I promised Andrew a comparison of the big three map creation applications by feature and functionality, so here it goes. The story of how lightweight web based map creation applications came to be is interesting in and of itself. I think looking at how the three applications evolved historically will provide a bit of insight.

Before the GeoWeb came into mainstream popularity both Microsoft and Yahoo! had mapping applications. Microsoft offered their browser based Terraserver which hooked up USGS imagery for the map tiles. Microsoft launched Terraserver in June of 1998 - practically prehistoric.

Microsoft had also been active in the mapping space with products like MapPoint (both desktop application and web services). Yahoo! also was an early adopter of mapping applications in conjunction with their local search destination (although I completely failed at finding a date for when they first added maps). Despite the early adoption of web based mapping applications by Yahoo! and Microsoft it was arguably the launch of Google Maps in 2005 that jump started both the GeoWeb and the mash up craze.

Shortly after Google Maps launched, Paul Radamacher hacked the application to allow it to display Craig’s List rental listings on the Google slippy map. Shortly there after Adrien Holovaty followed suit mashing up Chicago crime statistics with Google Maps. Google quickly released an API to allow developers to do the same thing seamlessly and we were off to the races. Microsoft quickly created Virtual Earth and Yahoo! pushed out Yahoo! Maps. Microsoft created compelling innovations with birds eye imagery and Yahoo! launched several popular GeoWeb services like free geocoding and Flash based mapping APIs.

Microsoft Collections

Through all these innovations there was a constant one way flow of content creation - developers could create unique maps and users could view them. Microsoft changed this when they launched Collections May 23, 2006:

Collections. Social networking functionality allows customers to create lists of favorite landmarks and locations, attach personal photos and save them to a Scratchpad. Collections can be saved, recalled later, “permalinked,” and shared with friends and community in e-mail or through their MSN® Spaces blog.

While not well publicized the “Collections” concept fundamentally changed the work flow for creating maps. No longer did you need to be a developer or GIS pro to create a basic map and share it with other people. The Virtual Earth folks even gave users a decent amount of cartographic power and options:

Customized pushpins. A pushpin is essentially a marker indicating points of interest on a map view. A customized pushpin can easily be added with a simple right click, anywhere on a map, which will display a small red dot and a pop-up menu. A pushpin title or note of up to 200 characters can be added that will appear with the pushpin whenever a mouse hovers over it. Pushpins can easily be edited or deleted. When a pushpin is removed, whether customized or standard, the remaining pushpins will be automatically renumbered.

2-D drawings in Collections. Users can add lines and drawings in a variety of colors, shapes and styles to personalize their Collection. They also can draw lines and shade areas that they want to mark on the map, such as for marking a running or bike trail, or neighborhood boundaries).

MyMaps

Despite the potential of the innovation the new functionality did not get much coverage in the press or massive levels of adoption. The TechCrunch article on it was lumped in with other new features from Yahoo! Maps.

Just short of a year later Google launched Google MyMaps on April 4th 2007 to big headlines across the blogs, including MyMaps being the death knell of popular map mashups like Platial, Frappr and Tagzania.

Fundamentally the functionality and features of MyMaps was not remarkably different than Collections, but the buzz around it was at least ten fold. So why was the attention so skewed towards Google for fundamentally the same innovation Microsoft had launched a year earlier? A few guesses:

better user exerpeince for Google - “so easy a cave man can do it”

it was launched as a stand alone application instead of as a new feature

more effective blog outreach

Google halo effect

MapMixer

Yahoo! was not too far behind launching their own map creation application, Yahoo! Mapmixer on September 13th 2007. Mapmixer took a different angle on map creation by allowing users to put static maps on top of the Yahoo! Maps applications. For instance after the Buscan oil spill in the San Francisco Bay last year I made a lot of calls trying to get the raw data on the location of the spills, for GeoCommons, but had no luck.

I did find a PDF with a map of the oil spills so I saved it as a PNG then uploaded it to Yahoo Mapmixer and they took me through three easy steps to georeference the map on Yahoo! Maps. The user experience I thought was the best of the three and there were lots of great social features for me to give a short description of the map and for other users to comment on the map. Although much like Microsoft the application did not generate lots of buzz as with Google MyMaps, and the gallery only features 38 user submitted maps today. Interestingly, in concept, it is quite similar to Microsoft’s MapCruncher, although it is a download and supports a wider variety of raster based formats that must already be georeferenced.

