I had a chance to hear Ann Hale Miglarese, the newly minted chairperson of the National Geospatial Advisory Comittee (NGAC). She provided the nominal mission of NGAC as follows: The committee will provide advice and provide recommendations on federal geospatial policy and management issues and provide a forum to convey views representative of partners in the geospatial community. This committee will help provide advice and perspectives from a broad range of our partner orgs as we continue to develop new ways to utilize geospatial information for the benefit of the public.

But Ms. Miglarese had a very interesting observation: "In the future, we need to find a way to partner with companies that are spending $400 or $500 million dollars a year," referring to Microsoft, Google, and NAVTEQ. "What we have done for years and years are now coming down to the consumer. That casual consumer will drive many of our policies. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee is a place where that dialog can occur and about what we should be debating and how to grow the NSDI."

In speaking about having a common operating picture and an available imagery data store, Mark Eustis of the Department of Homelands Security’s Geospatial Management Office said during his presentation at the ESRI FED UC meeting that, "the most common operating pictures in the world are in Microsoft and Google."

Is there something a bit "off kilter" when federal agencies talk about using Google Earth (GE) or Microsoft Virtual Earth (VE) as their standard for a common operating picture (COP)? The reliance on a privately funded base map and imagery database for mission critical applications in homeland security and emergency management draws into question just how much Google or Microsoft have assumed the role of a public trust. In fact, the money that either company is investing in developing geospatial data for their mapping platforms runs into the tens of millions. If the market has spoken, in this case the federal government, then the market doesn't see any conflict using a system that is essentially funded by advertising. Are we not rendering The National Map as obsolete and do federal agencies differentiate the substance of each? Is the fact that GE or VE has become more accessible, easy to use, and more comprehensive drawn a comparison with federally-funded base maps that are sometimes bogged down with too many constituent requirements?

The idea that private companies have become a public trust is not new. Indeed, Microsoft Windows could be considered a public trust, or a world trust, since so many of the world’s computers run Windows. But is this case different? Agencies buy the Windows operating system software and assume a level of support from the vendor. In the case of GE or VE some federal agencies are relying on an open and free platform in which to ingest data. Licensing of APIs or enterprise editions was not mentioned and thus was not entirely clear from Eustis' remarks. But GE and VE are now so ingrained as providing one of the most widely used COPs that agencies may want to address some of the long-term ramifications.

CSC is launching their Location Object Field Tracking (LOFT) technology, designed for military and defense applications, at the Amgen Tour of California this week. According to an article in Washington Technology CSC Chief Technologist Dan Munyan says, "LOFT delivers a four-dimension, contextual, Web 2.0 interface through combining the bird’s eye view perspective of GPS with associated historical attributes and the context of real-time information on location, motion and status." The LOFT Tracker for the bike tour shows a map-based, real time route track of the participants. The CSC website is employing a Google Maps interface while the Amgen Tour of California website is showing the race using a Yahoo!Maps interface. Hmm.