Krystal Grow (were her parents chemical specialists in crystal growth??!) writing for the Gatehouse News Service is completely wrong to write "GIS.. is comparable to CAD design systems or Google's virtual maps." She is also writing about Pembroke's lack of "embracing this technology" (said by a town assessor).
I am afraid that the writer of this article really shows her ignorance of the functions of the different technologies she mentions.
She also writes that "Pembroke has yet to get on board with this latest technology." Excuse me, Grow, but where have you had your head stuck in the sand? GIS for pc's has been around since about 1993 with the advent of pc ArcInfo. Is that what you call the latest technology?
GIS is not comparable to CAD. CAD can store accurate line information for municipal or engineering drawings, but that's all it is - line information with no geographic meaning and no attribute information and no topology.
Google maps is not GIS. Yes, at the moment the world is all riding agog on the hype that Google maps has started, but from a geographer's and planner's perspective the possibilities in Google maps is very limited.
GIS allows the qualified and experienced geographer/cartographer/spatial analyst to do more than just mapping or looking at things ("Oh wow! There's our swimming pool, Janet. Brilliant, eh?"). GIS allows sophisticated spatial anlysis; it allows exploring "what if.." geogrpahical questions; it allows extraordinary spatial modelling; and can develop intricate visualizations based on analysis between data layers; it can do an anlysis between various layers and come up with the best location for a potential new Bank Branch.
Google can provide nice views of land/man-made features of interest to the viewer; it can provide simple routing from one point to another in a limited way; and can allow push-pins to be inserted to later locate points of interest. It can do other things, like fly-throughs. But that's it.
And this is what the hype is based on - instant gratification, which is what the advertising world has been thrusting upon humanity since the advent of television. Talking about advertising, Google maps earns it huge revenues from advertising while you are looking at a mountain, or airport.
Let me give a simple example. I was consulting for a city on Vancouver Island, BC, Canada, some years ago. The GIS database that I had designed, acquired and built had many layers, most of which had line or polygon topology. The planner came to me and asked me if I could locate, identify and map all the residentilally zoned properties that were within 20m of a body of fresh water (stream, river, or lake). The job was completed, with the resultant maps and relevant property ownership databases (in Excel format) delivered to her about half an hour after her request. She was flabberghasted, to say the least. A similar exercise, three years previously, had taken three municipal CAD workers 6 months to complete manually she told me.
The point of the example is to ask, is such a simple spatial query able to be done using Google maps or a CAD? And the answer, in my experience is a definitie "No". There is no topology in CAD or Google that allows for such simple queries.
In conclusion, I wish newspaper writers would consult real geographic experts when wanting to wax eloquently about that which they know nothing for an easily misled public.