Talk:Geographic information system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: Eric Friedman. "FOI Trumps Terrorist-Proofing", Fairfield County Weekly, June 23, 2005.

	To-do list for Geographic information system:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Reference a good paper discussing the object/field abstraction in the Data representation section. Combine the Projections, coordinate systems and registration section with the Relating information from different sources section. history section - Tighten up discussion of CGIS (create a separate page for it?) history section - Add discussion of DIME format (first well known use of topologic data structure) history section - Add discussion of the US universities (Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics) that contributed to early GIS research (they went on to form ESRI and GRASS) [ smervin 3/07 added sentence about Harvard Lab (LCGSA) to the History section. Also started separate wiki page about LCGSA but got 'speedily deleted' by zealous Wiki Admin who claimed "no assertion of notability"] history section - Add contributions of SFU to early GIS research (TIN format) Decide what to do about the GIS software section Decide on an overall focus for this article and how it relates to other fields used by GIS (GI Science, geoimformatics, etc) Needs to be information regarding the creation of data, specifically the different interpolation methods Make this page plain language that wider community can understand

	This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Article focus discussion 2 GIS software discussion 3 Geographic Information Science 4 stub? 5 Use of GIS in archaeology 6 University Degree Programs 7 Coyprightability? 8 External Link cleanup 9 incorrect capitalisation 10 Government Uses 11 POV in THE GEODATABASE - By Ryan Pecharka, GIS Coordinator

[edit] Article focus discussion

This article appears to use quite a bit of text copied directly from a USGS page. It should be cleaned up with proper attribution.--Talkswithnumbers 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an article called "Geostatistics", if any of you have the interest, please help to edit this page with the goal to inform and educate. Bohunk

I veiw GIS as a field that encompases many disciplines such as cartography, statistics, databases, math... As I work, I will try to make links to these other related fields. -- Rschulz

I think this page is already too long and broad. For example spatial analysis should have its own page but may be under the title "geographic information science". We should also use the pages geoinformatics and geocomputation to introduce some order. --

GIS is a very broad field and therefore any discussion can only be superficial. I agree we should be linking more to other pages (ie a quick discussion of routing here should link to the related computer science and topology pages; spatial analysis can link to spatial statistics). I do not know if a separate GI Science page is needed, since it is hard to separate from GI System. I have the same issue with geoinformatics and geocomputaiton. Perhaps we can say GIS makes use of methods from geocomputaiton (providing geocomputation can be properly defined). -- Rschulz

Right now I am leaning towards leaving the system definition and mentioning the science definition. I also want to include that most uses of GIS only use a subset of all the available methods (ie online mapping only use routing methods). -- Rschulz

I think there should be a seperate link to interpolation; perhaps interpolation should be discussed under a math-related heading, somewhere so that this topic may be explored in detail. -- Bohunk

[edit] GIS software discussion

The article consistently confuses GIS software with the geographic information system, that is, the data model and the decision processes it supports. Software plays a role, but it should be de-emphasied in favor of process. I may not get a chance to fix this and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone else tried. -- Casu Marzu

Software is integral to the GIS system though and is the main conduit through which data is organized and displayed. I don't think you can separate the two. --Omnicog 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Software is an important part of the traditional system definition, but a complete overview of available GIS software will be too long for this entry. Perhaps we can move the software section to its own page as was done for the Raster graphics / Graphics Programs split. We could also create a separate page for GIS data file formats. -- Rschulz

I am thinking about doing the split I proposed, but leaving a GIS software section in this entry, which discusses the different types of software at a high level. This would mention categories such as spatial databases, client desktop gis software and web-based systems: it would not specifically mention any vendors which can be done on the GIS software page. Any comments? -- Rschulz

It would do well to fix this, as most scientists and academics using GIS often conflate the software and process themselves such that they don't even understand the difference between GIS and, say ArcGIS. Also, that opening sentence is awful: "A geographic information system or geographical information system (GIS) is a system for creating and managing spatial data and associated attributes." It's tautological and lacking in any real explanation of what GIS is. It should be a one-sentence summation of GIS that, to paraphrase Einstein, explains GIS to your grandmother. Elijahmeeks 20:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic Information Science

The current GIS article seems too long, and it has (as been noted above) conflates the model and software used to implement it. Why not follow the International Journal of Geographic Information Systems move to Geographic Information Science?

One article could then concentrate on the software side (systems) and the other on the data structures and overarching methodology (science).

What do people think? --stochata 10:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

A few months ago I would have said any split would be bad, since I have not found a clear break between system and science. However, a break would allow the System entry to be expanded to include many different types of systems (web based, spatial databases, CAD, desktop, etc) and can include a discussion of other fields that make use of GISystems for their research.

Some helpful papers I found (via a quick google scholar search) are:

* MF Goodchild, 1992, Geographical Information Science

* DM Mark, 2003, Geographic information science: Defining the field

Before starting a new GIScience entry I would suggest putting up an outline here that details which topics will be moved to the Science entry and which should stay in this System definition. The outline can then be left for a while to allow people to comment on it. -- Rschulz 18:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

'Support breaking into Systems and Science pages. This article is too long and breaking it into Geographic Information Systems and Geographic Information Science would make two more valuable articles. How about we develop the outline for the Science page on the discussion section of the current Geographic Information Science page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geographic_information_science --Ray 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's very wrong to confuse geographic infomation systems with geographic information science. The former is an information systems that handle geospatial data, the latter is a scientific domain underlying or based on geographical infomation, with or without GIS. In other words, it is possible for one to conduct GISci without GIS.

[edit] stub?

Why is this article marked as a stub? -- Mikeblas 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not as of March 22, 2006. I see a section is marked as a sectional stub but that's it. --Ray 11:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From a total outsider (me) who is trying to do research into the computer software side of the field this article is confusing. Its unclear from the article whether there are accepted data standards or where you can go to get more information on those standards.Nickjost 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however the GIS field is so broad that it is difficult to create a concise article regarding the topic. I would suggest you explore the Object-relational database, the ESRI website, the vector and raster data model, geostatistics or spatial statistics, topology or geospatial topology, and the open-geospatial consortium (OGC) website. If you need any direction, or are having trouble finding information feel free to ask, I know lots on this subject.SCmurky 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of GIS in archaeology

Could someone look at article GIS in archaeology to see if material can be merged into this article. FloNight ^talk 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge of GIS in Archaelogy into this article. The GIS article is alread far too long. I suggest Wikifing the Archaelogy article. I am about to pull section of the GIS article out into it's own article. --Ray 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Degree Programs

Would anyone oppose pulling out the University Degree Programs out into a new article? The Geographic information system article is already too long and the University Degree Programs is a really just a list that has the potential to grow immensely. --Ray 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I pulled out the degree and certificate portion of this article and was working on it when a group of Wikipedia admins attacked. They were partially correct that such a long list of link does not belong on Wikipedia, however, they did not give me time to clean up the aritcle and just deleted all the info. It is no gone eveywhere except in the history of the GIS article. --Ray 00:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Side note on why the list of links should have never been here

[edit] Coyprightability?

