Glow Farm by TahoeSunsets; a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)

This week the government announced it’s plan for solving the upcoming energy crisis: More nuclear power stations. A list of proposed sites was published and various spokespeople were extolling the green credentials of nuclear power. Eh? New one on me. The usual arguments centre on plenty of cheap power, almost limitless amounts; rarely does one hear that nuclear power is the new green icon. It’s true that nuclear power wins hands down when compared to coal or other fossil fuels in terms of carbon dioxide output but that is to look at one part of the picture in isolation. There are a few other factors which need to be discussed.

Firstly, there is the safety aspect. There is some interesting reading on this topic from the industry themselves who are quick to point out there have only ever been two major accidents: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Fair enough, a small number but not insignificant as anyone who remembers either incident will recall.  Yes, incidents are few but when they occur they can be very severe with international reach, unlike incidents at other forms of power station. Add to this the higher incidence of childhood leukemia near nuclear plants, Sellafield reprocessing plant for example, and it is hard to say that nuclear power is clean or green.

Secondly, there is the waste. There are still no plans for dealing with the amounts of waste generated and it was only in 2005 that a government report was recommending various forms of burial as the way forward. So nuclear power may be considered green if we gloss over the fact that it generates toxic waste which cannot easily be dealt with and has enormous potential for environmental harm.

And finally, the cost. Building new nuclear power stations is not cheap, running them is also not cheap but the real cost comes with decommissioning. British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) are already suffering from the costs of decommissioning the UK’s current plants so the idea that a commercial enterprise can run nuclear power stations as a profit making venture seems ill founded. The tax-payer will end up subsidising nuclear power in one way or another; if private companies run the plants then a proportion of this revenue can be seen to be flowing into the hands of private individuals.

So, I am not objecting to this latest proposal out of irrational hatred of nuclear power, rather I am objecting to the ’spin’ that is being put on this initiative and the way in which only part of the story is being put forward by the government. It’s true, at current rates of consumption we will need more energy and with dwindling stocks of fossil fuels, we need other options. There is also the greenhouse effect and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But these need to be weighed against other issues and suddenly leaping from a no-nuclear standpoint to a pro-nuclear standpoint, wrapping up the shift in policy in pseudo-green credentials smacks of more New Labour double talk, especially when taken in conjunction with the proposed streamlining of the planning system as being all about empowering local communities (rather than steam-rollering opposition, which seems to be more like it).

On the subject of the planning system overhaul and the proposed nuclear developments, Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, said in the Guardian: “Bypassing the planning system in this way is bad news for democracy and for the environment. A key democratic right is for the public to have a say on how their area is developed. Decision-making about where we get our energy from, and the long-term costs associated with nuclear, should be opened up to more accountability, not less.” Indeed. We need an open and honest debate about these issues with solid scientific advice as the basis and public participation. But I was forgetting, this government wouldn’t recognise good scientific advice or what to do with it anyway, as Dr Evan Harris MP (Lib Dem, Oxford West & Abingdon) most eloquently pointed out in the Guardian.

No related posts.

“No problem, you’ll just owe us for the remainder of the contract” came the response. Huh?

“We’ve been with you for years, we’d just like to leave” we pressed.

“Yes, but you have an 18 month contract which you will need to complete…”

Now I have some experience of such ridiculousness, having formerly been a customer of the devil spawn that is British Telecom; they once tried to tell me that I would need to pay a cancellation fee for moving house, which received short shrift, my previous house move having counted as a renewed contract in their eyes rather than simply a different location for my previous longstanding contract (a very similar argument to this current Orange debarcle… ). They refused however to acknowledge mis-selling a broadband contract or refund some exhorbitant charges, insisting that they had fulfilled their stated notification requirement by writing to some random .bt email address about excessive usage rather than the email address I provided them with; conveniently, any recordings of the salesperson stating this had been ‘lost’ and of course, being a phone based contract, there was no paperwork to speak of. BT will never recieve a penny from me ever again; I refuse to deal with such companies.

Anyway, I digress into another tale of woe with a telecommunications company (ie there a trend here, given experiences with BT, Virgin and now Orange…?).

Back to the case in hand and Orange are insisting that despite our long-standing patronage, we must pay up the end of our contracts. Now there is a lot of dicussion online on this topic (eg here and here) but there does not seem to be a consensus. I appreciate the argument from the phone companies that folks just can’t leave contracts early but there needs to be some form of escape, especially in rural areas where there is simply little coverage (remember 99% coverage means coverage of the population rather than geographical area ie big cities and some other bits). And the idea that I would choose my house based on mobile phone coverage is simply laughable!

So, to conclude, I do hope Orange show some decency and accept that sometimes people sometimes need to leave for good reason. And longstanding loyalty deserves some recognition. My partner and I are not trying to profit by our moving network, we simply want to move to a network that works where we live. The saga continues…

No related posts.

