Public Enemy #1 remains cost. All the [true] Web 2.0 sharing technology in the world will not provide us with data, if that data remains unfriendly to any organization's ability to obtain the data...

I think Joe's astute in recognizing, however, that there are alternate technologies that come at a lower cost and can be implemented for other uses -- like GPS -- to aid in mapping information in near real-time. 'We as sensor' is not a bad approach for some of the more essential crisis management information, in relation to conveying what-they-know to people-who-need-to-know-now.

Satellite and aerial -- that's the area I don't concern myself with as a practicality for use until assessment after-the-fact is what we're after. Besides, costs there completely prohibit its use, let alone that the technology isn't rapid enough with current systems (for a big-picture result, that is -- in more localized and situational uses, like UAV's being used to map-out areas in the immediate for firefighters and emergency crews -- yes, it's practical for now).

But even then... How much will companies charge for this new-found data, from the backs of those willing to supply locative information from their PERSONAL devices? Will telecommunications companies attempt to please shareholders, or bridge gaps for the greater good, knowing that it's the people who buy-into plans that are supplying the data, not the other way around? Which side of that moral fence will they reside? And will they follow standards -- or will they attempt to continue to lock-in systems with proprietary wares and formats that undermine the ability of any organization to rapidly respond?

There's so many issues that people just finally need to conceed and get right -- that I fear it'll take another several years just to accomplish these incredibly valueable steps toward crisis management information gained from geospatial datas.