Many people out there insist that Google Maps and Google Earth is killing the GIS industry. I had a number of students circulate that idea with me, always wondering if there is still a future for GIS. In a short simple answer, Google Maps/Earth is not a GIS, and GIS will be around for the foreseeable future.
Google Earth Logo
Before we begin, let us make a distinction. Google Maps and Google Earth are not one of the same. Google Maps is a web-based application that allows people to view maps on a web page. There are three main features Google Maps offers:
- Users can search by location (i.e. for restaurants within their current map view).
- Users can ask for directions in a multimodal transportation system (i.e. driving, public transport, etc).
- Users can add their own data to the map, but only if they can master the Google Maps API (not a hard task, but not something the average person will do).
Google Earth on the other hand is a desktop application that provides the first two functionalities (search and direction), as well as an easy way to add your own data, one point at a time, to your map. There are of course some more capabilities present, like measurements of paths and the ability to upload and share your data with other Google Earth users. But Google Earth is not only what most people user. There are 2 more editions.
- Google Earth Pro
Provides some data import functionality from existing GIS data sources (shapefiles, etc) and spreadsheets. - Google Earth Enterprise
The infrastructure that power Google Earth and Google maps at your fingertips, to create your own versions of them. The main advantage is data management of terrabytes of data, with 2 dimensional web maps and 3 dimensional globes.
All of Google’s offerings in the arena of geographic data are impressive to say the least, and worthy of attention. But are they truly GIS?
If one wants to define GIS, one needs to run back to definitions used throughout the years by academics and software publishers alike. Leaving the issue of people running the system and organizational contexts that build the system in a certain way, GIS is defined by the following components:
- Data: The very basic component is of course measurements. Without them, a GIS cannot function. Undoubtedly, Google has made data available in an unprecedented way.
- Representation: Measurements need to be represented in a format that the computer understands in order to operate on. Google Maps/Earth do have this. The famous KML format is one example on how Google does it.
- Operations: This is where Google Maps/Earth get a bit left behind. Granted, there is the search functionality and route finding operations, but is this the only thing a GIS can do? Out of the box, most GIS offerings have operations for slope calculation, linear referencing, buffering, and many more. Google Maps/Earth lack this functionality at their current state.
- Transformations: In this case, we do not simply refer to transformations from one data format to another, but also transformations from simple measurements out in the world, to the results of an analytical process (a report if you may). The pathway from measurement to data to information is not clear, and unfortunately not present in many cases.
If one uses then one of the commonly accepted definitions of GIS, one cannot easily place Google Maps/Earth in this realm. This is not to say that they do not partially provide functionalities that a GIS would, but rather that they are limited and not the whole picture. A pollution dispersion problem would not be solved by Google Maps/Earth. A study of the distribution of populations among some characteristic cannot be rigorously performed (visually perhaps, but can anyone report error numbers visually?).
I therefore suggest that Google Maps/Earth, as well as offerings by other vendors, like Virtual Earth, Bing Maps, Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest should not be called GIS, but rather Mapping Information Systems, or even Networked Mapping Tools. Partially a GIS, but lacking the full functionality needed.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Related posts:
“Lack functionality in their current state”. But if it is regarded as an example of disruptive technology this is a key characteristic to watch for. Disruptive technologies are dismissed as being deficient, but as they add functions and capability they eventually become a candidate and there is a sudden switch.
So while they may not be a full GIS yet, if there is a business case for Google the missing functions will be added soon.
As for adding your own data. It seems that its already easier in GE or GM that any other GIS package. You only need a web browser or free add-in, its centrally stored if required and its easy. Consider how hard it is to set up a GIS database to let user add points (Points! what about lines and polygons) from the web. Open Street Map seems to be the only common option.
Kimo,
I agree with you. The web-based mapping applications out there, as well Google Earth and Virtual Earth (and WorldWind for that matter) are indeed disruptive technologies. And perhaps they will reach the point of indeed competing with the traditional GIS at some point in time. But for now, to assume that GE or VE are GIS offerings is damaging the reputation of GIS. I have heard people ask my students why the learn GIS if GE is so easy to use. Those are not one and the same, and don’t even support the same functionality. They indeed both server a purpose, and GIS may have to fear the GEs of the world, but for now, GIS is distinct and safe I believe.
I fully agree Michalis, and will be discussing this issue in my intermediate GIS course next term. Great to have stumbled on to your blog, which is terrific and I w ill be following via RSS feed!! See you soon on the “Voicing Climate Concerns” front!
So nice to see you here Dawn. I am happy you stumbled upon me. I already follow you on Twitter myself.