Slides on Slideshare:

Presentation on Vimeo:

Strode College Archaeology Conference 09 – Paul Cripps. from Henry Rothwell on Vimeo.

Paul Cripps of Wessex Archaeology (www.wessexarch.co.uk) speaks on the subject of infomatics, HER/SMR storage and access, and covers a considerable amount of ground concerning information technology in relation to archaeological data.
Well worth a look.

Related posts:

1. It’s been a long time…
2. The wonders of technology
3. Awards for the Presentation of Heritage Research, 2007

Word getting above it's station...

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Time’s up for the Ordnance Survey…?
2. KML comes of age

If you like these Avebury panoramas, do also check out Pete Glastonbury’s website where he has more from around Avebury also Stonehenge.

Also related to the Avebury landscape is my masters dissertation, now available on Slideshare. This goes into more detail regarding the landscape and the ways in which people in prehistory interacted with it, with some ideas regarding how the complex of sites and monuments came to be.

Related posts:

1. Secrets of Stonehenge

No related posts.

The summer solstice this year was apparently the biggest since the exclusion zone was lifted nine years ago, with access again managed by English Heritage: The BBC reported 36,500 revellers in attendance although given the way in which people were being counted, the real figure is almost certainly lower than this (counting was done by stewards on entry to the stones, so as people travelled back and forth to the campsite, they were presumably counted more than once).

The mood of those attending was largely good and I for one had many interesting and varied conversations with a variety of folks and even enjoyed a bit of dancing inside the bluestone circle, the latter not being something one can do everyday! There were folks from all over Europe and further afield and it is great to see so many people coming to see the event. I walked in from Durrington (avoiding the traffic carnage!) and couldn’t help but be moved by the people streaming in towards the circle from all directions, making me think of our ancestors who would have travelled along similar lines for soltices past: A truly inspiration feeling and one which really provides a sense of place.

The druids were there to welcome the dawn and the traveller community were well represented as ever. I really love the way in which Stonehenge represents so many different things to so many people from such diverse backgrounds: There are few events in the modern world which attract such a variety of people from all walks of life. Of course, there was a small contingent of ignorant yoof causing trouble, particularly at the buses in the morning, but this is the way of most such events these days, and it was more selfish, drunken bad behaviour than anything serious. I guess this is simply the way of the world these days: Even Glastonbury is no longer the preserve of the caring sharing hippy… And it is this minority which gives cause to the police presence…

The police, despite being present in numbers, were largely restrained although their heavy presence at the entrance, including dogs, and the use of metal-detectors and searches was intrusive to say the least but again, some level of intrusion seems to be the norm at any kind of public gathering these days. Thankfully, they were all wearing their ID numbers unlike at the recent G20 protests even if most of them had obviously forgetten how to smile, at least on the way in where intimidation was the order of the day: all the police I chatted to and saw around the circle were actually quite jovial, picking up on the good vibes from the crowd. I did hear a funny conversation between a visitor and one of the search teams as we passed through the security barriers which revealed they weren’t quite sure what they were looking for! I would guess from the police comments reported in the Guardian that illegal drugs were top of the list, hence the dogs but a tip for next year would be to watch out for large flares, at least one of which was sneaked in and caused mayhem in the circle when lit amongst the crowds…

The much talked about spy-in-the-sky seemed to be largely ineffective, with limited battery life (it kept disappearing, presumably for new batteries) and the laser-pointers aimed at it by the crowds can’t have helped it’s surveillance operations! From a geek point of view, I was rather jealous of the pilot: what a job flying such an amazing machine around (even if it does represent the rather repulsive surveillance obsession the authorities seem so keen on). I guess this was more of an intimidation tool than anything else, a bit like the zero-tolerance policy towards drugs which was patently untenable, much of the crowd enjoying, ahem, herbal cigarettes judging by the smells around the site.

The stewards did a fair job of keeping folks from climbing the trilithons but seemed resigned to letting people clamber on the smaller stones, a marked change from previous years and one which really ought to be remedied: The stones are not just important archaeological remains and of religious significance to some but are also home to a wide range of lichens which, taking years to grow, are very sensitive to damage.

One major problem, as in previous years, were the transport links. The roads became impassable and the police response was simply to close them and turn people away. The view in the morning was one of carnage with abandoned cars littering the surrounding roads where people trapped in the logjam had simply left their cars and walked to the henge. Yes, it was possible to get a bus between the event and Salisbury but the bus company certainly made a tidy profit, charging £6 for a single and £9 for a return ticket. Given that other similar sized (free) events such as the BBC One Big Weekend in Swindon earlier this year seem to manage the volumes of people and traffic, is it really that hard to implement some way of getting people to and from the event and ensure there are adequate numbers of stewards in the right places…? But of course, the difference being the solstice is an event which the authorities really don’t like like or want to happen, memories of the 1980’s festivals still influencing decision making. The use of tactics such as the bold statements about zero-tolerance to drugs accompanied by searches and sniffer dogs, the use of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, rumours of police horses being deployed for the first time since the Battle of the Beanfield and the alcohol restrictions, not to mention the rather under-resourced management of essentials such as the roads and public transport in favour of large number of uniformed officers on patrol all suggest the authorities would rather we simply weren’t there. Lessen the enjoyment and perhaps folks won’t return or be put off in the first place. Appreciated, English Heritage and the National Trust don’t want visitor numbers to increase but I for one am not keen on these rather insidious means of discouraging people, especially when all this security still fails to stop idiots bringing large flares into the event.

So, overall a wonderful experience once again but I have to wonder what will happen in the years to come…

Related posts:

1. Stonehenge world heritage status at risk as tunnel plan is shelved – Times Online

It is indeed true that uneven free entry will encourage visitors to visit some museums over and above others but this is not an argument for having entry fees. I have noticed when visiting another of my haunts, the Natural History Museum, that the demographic of visitors has changed in recent years. Many more people in total including more children and families in attendance rather than just obviously middle-class, middle-aged couples. This is a good thing; everyone should be given the opportunity to visit informative places like museums, they should not be restricted to those with disposable income. Far too often, heritage attractions charge an entry fee based on some rather spurious figure in the order of £6-10 for an adult. So, for a family day out, a typical 2 adult + 2 children family are looking at a not insubstantial sum and for those on low incomes, this may just be too much. If we want people to engage with heritage attractions, including museums, we need to scrap or reduce entrance fees as much as possible.

Related posts:

1. National Museums Liverpool Blog
2. Free our data: New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey’s copyright control @ SocietyGuardian.co.uk

The concept of service provision…?

For a while now, I’ve been getting frustrated with the Ordnance Survey. Not in terms of the data they provide, it is of the utmost quality, rather the prohibitive costs associated with using their data, the way in which it is delivered and the draconian licensing arrangements (which the OS themselves recognise).Yes, there is Googlemaps but the quality just isn’t there for cartographic work and I have argued previously that the OS should improve access to their map data and cut through the nightmare of red tape that is OS licensing.

There have been small signs of the OS bending to public pressure from campaigns such as Free Our Data and input from influential figures like Ed Parsons (of Google and formerly the OS) when they recently did a u-turn and re-enabled access to OpenSpace from a KML based application by Gavin Brock. This application allows OS data from OpenSpace to be viewed in GoogleEarth and was deemed contary to the OpenSpace developer licensing agreement and hence disabled. Of course, the initial response of the OS was to threaten (remember the Met Police crime map fiasco?) then block, then bow to public pressure and make excuses after Ed Parsons blogged about it and a large contingent of interested parties from all walks of life who found the application useful bombarded the OS with complaints (but note, the OS still shrouded this u-turn in legalise, denied it was their fault and blamed Google!).  Hardly fostering innovation through effective use of licensing.

Recently, it emerged that some Historic Environment Records (or Sites and Monuments Records as they used to be called) have started to demand that users of their spatial data have current OS licenses, presumably due to the old chestnut of OS ‘derived’ data and their need to comply with their OS license agreements: Pretty much anything that has been captured against any OS map base is arguably derived data and hence OS copyright and therefore cannot be reused under the terms  of OS license agreements. So, to obtain archaeological spatial data created and maintained at tax-payers expense it is necessary (in some areas) to buy or obtain an OS license for the area in question. Similar to the news that some local authorities are charging for Local Plan maps , this is a more close to home example where the OS is affecting the cultural heritage sector through it’s ridiculous licensing restrictions. Whilst most academics can access OS data through Edina licenses on an institutional subscription basis, everyone else must jump through hoops and pay to ensure they have appropriate licensing in place else face the wrath of the OS. And this must be done every time there is a need to obtain archaeological spatial data from those authorities where the Local Authority GIS/legal teams have interpreted OS licensing in such a way as to demand a current OS license. Incidentally, this is by no means all Local Authorities, highlighting how the complexity of the OS licensing agreements leads to inconsistent interpretation and implementation.

A viable alternative…?

But now it appears a saviour may be on the horizon, a mapping provider with an alternative view on spatial data. The UKMap from the GeoInformation group is a resource to rival that provided by the OS. Not only are they looking to develop delivery services based around OGC standards (WMS/WFS) suitable for dynamic inclusion in my GIS, but they have stepped away from the ridiculous, convaluted licensing models used by the OS. Yes, the OS have developed OpenSpace in response to GoogleMaps but this is explicitly for non-commercial use, not a means of delivering data to customers.

