Potential Contributions and Challenges of VGI for Conventional Topographic Base-Mapping Programs

This chapter introduces the context and characteristics implicit in conventional digital topographic mapping programs and then contrasts them to important underlying assumptions regarding volunteered geographic information. It defines the term “authoritative data” and challenges its use in the context of comprehensive topographic base-mapping programs. After examining prevailing cultures and assumptions that must be adjusted and workflows that must be modified to manage risk and make the best use of VGI in this role, case studies from the state of Victoria, Australia; the United States Geological Survey; and TomTom describe the early experiences of conventional mapping organizations in this regard. The author contends that VGI is not the ultimate solution to all geospatial data updating and maintenance challenges now faced by mapping organizations. However, it does represent an important potential channel of such updates that needs to be investigated seriously and implemented responsibly.

[1]  Margaret Martonosi,et al.  Location-based trust for mobile user-generated content: applications, challenges and implementations , 2008, HotMobile '08.

[2]  Frederic L. Kirgis.  UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL , 1983 .

[3]  Paul A. Zandbergen,et al.  Accuracy of iPhone Locations: A Comparison of Assisted GPS, WiFi and Cellular Positioning , 2009 .

[4]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Advancing geoinformation science for a changing world , 2011 .

[5]  Guillaume Touya,et al.  Quality Assessment of the French OpenStreetMap Dataset , 2010, Trans. GIS.

[6]  Stéphane Roche,et al.  GeoWeb and crisis management: issues and perspectives of volunteered geographic information , 2011, GeoJournal.

[7]  Derrick G. Kourie,et al.  Challenges for quality in volunteered geographical information , 2011 .

[8]  M. Haklay.  How Good is Volunteered Geographical Information? A Comparative Study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey Datasets , 2010 .

[9]  P. van der Molen,et al.  E - government and E - land administration as an example : The Netherlands , 2007 .

[10]  Nathalie Abadie,et al.  Specifications for User Generated Spatial Content , 2011, AGILE Conf..

[11]  Christian Heipke,et al.  Crowdsourcing geospatial data , 2010 .

[12]  Axel Bruns,et al.  Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage , 2008 .

[13]  David Coleman,et al.  Volunteered Geographic Information: the nature and motivation of produsers , 2009, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[14]  S. Gorman,et al.  Volunteered Geographic Information and Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief: A Case Study of the Haitian Earthquake , 2010 .

[15]  Doris Dransch,et al.  Assessing Volunteered Geographic Information for Rapid Flood Damage Estimation , 2009 .

[16]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the World of Web 2.0 , 2007, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[17]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise , 2009, J. Locat. Based Serv..

[18]  Vyron Antoniou,et al.  How Many Volunteers Does it Take to Map an Area Well? The Validity of Linus’ Law to Volunteered Geographic Information , 2010 .

[19]  S. Schade,et al.  Quality Of Geographic Information Patchworks , 2008 .

[20]  Yvan Bédard,et al.  SPATIAL DATA UNCERTAINTY IN THE VGI WORLD: GOING FROM CONSUMER TO PRODUCER , 2019 .