Advertisement

Visualisation of Geological Observations on Web 2.0 Based Maps

  • Gáspár AlbertEmail author
  • Gábor Csillag
  • László Fodor
  • László Zentai
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC, volume 5)

Abstract

The method of geological mapping has changed during the last decades and the collected data have been recently stored in the records of databases instead of hand-written notebooks. In the Geological Institute of Hungary, a special database structure was designed for primarily scientific purposes, but also for storing and classifying the geological observations according to their importance for geo-tourism. The relational database of the geological observations can be queried by different subjects and transcribed into KML files, which are useful for the dissemination of geological data via web 2.0 map applications like Google Earth.

Keywords

Geological Institute Digital Terrain Model Bouguer Anomaly Open Geospatial Consortium Geological Observation 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thankfully appreciate the efforts of the documenters who took care of using the prototypes of the database, and occasionally made suggestions and gave advice. An ergonomic documentation system and a well-structured database serve the benefit of not only the geologists of the Geological Institute of Hungary. On the long run, the base application can be widely used amongst the Hungarian and maybe the foreign earth scientists too.

References

  1. Albert G, Csillag G (2010) Földtani tartalomszolgáltatás web 2.0 alapokon—Geological knowledge service on web 2.0 base. http://hantken.mafi.hu/pub/rastermaps/Albert G, Csillag G 2010 Foldtani tartalomszolgatatas web 2.0 alapokon.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2011
  2. Balla Z (2004) General characteristics of the Bátaapáti (Üveghuta) site (South-western Hungary). Ann Rep Geol Inst Hung 2003:73–91Google Scholar
  3. Barnes JW (1995) Basic geological mapping, 3rd edn. Wiley, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  4. Briner AP, Kronenberg H, Mazurek M, Horn H, Engi M, Peters T (1999) FieldBook and GeoDatabase—tools for field data acquisition and analysis. Comput Geosci 25:1101–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodaric B (2004) The design of GSC Fieldlog: ontology-based software for computer aided geological mapping. Comput Geosci 30:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clegg P, Bruciatelli L, Domingos F, Jones RR, De Donatis M, Wilson RW (2006) Digital geological mapping with tablet PC and PDA: a comparison. Comput Geosci 32:1682–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Compton RR (1985) Geology in the field. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dey S, Ghosh P (2008) GRDM—a digital field-mapping tool for management and analysis of field geological data. Comput Geosci 34:464–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Google Earth (2010) version 5.2.1.1588. http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2010
  10. Gyalog L, Havas G, Maigut V, Maros GY, Szebényi G (2004) Geological-tectonic documentation in the Bátaapáti (Üveghuta) site. Ann Rep Geol Inst Hung 2003:171–201Google Scholar
  11. Gyalog L, Orosz L, Sipos A, Turczi G (2005) The uniform legend system, the borehole database and the web-based query tool of them in the geological institute of Hungary (in Hungarian, with translated abstract, and figures). Ann Rep Geol Inst Hung 2004:109–125Google Scholar
  12. ISO 8879 (1986) Information processing—text and office systems—Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16387.Accessed 4 May 2011
  13. Jones RR, McCaffrey KJW, Wilson RW, Holdsworth RE (2004) Digital field acquisition: towards increased quantification of uncertainty during geological mapping. In: Curtis A, Wood R (eds) Geological prior information, vol 239. Geol Soc Spec Publ, London, pp 43–56Google Scholar
  14. Kramer JH (2000) Digital mapping systems for field data. In: Soller DR (ed) Digital mapping techniques ‘00-Workshop Proceedings. US Geol. Survey Open-File Rep 00-325:13–19. http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of00-325/kramer.html. Accessed 2 May 2011
  15. Laxton JL, Becken K (1996) The design and implementation of a spatial database for the production of geological maps. Comput Geosci 22:213–225Google Scholar
  16. McCaffrey KJW, Jones RR, Holdsworth RE, Wilson RW, Clegg P, Imber J, Holliman N, Trinks I (2005) Unlocking the spatial dimension: digital technologies and the future of geoscience fieldwork. J Geol Soc London 162:927–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OGC (2008) XML Schema Document for OGC KML version 2.2. http://schemas.opengis.net/kml/2.2.0/ogckml22.xsd. Accessed 4 May 2011
  18. Struik LC, Atrens A, Haynes A, (1991) Handheld computer as a field notebook, and its integration with the Ontario geological survey’s “Fieldlog” program. In: Current research, Part A, Cordillera and pacific margin. Geol Surv Can 91-01A:279–284Google Scholar
  19. W3C XML (1998) World Wide Web Consortium—XML Technology. http://www.w3.org/standards/xml/. Accessed 4 May 2011
  20. WHC (1995) UNESCO World Heritage Convention—Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/725. Accessed 4 May 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gáspár Albert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gábor Csillag
    • 1
  • László Fodor
    • 1
  • László Zentai
    • 2
  1. 1.Geological Institute of HungaryBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Cartography and GeoinformaticsEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations