Advertisement

A Framework of Neogeography

  • Christopher J. ParkerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)

Abstract

Within the current literature, confusion exists as to the terminology used for the various technologies, innovations and phenomenon associated with VGI. This is best highlighted by Elwood (2008) in that these developments [in geotagging data] have been referred to with a plethora of terms, including neogeography… web mapping… volunteered geographic information… ubiquitous cartography… and wiki-mapping. This extensive list is added to by Crampton (2008) with Spatial Media, Locative Media, Spatial Crowdsourcing, Geocollaboration and Map Hacking. Suggesting an explanation for this, Tulloch (2008) suggests that initial islands of research producing unique or proprietary vocabulary may introduce buzzwords which suit their cause, yet die out over time. As Crampton (2008) commented, the [neogeographic] situation has from its birth been both increasingly important and interestingly messy, with its confusing terminology being linked with the emergence of the Web 2.0 and Neogeographic phenomenon itself (Das and Kraak 2011).

Keywords

Geographic Object Overarch Framework Spatial Medium Quality Control Metrics Confuse Terminology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aberley D, Sieber R (2002) About PPGIS In: Developed at first international PPGIS Conference held by URISA at Rutgers University, URISA, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Available at: http://www.ppgis.net/ppgis.htm. Accessed 3 April 2013
  2. Al Bakri M, Fairbairn D (2011) User generated content and formal data sources for integrating geospatial data. In: Proceedings of the 25th international cartographic conference and the 15th general assembly of the International Cartographic Association, ICC, Palais des Congres, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Albaum G (1997) The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. J Market Res Soc 32(2):331–348Google Scholar
  4. Alexander J, Tate M (2005) Evaluating web resources. Wideneer University, 2011 (March 25th). Available at: http://www.widener.edu/about/campus_resources/wolfgram_library/evaluate/original.aspx. Accessed 3 April 2013
  5. Bai Y, Di L, Wei Y (2009) A taxonomy of geospatial services for global service discovery and interoperability. Comput Geosci 35(4):783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishr M, Mantelas L (2008) A trust and reputation model for filtering and classifying knowledge about urban growth. GeoJournal 72(3–4):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boudreau M, Gefen D, Straub D (2001) Validation in IS research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Q 25(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brando C, Bucher B, Abadie N (2011) Specifications for user generated spatial content. Advancing Geoinf Sci Changing World 1(6):479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Budhathoki NR, Bruce B (Chip), Nedovic-Budic Z (2008) Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure. GeoJournal 72(3):149–160. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10708-008-9189-x?LI=true#page-2
  10. Coleman G (2009) Code is speech: legal tinkering, expertise, and protest among free and open source software developers. Cult Anthropol 24(3):420–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman DJ, Georgiadou Y, Labonte J (2009) Volunteered geographic information: the nature and motivation of produsers. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct Res 4:332–358Google Scholar
  12. Cooper AK et al (2011) Challenges for quality in volunteered geographical information. In AfricaGEO 2011. AfricaGEO, Cape Town, p 13Google Scholar
  13. Coote A, Rackham L (2008) Neogeography data quality—is it an issue? In: Holcroft C (ed) Proceedings of AGI Geocommunity’08. Association for Geographic Information (AGI), Stratford-Upon-Avon, UK, p. 1. Available at: http://www.agi.org.uk/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/Events/AGI2008/Papers/AndyCoote.pdf
  14. Crampton JW (2008) Cartography: maps 2.0. Prog Hum Geogr 33(1):91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crone GR (1968) Maps and their makers: an introduction to the history of cartography 4th ed. East WG (ed), London, Hutchinson Google Scholar
  16. Das T, Kraak MJ (2011) Does neogeography need designed maps? In: Proceedings of the 25th international cartographic conference and the 15th general assembly of the international cartographic association, International Cartographic Association (ICA), Paris, pp 1–6. Available at: http://www.itc.nl/Pub/GIP/GIP-Academic-Output/GIP-Output.html?l=6&y=2011&d=GIP
