Data Generation: VGI and PGI Data Sets

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


In this book, research has sought to understand the way in which users perceive the utility of VGI to help aid them in their activities. The scoping study demonstrated that the users’ decision to utilise VGI within professional, personal and social settings comes from their level of trust in the data and degree of homogeneity between the data user and the data contributor. More importantly, the scoping study suggested that the consumer would consider both VGI and PGI using the same criteria, in order to achieve their personal needs. Study Two highlighted how the consumer perceptions of VGI and PGI are influenced by their use requirements, where it is more useful to consider the attributes of the data (e.g. its currency) rather than the professionalism of the contributor. Study Two also demonstrated that the user judgement of trust is a key perception in the analysis of information during an information search, alongside cognitive authority and overall quality.


Public Transport Travel Route Light Rail Access Issue Wheelchair User 
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.


  1. Abley S, Hill S (2005). Designing living streets: a guide to creating lively, walkable neighbourhoods, Transport research laboratory (TRL), London. Available at:
  2. Baum A, Fisher JD, Solomon SK (1981) Type of information, familiarity, and the reduction of crowding stress. J Pers Soc Psychol 40(1):11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beale L et al (2006) Mapping for wheelchair users: route navigation in urban spaces. Cartographic J 43(1):68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishr M, Janowicz K (2010) Can we trust Information?—The case of volunteered geographic information. In: Devaraju A et al (eds) Towards digital earth: search, discover and share geospatial data. Workshop at future internet symposium, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Cinderby S, Forrester J, Owen A (2006) A personal history of participatory geographic information systems in the UK context: successes and failures and their implications for good practice. In: L. McDowell (ed) Royal geographical society annual conference, RGS-IBG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cloudmade (2011) Pale dawn, CloudmadeGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman DJ, Georgiadou Y, Labonte J (2009) Volunteered geographic information: the nature and motivation of producers. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct Res 4:332–358Google Scholar
  8. Crone GR (1968) Maps and their makers: an introduction to the history of cartography, 4th edn. In: W. G. East (ed), Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. David R, Jason H (2008) Aesthetics and credibility in web site design. Inf process manage 44(1):386−399. Available at:
  10. (2011) Direct enquiries: the nationwide access register, Accessed 1 Aug 2011. Available at:
  11. Evans G (2009) Accessibility, urban design and the whole journey environment. Built Environ 35(3):366–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fallis D (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Libr Trends 52(3):463–487Google Scholar
  13. Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2008) The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 72:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogg BJ, Tseng H (1999) The elements of computer credibility. In: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit. ACM, Pittsburgh,pp 80–87. Available at:
  15. Fonseca F, Sheth A (2002) The geospatial semantic web, UCGIS, Leesburg. Available at: Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  16. Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of web 2.0. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct Res 2:24–32Google Scholar
  17. Goodchild MF (2008) Commentary: whither VGI? GeoJournal 72(3):239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodchild MF (2010) Researching the geocrowd. Opening keynote. In: third spatial socio-cultural knowledge workshop. Shrivenham, Cranfield University, CranfieldGoogle Scholar
  19. Haklay M, Basiouka S et al (2010) How many volunteers does it take to map an area well? the validity of linus’ Law to volunteered geographic information. Cartographic J 47(4):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Handy SL, Niemeir DA (1997) Measuring accessibility, an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Planning A 29:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertzum M et al (2002) Trust in information sources: seeking information from people, documents, and virtual agents. Interact Comput 14:575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holone H, Misund G, Holmstedt H (2007). Users are doing it for themselves: pedestrian navigation with user generated content. In: Al-Begain K (ed) NGMAST 2007: International conference on next generation mobile applications, services and technologies. IEEE, Cardiff, pp 91–99. Available at:
  23. Holone H et al (2008) Aspects of personal navigation with collaborative user feedback. In: NordiCHI’08: Proceedings of the 5th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: building bridges. Lund/IKDC, NordiCHI, Sweden, p 182Google Scholar
  24. Idris NH, Jackson MJ, Abrahart RJ (2011) Map mash-ups: what looks good must be good? In: Emma Jones C et al (eds) Proceedings of the 19th GIS research UK annual conference. GIS Research UK, Portsmouth, p 119Google Scholar
  25. Krippendorff K (1980) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Kulyukin V et al (2008) The blind leading the blind: toward collaborative online route information management by individuals with visual impairments. In: Proceedings from the association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (AAAI) spring symposium, Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. London & Partners (2011) London buses, Available at: Accessed 7 Aug 2011
  28. Network Rail (2011a) London Bridge, Available at: Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  29. Network Rail (2011b) London Victoria, Available at: Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  30. Network Rail (2011c) London Waterloo, Available at: Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  31. Options for independent living (2010) Using public transport with choice, control and confidence. Essex County Council, ChelmsfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker CJ, May AJ, Mitchell V (2012c) Using VGI to enhance user judgements of quality and authority. In: Whyatt D, Rowlingson B (eds) proceedings of GIS research UK 20th annual conference. GIS Research UK, Lancaster, pp 171−178Google Scholar
  33. Porter JM et al (2004) Beyond jack and Jill: designing for individuals using HADRIAN. Int J Ind Ergon 33(3):249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ray NM, Ryder ME (2003) ‘Ebilities’ tourism: an exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivation of the mobility-disabled. Tourism Manage 24:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Southeastern (2011) Greenwich, Available at: Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  36. TFL (2010) Step-Free Tube Guide, Und, London. Available at:
  37. TFL (2011a) Transport accessibility: buses, Available at: Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  38. TFL (2011b) Transport accessibility: rail, Available at: Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  39. TFL (2011c) Transport accessibility: tube, Available at: Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  40. TFL (2011d) Transport for London, Available at: Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  41. Tsou M-H (2005) An intelligent software agent architecture for distributed cartography knowledge bases and internet mapping services. In: Peterson MM (ed) Maps and the internet. Elsevier Ltd., Kidlington, pp 229–243Google Scholar
  42. Tulloch DL (2008) Is VGI participation? from vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 72:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Excel M, Dias E (2011) Towards a methodology for trust stratification in VGI. In: VGI pre-conference at association of american geographers (AAG), Seattle, Washington, pp 1−4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough design schoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations