Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)

With the advent of the Geospatial web and Web 2.0 technology innovations, the opportunity for the public to contribute geographic data is almost endless. This new trend seems to be good news for those geographers calling for a more democratic process in creating and accessing maps, but it also raises many questions about the impact of volunteered information to the maps themselves. In the two articles by Michael Goodchild and David Tulloch, implications of spatial data provided by the public, within the wider phenomenon of user-generated content, are discussed in terms of both developments within the discipline and also to mapping in general.

In Goodchild’s article, “Citizen as sensors: the world of volunteered geography”, the term, Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) is posed to describe data provided by the public to services such as Google Maps, Google Earth, Open Street Map or Wikimapia. In this context, he tries to understand what drives people to volunteer information on the web and make it public; as well discussing issues around accuracy, privacy, and the impact to conventional data sources. Upon reviewing the examples of VGI, and the enabling technologies such as geotagging web content or making data using GPS, he emphasizes that VGI is filing a gap left by poorly funded mapping institutions. But while it might take the pressure of agencies, the motivation for contributors are only guessed at suggesting personal satisfaction of seeing the results or just plan self-promotion. On the same note, is the disparity between data derived from volunteers and that of mapping agencies. He points out, that mapping agencies have strict standards and methods for producing data, as well as cartographers with documented qualifications. On the contrary VGI, is often offered without references or citing of any authority, except for the assertion of its creator. But, is the pure sense of VGI egalitarianism dwarf the question of authenticity? Well, as Goodchild addresses, it is only democratic to those being able to access it with the pricey equipment and good broadband access. Although the digital divide appears to be shrinking, it still exists to much of the world’s populations. So location and place is important even on the web, as it can divide your access to the web. This brings forth one of Goodchild’s most interesting points in this article, is that perhaps the power of VGI is to address local activities in locations that go unnoticed by traditional forms of media. In this light, maybe VGI is best served as a new voice for the local rather than a replacement for underfunded mapping labs.

With lots of questions around VGI looming in its wake, Tulloch in his article “Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games” dives into VGI’s relationship to Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS). Drawing on two VGI case studies he addresses how VGI and PPGIS intertwine in some ways and diverge in others. The emphasis of PPGIS tends to be on participation, with the intent of contributing to a specific outcome that most often is aimed at increasing collaboration on GIS projects or empowering members of the public through their participation in the mapping process. PPGIS derives from both academics and practitioners of GIS, with a growing body of literature, and a defining language. On the contrary, VGI has largely been based on individuals creating data on their own initiative for informal purposes. VGI’s body of literature remains to be seen as well as the vocabulary it draws on. He suggests that they both rely on people investigating locations that are important to them. But, not all cases that could be viewed as VGI examples would fit nicely into the spectrum of PPGIS. As his example of Second Life, an urban planning video game hardly resembles a GIS. As well, VGI can simply be based on providing spatial information, but not the other elements of PPGIS, such as decision-making, or empowering for social change. Ultimately he suggests that VGI revolves more around applications and information, where as PPGIS concerns itself with process and outcomes. Although different, the article concludes that VGI could benefit from being aligned with a more defined PPGIS, as it finds ground in academia, as well PPGIS could benefit from the innovation and energy found in emerging areas of research. To tie it back to Goodchild’s article, aligning it with the ideals of PPGIS, could move it forward in it’s use as a voice for communities that are largely unheard.

As in many young areas of inquiry, the authors only offer glimpses of how VGI may take shape within the viewpoint of PPGIS or just floating around the World Wide Web. We seem to know for now what it is, or could be but with technology changing rapidly, and fundamentally driving VGI, the possibilities are too vast to try and pin down. For now, the wake of VGI, has barely hit the “sweet spot” and we need to hang on a little longer to see possibly where it will take us.