“The GeoInformation® Group, publishers of UKMap® the new large-scale topographic mapping and address database for the UK, today announces a new strategic partnership with STAR-APIC, a world leader in delivering and managing mapping databases. The partnership will see STAR-APIC build and maintain the online delivery service for UKMap. The system that has been developed also offers the capability of delivering UKMap data via the Internet conforming to Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) web mapping WMS and WFS standards. The system is designed to offer traditional file based data delivery with the requirement for online delivery expected to increase through time.” (from the UKMap news pages).

And as regards the data available, if you thought no-one could possibly rival the OS, in addition to the 1:1000 topographic map base and overlay layers, the UKMap product comprises:

• Addresses
• Points of interest including retail and commercial data
• BLPUs
• Aerial photography
• Terrain
• Land Use
• 3D buildings

Plus a 1:5000 thematic raster map product suitable particularly for web-mapping applications. So that’s a pretty comprehensive list then! Especially given everything bar the thematic product is shipped as one product, no need for licensing of individual products. Plus the UKMap team handle contractor licenses, elimanating the nightmare that is the OS Subcontractor licensing scenario, an adminstrative nightmare. Plus, there is no derived data issue: data created by users belongs to users: “UKMap offers users the rights to retain any derived data they may create through using UKMap so increasing corporate assets and reducing investment costs” and “Share derived data and UKMap data with partners, sub contractors and consultants through simple licensing options” (quotes from the UKMap website). Furthermore, the data is delivered in useable formats so (in my case, as an ArcGIS user) no need to purchase the ESRI (UK) Productivity Suite Conversion tools simply to access the data.

The end is nigh…?

Obviously, I have yet to see what these licensing arrangements are for this new product and associated services, but the very fact that UKMap are thinking in terms of sharing and reuse is the polar opposite of the OS who claim rights over pretty much anything and are positively obstructive to the sharing of data (see the examples of SMR/HERs and Local Plan data above). I also haven’t seen the costs yet, but I doubt they could be as expensive as OS products. And of course, coverage will be an issue until the UKMap can provide full national coverage. But all this is, to an extent, beside the point. There is now another provider in the market and if local authorities such as Brent can see the benefits and move across, this should give the OS a bit of a push to get with the programme and realise they cannot simply hide behind licensing as they have done up till now.

So, just when I thought my dreams of having high quality mapping at a reasonable price delivered direct to my desktop GIS and web-based systems were little more than that, just dreams, along comes a light at the end of tunnel. So perhaps not exactly time’s up for the OS, indeed I would hate to see that happen, but hopefully this will shake them up a bit. Wake up Ordnance Survey, you’ve got competition now!

Related posts:

1. Free our data: New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey’s copyright control @ SocietyGuardian.co.uk
2. Could do better…
3. OS OpenSpace

I’ve just been watching the Time Team special Secrets of Stonehenge; very interesting programme. The theoretical basis regarding stone commemorating the ancestors and the links between Durrington Walls and Stonehenge, linked by the river Avon, have been well discussed in the literature (see Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina. 1998) but it is really good to see how the evidence arising from the Stonehenge Riverside Project fits in to Mike Parker-Pearson’s ideas. Excellent contributions from Mike Pitts regarding the Aubrey Holes and how they are really stone sockets and Josh Pollard on the practices of excarnation and dealing with the dead in prehistory. Putting all the information together, the idea that it was an early farming community who built a bluestone circle to commemorate their ancestors, later becoming the sarsen megalithic structure we see today, certainly changes the established story; English Heritage are going to have to update their guidebooks!

There was also little mention of the recent Darvill and Wainright excavations which appeared on the BBC Timewatch programme other than a rather dismissive comment regarding ‘hospital theories’. As it says on the BBC website: His [Parker Pearson's] interpretation is at odds with that of Darvill and Wainwright. Stonehenge was not a place for the living, whether sickening or fighting fit. It was a monument for the dead. According to Parker Pearson, “Stonehenge… was built not for the transitory living but for the ancestors whose permanence was materialised in stone.” It must be admitted that the evidence for a prehistoric Lourdes is scant in comparison to the wealth of information amassed by the Stonehenge Riverside Project. And if it were a football match, the dream team of Mike Parker Pearson, Mike Pitts, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards and Kate Welham certainly outgun Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainright… Of course, they are all well renowned archaeologists as regards Stonehenge and there are always competing theories, that being the nature of academic discourse; I certainly have many of their publications on my shelf for my research on prehistoric landscapes.

Well done Time Team for presenting at least some of the wealth of new information in an accessible and interesting fashion; I’d like to see part two (revenge of the ancestors…?) to complete the story

Other links:

• National Geographic pages on the Stonehenge Riverside Project
• My Flickr photos from the Darvill & Wainright excavations
• My Flickr photos from the Durrington Walls excavations, part of the Stonehenge Riverside Project
• The Stonehenge Research Framework authored by Tim Darvill
• My Flickr photos of Stonehenge, including some more from the Stonehenge Riverside Project
• The Stonehenge landscape in 3D from Wessex Archaeology
• Stonehenge LiDAR visualisation, a zoomify-able hillshaded elevation model from Wessex Archaeology

References:
Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina. 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72: 308-26.

Related posts:

1. Stonehenge excavations
2. It’s all go at the local pile of prehistoric rocks!
3. How Stonehenge Might Have Been Built

Once in the audience, however, the debate was lively and it is obvious there is a lot of public interest and dissatisfaction; I am obviously in the minority thinking this issue should have been resolved without the many stages through which it has proceeded: recourse to denial, followed by apportioning blame on the system before finally reaching a stage of massed collaborative wringing of hands and MPs being asked to step down at the next election, potentially up to a year away. Vince Cable and William Hague both argued for an immediate general election in order that faith can be restored in the House of Commons, a notion that would simply play into the hands of minority parties as the public express their anger at the main parties; Marta Andreasen (UKIP) was certainly quite pleased with the suggestion. As i have already said, if the House had acted promptly to sack (and prosecute) those MPs who have fraudulently exploited the system, calls for a general election could have been avoided. If a general election were to be called now, there is a good chance some exemplary MPs would lose their seats as a result of the actions of their colleagues and furthermore, some of the most repugnant elements of British politics (such as the inherently racist BNP) would be given the chance of a lifetime. The only person speaking rationally on this part of the debate was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown with Ben Bradshaw failing to convince the audience that an immediate general election is a bad idea.

Furthermore, for William Hague to argue that David Cameron is doing his bit any more than Gordon Brown is simply preposterous, when his MPs have committed some of the grossest examples of expenses fiddling including having moats cleaned and forests planted on their vast country estates: The fact that his toffs have such land-holdings and properties does not give them the right to get the tax-payer to contribute a bean towards their upkeep! Having said that, whilst I would expect such behaviour of the Tory toffs, the fact that some of our so called socialist MPs have been found guilty of such behaviour and Gordon Brown has allowed himself to be targeted through lack of decisive action sickens me to the pit of my stomach; Hazel Blears in particular should be ashamed to call herself a Labour party member and go, never mind trying to justify her actions. Unfortunately, she’s not the only one.

On a plus side for Labour, it was genuinely pleasing to see that at least one member of the party is capable of rational thought with regards to the electoral process, arguing convincingly for dramatic electoral reform which is long overdue: Full marks to Ben Bradshaw. I’m dreading the next election as, due to the ping-pong nature of British politics as it currently operates, it’s the Tories turn to take the lead before they once again pillage the country to provide for the rich at the expense of the poor; the country still hasn’t recovered from the impact of the last Conservative government, the most significant effect of which was to severely damage the very fabric of British society. But then again, it’s not like Labour has done much to repair things in the decade of so they have been in power with a significant majority… It’s definitely time for some new politics.

The panel comprised Ben Bradshaw (health minister and MP for Exeter), William Hague (shadow foreign secretary and former leader of the Conservative Party), Vince Cable (Liberal Democrat chief economic spokesman), Martin Bell OBE (former journalist and the independent MP for Tatton from 1997 to 2001), Marta Andreasen (treasurer of the UK Independence Party), Jasmin Alibhai-Brown (columnist for the Independent and the Evening Standard). As ever, Question Time was chaired by the incomparable David Dimbleby.

No related posts.

I’ve just been putting a new YouTube playlist together for all the funky skanks kicking around right now and came across the official video from K.I.G. Check it out:

There’s also a monster remix from the man of the moment Donaeo (here it over on DJ B’s blog); yes, everything Donaeo touches turns to gold right now.

Related posts:

1. Mark Ronson remixes Bob Dylan
2. The message

No related posts.

I must admit, the main reason I was interested in seeing her talk was because I share many of her concerns. There are indeed many maps out there which are bordering on unintelligible and the quality of many is not up to the exacting standards set down by professional cartographers. The lack of contextual features on a Google Map is indeed often problematic and the example Spence gave on a GeoCommons map (where there is an obvious rift in a terrain model of India used as the basemap) is simply very poor. It is easy to find examples of poor quality maps and numerous examples were shown, exhibiting a mixture of poor quality cartography (i.e. the design and layout of the map) and poor quality data (i.e. inaccurate or erroneous content); I see these as two separate but related issues, the effects of which are exaggerated by the ease with which anyone can now quickly and easily produce a map without necessarily knowing how best to do this or how to find out how to.

I was, however, rather disappointed in the presentation as whilst being critical, the bigger issue of access to good quality data from which to make maps was firmly ignored whilst some unfair criticisms of map production were levelled.

