The role of a national mapping organization has certainly evolved significantly as we moved from paper to digital maps. Maps as abstractions of reality at a single scale is no longer acceptable, instead we expect geospatial data at great accuracy, increasing realism and current collection.
The currency of data are of increasing importance in our ever-changing world. A growing number of transactions are taking place based on spatial information, and nobody wants the pain of a bad decision because they’ve acted on bad data.
Maps and geospatial data at many scales includes the requirement for a high degree of positional accuracy, including vertical position. The need for a highly accurate land slope and boundary alignment provides a solid foundation for any mapping effort. It’s also a legal issue, as there are considerable responsibilities and risks for getting this information wrong.
Increasing realism now incorporates imagery, elevation models and 3D presentation. Imagery at high resolution and recent collection is the easiest means for quick data update. Imagery also provides a quick context check, as we can gather a great deal of intelligence at a glance. Putting this information into a 3D view further increases the rapid realization of place.
The demands of accuracy, currency and realism make a centralized mapping effort a very expensive and labor-intensive task. The national mapping organization as an arbiter of data quality at the scale and scope of North American countries is a huge undertaking that requires a great deal of political support, which simply doesn’t exist right now.
The advent of GIS, with map making tools for the masses, contributed significantly to the downfall of centralized map making. With the advent of GIS, federal agencies each undertook their own mapping initiatives that specifically met their individual objectives.
The competition among agencies is true in North America as well as many other countries around the world. The split is most significant among military and civilian mandates, with funding for “geospatial intelligence” far surpassing civilian map agencies.
A central government simply can’t make the investment needed to collect data to a high standard and consistency when there’s so much mapping activity taking place at other levels of government and in the private sector.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s topographic map series at 1:24,000 scale achieved consistent national coverage, but the average age of those maps is now more than 25 years old. The U.S. Geological Survey has undertaken a National Map scheme whereby they forge partnerships and act as a centralized repository and dissemination point for map data.
I like the spirit of collaboration in this approach, and the fact that it harnesses the geospatial enterprise architectures that exist in most GIS’s. This approach also specifically aligns itself to the mandates of federal initiatives while contributing expertise and funding for local projects.
At this stage of the game, where significant private investment in geospatial data creation will create geospatial base data of superior quality and accuracy, the game has changed completely. From the early days where open and free U.S. geospatial data fed the creation of a strong geospatial industry, it is now the geospatial industry data that should largely form the underpinnings as base data for government efforts.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just came to this realization when they licensed Microsoft’s Virtual Earth platform as a means to communicate their information to the public. The move makes a great deal of fiscal sense that gets the agency away from the business of creating their own base map layers and instead focused on creating data and tools aligned with their core mission.
As private sector platform creators continue to duke it out on data quality, currency and features–and pour much money into these effort– it’s increasingly difficult to justify the role of a centralized map agency for data collection and creation. Instead, the effort should be placed on applications where a central agency can work to improve collaboration and build a better understanding of Earth systems for the benefit of all.
———-
For a contrasting view of the role of national mapping agencies, read Jeff Thurston’s post here.
{ 2 trackbacks }