Can raw GIS data be copyrighted? If so, how about maps (including vector graphics) created from said data? (I'm talking here about copyright held by the sources, not by the mapmaker that uses the data to create a map.) --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Raw? from what source? If the raw data is from the U.S. Federal Government (e.g. USGS, US Census Bureau,...), then it's in the public domain. State and local governments, as well as foreign governments, for the most part hold copyright to their data, as do of course private companies such as ESRI, Tele Atlas, and NAVTEQ. For maps created from copyrighted sources, if it's a derived work, combining sources in a new way, and other creative derivations, then I think it might be okay (but please cite the sources). In such cases, I prefer to upload the map in raster format. There was some debate about a map used on Jordanhill railway station, where it seemed to be "copied" or "traced" from Google Maps, but enough added creative input to it that think the map survived the debate. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is such data creative though? Creativity is necessary for copyrightability - see Feist v. Rural. Have there been any cases related to GIS data? Any common views? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think GIS data is copyrighted. Vector data is usually compiled from aerial photographs. Many creative decisions are involved deciding what level of detail to include in the vector data, how to setup the associated data attributes, classify things, etc. And with maps, some companies have been known to include artificial road segments or other artifacts that serve as watermarks for the map/data. But if you take the data, manipulate it, combine it with different sources, and express it in a new creative way, then I think it's okay (fitting with "If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.", from the case you cite). You just can't copy the particular creative expression, but simply the facts. What are the specifics in your situation? While I don't provide any legal opinions, maybe I can advise better. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See COUNTY OF SUFFOLK vs. Experian, and list of other court cases. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a specific situation - I think something about this should be added to the article. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, the article needs an overall good copyedit, but this would be a good topic to cover. When it comes to maps for Wikipedia, I mainly stick to maps of the U.S. and federal government data, though the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has some (not necessarily great detail) data for elsewhere. Sometimes, I'm willing to incorporate some state/local government data (provided, sources are cited, I do enough added-value creative manipulation and combine it with other sources, and upload it here as raster - no SVG). The arguments local governments use for copyrights are that they want to control redistribution of the data, to ensure it's accuracy, reliability, and integrity. Some local governments charge fees (sometimes hefty fees) to get the data. The arguments used by the Federal government (and others) for making GIS data public domain is that we already paid taxes for the creation of the data, and it's public information. In Britain, the EU, and other places, the laws are quite different, with those governments holding copyright. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears local government data is becomming more and more public domain, at least in California. San Diego and LA counties are now making their data freely available after the state attorny issued an opinion that such data should not be copyrighted.--Drewdowling 19:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shame on me, but I got most of the way through OMB_Circular_A-16 before I just got tired of reading the HTML version on the Whitehouse.gov site. I don't think anyone has created an article for National Spatial Data Infrastructure or Federal Geographic Data Committee yet which manage a lot of the interoperability of these spatial systems. I think this is somewhat relevant! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RWilliamKing (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Link cleanup

There are currently more than 50 links in the 'External Links' section. Most of these are no more useful than what a Google search might turn up. There appears to be a number of links to interactive map sites and GIS data sites. At least one link appears to be an aggregator site for news stories tagged "gis". Many of the links are poorly described (or not described at all) and several are out of alphabetical order. The section is entirely too cluttered to be of much use to anybody.

GIS is a broad topic, and it certainly could benefit from a number of links to outside references, but many, if not most, of the current links should either be deleted or spun off into a separate article, such as the Geographic data article.

Please look through the links and delete any that are not essential to the article. If there are any disputed deletions, discuss them here.

Justin 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I deleted approximately 30 external links. Most of these were to commercial sites with data or services for sale, sites of limited regional interest, news aggregator sites which were choked with ads, job posting sites, newsgroups and wikis with very little traffic, free geocoding sites, air photo sites, and online mapping sites.

If I deleted anything inappropriately, please discuss it here. I suspect I didn't take out enough, so review what's left and delete what shouldn't be there. This should not become a directory of any and all sites related to maps and GIS everywhere around the world.

Justin 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect capitalisation

The article started out correctly with "A Geographic Information System" but went on to incorrectly capitalise it (and Geographic Information Science), although the indefinite article clearly shows that this should not be capitalised. This is not like Global Positioning System or the Internet, where i'm all in favor of capitalisation because they are proper nouns. --Espoo 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a typo in "Data Creation

Modern GIS technologies rn digital information..."

[edit] Government Uses

I have a tip that Northrop Grumman, while not an agency, is using GIS for something. I just thought it would be useful for the citation needed in "Relating information from different sources" if someone wants to look into it and narrow it down to an actual webpage.

By the way that section seems kind of random for "Techniques used in GIS". To me "Relating information from different sources" equates to miscellaneous, and that’s what the content seems to be. The word Relating seems to be an operating word, but it hasn't been operated.

[edit] POV in THE GEODATABASE - By Ryan Pecharka, GIS Coordinator

I thought someone would have noticed this by now, so maybe I am incorrect. I hesitate to say anything at all because of my obvious connection to the subject. However, the addition made by Ryangis reads to me like marketing copy. Expressions such as "Now more than ever before" and "like never before" do not sound very encyclopedic. Also, other systems have had the functionality for years to "set the transparency in the [raster] file properties to a desired percentage." Anyone else notice this? -AndrewDressel 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better now, thanks to Mjrmtg. -AndrewDressel 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an existing geodatabase article that treats the subject in a more general manner. I replaced the existing content (which only dealt with ESRI's implementation) with a link to the main article. Rschulz 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)