Breaking news: GIS specialists can’t make maps…

The idea Spence put forward that GIS practitioners in general are ignorant of cartographic convention and practise and are the ones producing poor quality maps is simply wrong in most cases. I also found it a bit of an odd thing to say as there are GIS specialists within the BCS. It is true that there are some people working as GIS specialists who are wholly unsuited to the job due to a lack of appropriate skills or the job having been advertised well below the going rate for a suitably skilled person: You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, as exemplified by some of the maps Spence showed as examples which did not even include basic map furniture such as legends (and which is a particular problem in the low-paid cultural heritage sector). Having said this, the vast majority of qualified GIS professionals are fully aware of the history of map-making, cartographic conventions and how to make legible maps which are fit for purpose. It is often the case, however, that it is not GIS professionals who are producing maps these days: in many workplaces, desktop GIS is provided to users who may have no formal GIS or cartographic background with only rudimentary training provided, whilst the GIS professionals role is restricted to systems development and data maintenance, it being seen as primarily an IT role similar to database or website maintenance. More broadly speaking, map production has become truly democratised often with a resultant drop in standards but to blame GIS professionals for this is unfair. GIS itself is an invaluable tool for producing the highest quality cartography and in the hands of skilled users provided with good quality data, does just that. There is definitely a case for more GIS/cartography training for users expected to produce maps but given the costs associated with training, many organisations simply cannot afford this.

Making maps

This leads on to and is inextricably linked to my other major concern with what was presented, or in this case, what was not: access to and quality of data and associated processes of map production and how these affect the quality of cartographic output. Traditionally, cartographers would redraw maps for particular purposes. Time would be spent graphically tweaking information to make it as legible as it could possibly be. Treating maps as a pure representation of data rather than as simply a drawing loosely based on but separate from data makes it possible to systematise the production of making maps. It is often simply not feasible to spend time redrawing individual features for each map on which they appear: This is more akin to the production of a piece of art than an acceptable way of producing functional maps in a modern business context.

In GIS-based map production, features are recorded as geometry, attributed appropriately and then displayed according to a symbology based on this attribution. Data can be re-used and recycled without the need for constant manual intervention (other than to keep the features up to date). This makes the cartographic output entirely dependent on the quality of the underlying data and where this is of poorer quality, the quality of the resultant map will suffer. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, it simply requires input data to be well structured and of the highest integrity, arguably a good thing.

Of course, treating the information as purely graphical and undertaking extensive redrawing to make the data fit for each individual application is one approach and this seemed to be what was being advocated: Indeed, Spence seemed to be suggesting that this approach is unproblematic, simply part of the process of cartography, it is after all what cartographers have always done. But this is to miss the point: This conflates the processes of data maintenance and map production. Why should people who want to create maps in the modern world using modern tools have to constantly revise and amend to make up for poor quality source data? Why can we not have access to good quality datasets produced and maintained by dedicated providers? Of course, there are always choices regarding what to include/exclude on maps and how features should be presented but the use of GIS makes the division between data and presentation explicit and to argue that successful map making must always include graphical fudging of datasets goes against the current trend of democratising map making through platforms such as GeoCommons and Google Maps which take very systematic approaches to geographic information and are dependent on accurate data.

To my mind, such systematic approaches to geographic information are a good way forward, supported by adequate training in how to use such systems. It is simply not possible to have hordes of dedicated cartographic specialists endlessly redrawing maps using the digital equivalent of pen and ink, keeping the activity as the reserve of these specialists (remember the typing pool anyone…?): the role of cartographic specialists therefore becomes one of system developer and trainer, one aspect being to develop the cartographic aspects of GIS-based map production but also to ensure that users have enough skills to use the systems effectively to produce exemplary cartographic output up to the exacting professional standards laid down by organisations such as the BCS. And given a large number of users are simply members of the public who want to use available tools to get information they want to convey to others out there, the training and information must be provided in a way that is accessible to all: If the BCS see the proliferation of mapping tools amongst non-professionals as reducing the quality of cartographic output, then the way to tackle this is surely to target those users in particular, to allow them to produce better maps, accepting the fact that these tools and platforms will be used to make maps by people who, in many cases, will not have had any formal cartographic training but who are interested in producing maps. This is not deskilling but democratisation and has been happening across the board in the world of IT as formerly specialist activities become accessible to more people; the same thing has happened with all kinds of activities from word-processing to web-design with people developing associated skills in all kinds of related areas from image processing to database management and networking. Of course, there is still a need for specialists, but this democratisation changes the role of the specialist from dedicated practitioner to facilitator/enabler and highly specialised practitioner.