  17. Devillers R et al (2010) Thirty years of research on spatial data quality: achievements, failures, and opportunities. Trans GIS 14(4):387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elwood S (2008) Geographic information science: new geovisualisation technologies emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Prog Hum Geogr 33(2):256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fonseca F, Sheth A (2002) The geospatial semantic web, UCGIS, Leesburg. Available at: http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/research/2002researchPDF/shortterm/e_geosemantic_web.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  20. Goodchild MF (2000) Communicating geographic information in a digital age. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 90(2):344–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodchild MF (2007a) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h013jk125081j628/
  22. Goodchild MF (2007b) Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of web 2.0. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct Res 2:24–32Google Scholar
  23. Goodchild MF (2008) Commentary: whither VGI? GeoJournal 72(3):239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimshaw DJ (1992) Towards a taxonomy of information systems: or does anyone need a Taxi? J Inf Technol 7:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimshaw DJ (1996) Towards a taxonomy of geographical information systems. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Maui, p 547Google Scholar
  26. Haklay M (2010a) How good is volunteered geographical information? a comparative study of openstreetmap and ordnance survey datasets. Environ Plann B 37(4):682–703Google Scholar
  27. Haklay M (2010b) Openstreetmap completeness for England—March 2010. Slideshare, 2011 (Jan 2nd). Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/mukih/openstreetmap-completeness-for-england-0310. Accessed 3 April 2013
  28. Haklay M, Weber P (2008) Openstreetmap: user-generated street maps. IEEE Pervas Comput 7(4):12–18Google Scholar
  29. Haklay M, Singleton A, Parker C (2008) Web mapping 2.0: the neogeography of the geoweb. Geogr Compass 2(6):2011–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haklay M, Ather A, Zulfiqar N (2009) Beyond good enough? spatial data quality and openstreetmap data. Slideshare (July 29th). Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/mukih/beyond-good-enough-spatial-data-quality-and-openstreetmap-data. Accessed 3 April 2013
  31. Haklay M, Ather A, Basiouka S (2010) How many volunteers does it take to map an area well? In Haklay M, Morley J, Rahemtulla H (eds). In: Proceedings of the GIS research UK 18th Annual Conference, University College London, pp 193–196Google Scholar
  32. Idris NH, Jackson MJ, Abrahart RJ (2011) Map mash-ups: what looks good must be good? In Emma Jones C et al. (eds). In: Proceedings of the 19th GIS research UK annual Conference, GIS Research, Portsmouth, UK, p 119Google Scholar
  33. Janesick VJ (2000) The choreography of qualitative research design: minutes, improvisations, and crystallisation. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 379–399Google Scholar
  34. Medyckyj-Scott D, Hearnshaw HM, (1993) preface. In Medyckyj-Scott D, Hearnshaw HM (eds) Human factors in geographical information systems, Belhaven Press, London, pp xvii–xxGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller ME, Miller IL (1944) Encyclodedia of bible life, 4th edn. Harper and Brothers Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Mizumoto A, Takeuchi O (2009) Comparing frequency and trueness scale descriptors in a Likert Scale questionnaire on language learning strategies. JLTA J 12:116–136Google Scholar
  37. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharpe H (2011) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheridan TB (1995) Reflections on information and information value. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(1):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shin ME (2009) Democratizing electoral geography: visualizing votes and political neogeography. Polit Geogr 28:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stiles WB (1993) Quality control in qualitative research. Clin Psychol Rev 13(6):593–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tapscott D, Williams AD (2008) Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Atlantic Books, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Tulloch DL (2008) Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 72:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner AJ (2006) Introduction to neogeography, eBook: O’Reilly Media. Available at: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596529956.do?CMP=OTC-KW7501011010&ATT=neogeography
  44. Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zook MA et al (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the haitian earthquake. World Med Health Policy 2(2):7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations