Why are academics using Google Earth imagery instead of...

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

myteams.dot.ga.gov (88)
planetgs.com (78)
www.thegisforum.com (68)
www.spatialsciences.org.au (32)
manomano.livejournal.com (31)

Our Points

Tuesday, February 26. 2008

Why are academics using Google Earth imagery instead of...

I was totally into yesterday's NPR story about a group of researchers in walking the route of a new road from a remote village to the big city of Iquitos. It was all rough terrain and jungle and the idea was to explore the impact of the road on deforestation and human health, including the spread of malaria. The one statement that stopped me dead:

Pan has brought the only maps they have — Google Earth photos from 2003.

Later researcher Pan notes:

"I learned that the parts of the road that look on the satellite image as cleared are actually not as cleared as it appears. And there's not as many communities as we had thought there might be."

I have what are perhaps naive questions. Surely there are newer images available? Why then are they using old images from four years ago? Is there no funding to acquire newer imagery? If there is no or little funding did the researchers at least ask for a break on price from commercial providers?

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in Google, Remote Sensing at 12:29 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

After working in a small GIS Lab for a small university, I would say that the issues is funding. Newer, better imagery is cost prohibitive on most small research grants.

#1 Brook Lowry on 2008-02-26 12:53 (Reply)

Adena, this is when I come to realize how much you don't work in the real world.

#2 Daniel (Link) on 2008-02-26 17:20 (Reply)

No, there's no money in academia.

Those researchers probably spent their money on airfare, meals, and a cheap GPS or two, and cobbled together a map and a plan using freeware and Google.

This is one of the reasons why the benificent Googlers do what they do...to support free growth of good ideas.

Sure, you can get Landsat data for a few hundred bucks, but if there's free DigitalGlobe already there...why buy?

Naive? I would hope your questions were put as a disingenuous way to compel dialog?

#3 Archie Belaney on 2008-02-26 19:20 (Reply)

Ok now, I know photography can be very expensive, but I think any of us who work in GIS knows there are many other sources of photography than Google. Even if you can not afford to buy top of the line photos, you can download (for free) some pretty good ones. Surely they could have, at least, pulled up one of the MANY photos out there that you can view that was more recent and done a comparative analysis to the older photos. Everyone is talking as if they had absolutely no other option. I won't knock what they did, maybe they just didn't know better, but we can't all act like there was no other alternative.

#4 Heather on 2008-02-27 08:24 (Reply)

The implication that there are MANY more recent and accessible images is not reasonable for that part of the world. Alas, it is not even reasonable for parts of the United States. Imagery in parts of South America also suffers from significant cloud cover problems (don't know about this specific case) and, in a number of countries, sensitivity by the local military with respect to access. From the tenor of the NPR article, it sounds more like a proof of concept study to justify a subsequent grant proposal and, as such, is not likely to have the funds for more current imagery.

#4.1 Duane on 2008-02-27 09:23 (Reply)

Actually, I think everyone is missing the point. What this article actually points out is how little regard some fields of study have for geographers and geoscientists. This is a geography project, plain and simple.

But look at the composition of their team: two infectious-diseases experts, a physician who is also a “former ultimate Frisbee player” (real important skill set that they will need) and a biostatistician who is a “former head cheerleader” (another important skill set that they will need).

They are doing geographic research yet they don’t even include a geographer.

No wonder they are using Google Earth maps that are 4 plus years out of date. They probably thought, “Just go on the web. After all, it’s ‘JUST’ a picture of the earth.”

They probably didn’t even contact a geographer or geoscientist, who would know the importance of getting and using good imagery. Someone who would have/could have assisted them on getting good imagery.

#5 Woody on 2008-02-27 17:41 (Reply)

+1 Woody. I doubt those researchers have the foggiest idea how to go about looking for the best imagery. And while I do agree academic projects are poor in general, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health work is probably a LOT better funded than the average geography dept. research.

#5.1 Raj (Link) on 2008-02-27 22:06 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your opinion of the quality of Google's "new" U.S. dataset?

	November '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30