As I have already stated, the use of GIS facilitates high quality cartographic output but only where the source data is well structured and of high quality. Yes, we could just keep painting over lower quality source data to hide inconsistencies and errors but access to high quality source data which does not require such intervention is surely the best way to proceed. During the questions at the end of the presentation, this question of access to good quality source data in the form of OS data was raised and my interpretation of what had been said during the talk was confirmed. Spence responded that there are free sources of information out there for those who cannot afford to use OS data (a two tier geoweb if you will based on ability to pay; not something we should be aiming towards), ignoring the fact that the quality of such datasets is often simply not up to scratch and the use of it as is often results in the kinds of problems criticised during the talk. Not a problem if your workflow is entirely manual and graphically based; you simply reinterpret the data, paint over the cracks and create a new pretty picture. It is a problem if your workflow is more systematised or you do not have the skills or tools to be undertaking this kind of work. How should members of the public with only Google Maps to work with undertake map production in this way? How should my users who use a largely automated process of map production using ArcGIS templates achieve this, and how do they necessarily know where any inaccuracies and problems with content lie? Surely, much better to ensure the map base used is complete and accurate to start with, eliminating the need for manually correcting it, and the best way to do this would be to improve access to high quality digital datasets. Otherwise, digital cartography is little more than a digital analogue of traditional cartography where each map must be hand drawn and the resultant map is solely the intellectual product of an individual rather than a standardised representation of geographic information; this is more art than an effective business workflow with product and efficiency of production in mind (I can just see the guffaws as my time estimates for producing maps leaps up tenfold due to the additional time needed as I artistically redraw source data to make it cartographically acceptable for each and every map).

So, Spence was criticising the quality of maps based on platforms such as Google Maps, but what is the alternative? We have good quality maps in the UK, provided by the Ordnance Survey, but their use is often precluded by the astronomical fees levied by the OS combined with draconian, complex and often unworkable license agreements. She suggested the use of free or open sources of map data such as the Peoples Map and Open Street Map but the use of such data in a GIS workflow can result in exactly the kinds of issues she was criticising: the integrity of the data is often lacking, resulting in poor quality cartographic output if inaccuracies and inconsistencies are not first identified and resolved.

Free our data!

So, we need to free our data. It is, to my mind, unacceptable that the Ordnance Survey are permitted to restrict access to our national map base in the way that they do (there is a good article on this topic here). Furthermore, their vociferous pursuance of anything which they perceive as in breach of their obstructive license agreements should be stopped: Three good examples of the OS acting unreasonably follow.

Firstly, anecdotal tales regarding local walking groups having received cease and desist notices having dared to publish online maps based on OS maps showing interesting walks.

Secondly, threatening local authorities with legal action over incredibly useful ‘what’s in my neighbourhood’ type maps is ridiculous; such maps used Google Map bases in order to avoid using OS mapping online, something that would cost more than the annual budget of an entire council in many cases, but it was the councils own datasets which the OS then claimed ownership of as they had been captured against OS map bases. This notion of derived data as the OS interpret it needs to be challenged.

Thirdly, the most farcical of the lot regards crime maps, much touted by the Home Secretary and which police forces rushed to produce to meet government targets. At which point, the OS threatened legal action for breach of copyright, the data again having been geocoded against OS products. How can such a ridiculous situation be allowed to happen? Surely, the role of the OS, as national mapping agency, should be to facilitate and enable other national bodies fulfil their responsibilities not obstruct them.

If the BCS are serious about improving the quality of maps being produced and used then one invaluable discussion they could throw their weight behind would be to improve access to high quality OS datasets for all, not just big business who can afford to pay the exorbitant license fees. To state, as Spence did, that even BCS members have to pay OS license fees, therefore it is acceptable that everyone should is a non argument: the idea that already overstretched resources in local authorities and the heritage sector should be used to fund the OS in this way is a disgrace. But it emerged why the BCS will not get involved in this debate: Spence indicated that the OS are partners in the BCS, hence the BCS cannot / will not get involved in the debate or be seen to criticise the OS. And hence my response to the BCS on this issue of improving quality of maps: Could do better…

Related posts:

1. OS OpenSpace
2. Time’s up for the Ordnance Survey…?
3. Free our data: New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey’s copyright control @ SocietyGuardian.co.uk

Well, almost a year since my last post – yikes! In my defence, it’s been a very busy year and the lack of broadband at home makes doing anything online tricky. Must get that sorted.

In the meantime, Treehugginghippycrap has moved to new hosting and there’s still some work to do tidying things up post move. I feel like the virtual boxes are still cluttering up the virtual hallway… I’ve still been posting like a mad badger to Flickr; photosets of Ireland, Barcelona and more Stonehenge and Salisbury to come (when i get round to titling, tagging and geotagging). I’ve also started posting work related stuff on the company blog (you can find juicy GIS and survey related nuggets over at the Wessex Archaeology site)  and been thoroughly enjoying the microblogging wonder that is Twitter; more about that later.

And taking at least some of the wind out of my sails, gotta love web coincidence: The post title is taken from a classic tune called ‘I know ya got soul’ by Eric B and Rakim, one of my favourite tunes and i thought it summed things up nicely. Looking deeper, it does appear that apologetic posts regarding not posting are quite common on the interweb, and at least some use the same title as this post: I just wanted to check the lyric so googled it and found this site whose owner had the exact same idea. Brilliant. Just goes to show, if you have an idea, chances are someone else had it first. Parallel evolution, coincidence, or those quantum thought waves travelling back in time causing ripples of deja vu travelling forwards towards me; i don’t know.

Talking of ‘I know ya got soul’, if you don’t know this fantastic tune, go find it; it’s on the album ‘Paid in full’ which also features ‘I ain’t no joke’ and ‘Eric B is president’. It also provided the sample used in the chorus to Marrs’ 1987 number 1 hit ‘Pump up the Volume’ and which was reputedly the first UK No.1 to be sample based. So there you go.

Related posts:

1. The message

No related posts.

You could see photos you take of your family and kids, or of a family vacation, used in a magazine or newspaper without your permission or payment to you. You would have to pay to register your photos, all of them, in every new registry in order to protect them. Say the average person takes 300 photos per year (I take a lot more than that). If a registry only charges $5 per image, that is a whopping $1,500 to protect your photos that are protected automatically under the current laws. If there are three registries, protecting your images could cost an amazing $4,500. Not to mention the time it would take to register every photo you take. Plus, you will also have to place your copyright sign on every photo.

From an article in Animation World Magazine where the author describes some horrendously bad legislation being created in the USA whereby an artist will have to register each and every artwork they produce in order to achieve the same levels of protection under copyright law currently afforded. What is more worrying (from my UK pov) is that Europe is noted as looking at similar legislation. If this happens, i would have to register each and every one of my Flickr photos in order that they can be listed as my copyright and not treated as ‘orphaned works’ and therefore free of copyright. Ridiculous! I am currently protected by the current copyright laws and therefore stand to lose protection not gain by such proposed legislation. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of maintaining registers of copyrighted works and potential for errors.
Hopefully this will turn out to be another example of the US legislators failing to understand basic principals (remember how it always used to be the way that to win an election, you needed more votes rather than more friends and relatives in positions of power?) and our legislators in Europe will not go down the same route (if only because they are arguing over the straightness of cucumbers or how dangerous barometers are). But then again, there’s nothing like a bit of new legislation to make it look like you’re doing something useful… 

Related posts:

1. 24 hours of Flickr
2. The wonders of technology
3. Schmap!

There aren’t many folk who can claim to have dug at Stonehenge (and I’m not one of them!) but I was lucky enough to see the ongoing excavations first hand this week. And i was only saying recently about getting up there to take some pictures! What a unique site and what a small trench; archaeology in a nutshell (or fish tank as one correspondant described it as groups of academics were shown round all day on Wednesday, completely diverting the site directors from their activities). Thanks to the directors for arranging for there to be such an open day (and providing such a truly fantastic opportunity for us researchers). Indeed the whole access to information side of things is exemplary: There are also big screens in the Timewatch tent showing live images from the trench providing even greater access not to mention the Smithsonian Magazine blog and BBC video blogs.

As regards the dig itself, it was interesting to see the bluestone socket and how deep it was (massive compared to the sarsen sockets, perhaps indicative of techniques more commonly applied to timber posts than stone settings) and entertaining to hear how pottery had been discovered in the backfill of the previous excavations (doh!). I was also surprised to learn that the concrete used in recent history to, ahem, shore up the monument was actually reinforced with steels, hence no decent magnetometer results within the circle. This recent history is equally as interesting as the prehistory!

The amount of disturbance to the bluestones is also fascinating and does suggest there is something special going on with them and different from other stones used in Stonehenge and other stone circles. Combined with the observation that most of the bluestones have in fact been removed totally from the site, this would suggest they were important enough to some people to invest considerable effort in their removal. And of course, transporting them from Wales in the first place was hardly a casual decision, involving considerable investment of time and energy. The idea that they had mysterious healing powers would go some way to explaining this unusual activity, why they were brought to the site in the first place and their subsequent role in activities at the site up to the present day.

Related posts:

1. Secrets of Stonehenge
2. It’s all go at the local pile of prehistoric rocks!
3. How Stonehenge Might Have Been Built

“It also requires 11 redwood trees to be removed to restore the original panoramic views from the Mansion garden. At least 150 new trees will replace those that need to be removed.”

So some cultural heritage is destroyed in favour of some more ‘important’ cultural heritage. Some tangible trees removed for the sake of an aesthetic view. Take a group of kids, any group, and show them the view. Watch them be underawed in the extreme. Then show them some pictures of a Giant Redwood from the USA and explain that the reason they can’t go and time how long it takes to run around a living, breathing specimen hundreds of years old is because the council planners thought a view from the garden is more important.

No related posts.