I know. Do I care? No. In the five or so years I was with Allstate, I don’t remember ever meeting the agent. He’s doing a disservice to Allstate and to himself. He’s made himself insignificant.

That’s really what it boils down to in this economy. How much value do you bring to your organization? If you call in sick tomorrow, does anyone care? Have you made yourself valuable enough to your organization that they can’t afford to let you go?

Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a quote from George Monbiot. I don’t know if it is an original quote of his or not, but here goes.

“If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.”

It’s really not about how hard you work. Most of us probably couldn’t keep up with the woman in Africa Monbiot is referring to with respect to hard work. It is about what you bring to the table. If your best skill is possessed commonly by others, then you’re relatively insignificant. That translates into poor job security and low pay. If you are indespensable to your organization, it will go out of its way to keep you employed and likely pay you what you are worth.

Like it or not, the world economy is not going to return to what it used to be. We had one heck of a run starting with the industrial revolution. The 30+-year career like my father had is a rarity instead of the norm. Careers will be dynamic, moving from project to project. The more unique your skillset is, the better choice of projects you’ll have.

Last week, I was traveling and stopped by one of the golf course projects I’m involved in. The club hired a new assistant superintendent (greenskeeper). He is a very recent college graduate. Most golf course superintendents like to be outdoors instead of driving a desk. As a result, many of them aren’t technology savvy, especially when it comes to GIS and GPS technology. After spending a couple of hours with him, he picked up the concept and operation of the tree mapping system quite well. Then his mind started working and he started asking me about other things he could do with the system (mapping irrigation, drainage, greens, etc.). I suggested that if he could master this technology, he’d be a step ahead of the crowd in his chosen profession.

“Yep,” he said, “one more thing to add to my resume.”

He probably didn’t understand how profound that statement was.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

November 22, 2011
What Every GIS Manager Should Know, But Likely Doesn’t

They are always moving, faster in some geographic regions than in others. It seems someone is always coming up with a different method to interpret them. Once you start using a certain method, it’s very difficult to change. Updating them in a large-scale GIS can be a nightmare. What is it?

Of course, I’m talking about coordinates: the G is GIS.

It’s the G in GIS that makes your GPS navigation unit work. It’s the G in GIS that powers Google Earth, Bing Maps, the local parcel database in your community, and the 911 routing for the emergency services in your community.

Generally speaking, the accuracy of G is pretty sloppy in most of these apps, several meters in many cases. But, the general public doesn’t see that because the GPS unit gets Mom to the right soccer field and the GPS unit gets the emergency crews to the right house, at least close enough for common sense to take over, like GPS guiding an airplane close enough to the airport for the pilot to take over and land the aircraft.

This raises an interesting question, and one that I get a lot from people. How accurate is…(insert noun here)? How accurate is GPS? How accurate is Google Earth? How accurate is my community parcel database? How accurate are the USGS (or your federal map agency) topographical maps? How accurate is the digital nautical chart I’m using?

Usually, folks think their system is “pretty accurate.” I’ve heard boaters swear that their consumer GPS unit takes them back to the “exactly” same spot, not within 10 feet, but “exactly.” I’ve seen architects use Google Earth to lay out their master plans, expecting that the construction people can accurately lay out the design from their plans.

The bottom line is that much of the digital geography in the world is not very accurate, largely because it doesn’t need to be. Well, at least it didn’t need to be at the time.

Now, that’s not to say that many GIS parcel databases don’t fit together very tightly. Most of the ones I’ve seen do have a tight fit, but a tight fit doesn’t mean it’s accurate. We should briefly revisit the difference between accuracy and precision. If you want to read more about accuracy vs. precision, I wrote an article about a year ago on the subject. Otherwise, here’s a couple of graphics to illustrate:

Figure 1. Very precise, but not accurate.

Figure 2. Not very precise, but more accurate than Figure 1.

I use a phrase that one of my Dad’s friends used to tell me. He worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. He would say, “I’d rather be generally right than precisely wrong.” That sort of sums it up. Of course, ideally you’d want the dots in Figure 2 to be tightly centered in the bulls-eye so then the data would be very accurate and very precise, but I think the point is clear.

How do we define what is accurate?

Coordinate accuracy is actually an arbitrary thing with respect to geography. Who is to say how accurate a coordinate pair is? One person may say the coordinates for a point on the ground is x, y while the other may say the same point on the ground is x1, y1. The two pairs of coordinates may differ by decimeter, a meter, tens of meters, or more.

Who is correct?

Essentially, everyone within the region (country, countries, etc.) needs to agree on what the accuracy reference is.

Typically, there is a federal government agency within each country that is tasked with defined a coordinate reference frame. It just so happens in the United States the organization that defines and maintains the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is a government agency called the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). Each country roughly has its own version of the NGS.

So, in the United States, when someone asks what the “true” coordinates are for a point on the ground, the answer is the coordinate pair for that point as referenced to the NSRS. There are several ways to determine the coordinates for said point, with one of the more common and efficient methods being an accurate GPS receiver (survey quality) that references another GPS receiver (survey quality) that is already tied into the NSRS. The NGS OPUS service is a neat way to accomplish this because the NGS already provides access to GPS receivers that are tied to the NSRS.

Allow me to use another example that I’m commonly asked about.

Many times, I’m asked by GPS users how accurate their GPS receiver is. Usually, the easiest and quickest way to determine this is to visit one of the tens of thousands of survey marks located throughout the United States (other countries have the equivalent). The NGS publishes coordinates for each one of the survey marks. Now, be forewarned that there are some caveats. The coordinates of some survey marks are not that accurate. You’ll want to use one that has been surveyed using GPS. You can find the closest survey marks by visiting this website, selecting Radial Search, selecting GPS Sites Only, and entering your latitude/longitude. It will display the closest survey marks to the latitude/longitude you entered. You’ll be surprised how many there are and how close they are.

There are some cool, free software tools available that allow you to easily find an NGS survey mark near you. One that I became aware of recently (a la Brent Jones/Esri via Twitter) is an Android app created by Critigen. It’s pretty slick. I didn’t find the app by using the “Market” app on my phone so I just downloaded the FindAControl.apk file from Critigen’s website and tapped on it to install the app.

View NGS survey control stations Toggle on/off station types or

for various station types and networks. switch between basemaps.

View NGS Data Sheets summarizing

key geodetic information.

If you’re really itching to find out how accurate your GPS receiver is, this is a great place to start. Yes, you probably won’t do something right the first time and probably want to do it again (and maybe again), but it’s a valuable learning experience. Actually, to get a good statistical sample, you’d need to collect a lot of data at different times and on different days to get an idea of the accuracy consistency of your GPS receiver. Because, as I’ve heard many times, and maybe you, too, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But that’s a subject for another time :-)

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

November 9, 2011