Since the launch of map creation applications by the three big players there have been two noticeable waves of enhancement 1) support for external data and 2) collaboration features. Microsoft put themselves out as being the first to support loading KML, “The October 07 release of Live Maps was the first to support KML viewing and import to Collections”. November 27th 2007 Google added KML, KMZ and GeoRSS support to MyMaps. Google followed this up with social features, like commenting, rating and open collaboration invitations for MyMaps.

Performance Trials

That covers features and functionality from a historic evolution stand point, but how do they perform? We did a very informal, one user, stress test. Create push pins as quickly as possible and see when the map application maxes out or gets sluggish. For Yahoo! Mapmixer this was pretty easy. You can overlay one picture or map onto the application, so you max out at one.

In the process of loading and georeferencing the image you get speedy performance and predictable response times. For MyMaps and and Collections we had a bit more to stress. We’ll start with Collections where we created 200 push pins with good response time then got the following message “You cannot add more than 200 items to a collection. To add more items, create another collection.”

When we went with the same test on MyMaps,we did high rate push pin creation and after about 30 the system got a bit sluggish, and sometimes it would create a listing for a pushpin on left hand pane but not create the push pin on the map. The caveat here is we were doing this high speed, and when we slowed down to a more deliberate pace the system handled it fine.

MyMaps also maxes out at 200 push pins on the map, but instead of providing a warning it generates a pagination for a continuing set of push pins. So when you click on the first page you get a map with the first 200 push pins and when you click on the second page you get the next 200 push pins on a new map in the same browser and tab. Oddly it stops at 820 push pins and starts back over at the number one but you can keeping adding push pins to the map.

What’s Next?

That pretty much wraps it up for a comparison of the big three, how they evolved in a competitive environment, and a very ad hoc test of their limits.

I believe the most interesting part will be where they evolve to next. What is the next set of functionality that will distinguish one from the other? Can Microsoft or Yahoo! introduce the next killer functionality that will catch up to 7 million maps that have been created with MyMaps?

Popularity: 89% [?]

The Utility of Maps in Hazard Forecasting

The recent wildfires in Southern California remind of us of just how important hazard forecasting has become in helping to ensure the safety and welfare of the public and the role that mapping can play in the process. Short-term forecasts of fire direction and intensity were pivotal in containment and evacuation efforts; Mapping played a prominent role in generating forecasts and in disseminating and sharing information about potential risk.

The usefulness of maps in visualizing and and generating forecasts extends well beyond the California fire event. In the area of climate prediction, numerous sites provide regularly updated maps of long-term and short-term forecasts of a variety of conditions and in some cases, valuable watches and warnings to the public based on the forecasts.

Some Points for Discussion

While the information that is currently out there provides great utility, there are some limitations in the way that the information is is disseminated and formatted that are worth noting. The points are intended to be food for thought and to get us thinking about how we can increase the value of forecasting even further - particularly in an interactive, web-based mapping environment.

First, forecasts are scattered across multiple websites and even within websites, requiring some effort and time on the part of the consumer to find, extract and process information. The sites and links vary in terms of the information they provide. In terms of fire forecasting, some sites focus on drought conditions, others on smoke generation and yet others on combinations of factors to characteristic future fire potential. The forecasting horizons also vary considerably from site to site.

Second, much of the maps provided on the web are in a “hard copy” format and not in an interactive mode where the user can pan, zoom and perform other functions. Some sites do have map viewers however, they are currently limited in the amount and type of data that can be displayed.

Third, and related to the second point, is that the possibility for “layering” data to create custom maps with richer information relevant to the needs of the user is limited. For example, someone may be interested in seeing if an environmentally sensitive or protected area is in the path of a projected wildfire.

Fourth, there lacks a mechanism for consumers and providers of the forecasts to interact and share information. Interaction could be very useful in understanding forecasts but also in terms of improving current predictive models. In the book Making Climate Forecasts Better, Stern and Easterling write: “The utility of forecasts can be increased by systematic efforts to bring scientific output and users’ needs closer together. These efforts may include both analytic efforts to identify the climatic parameters to which particular sectors or groups are highly sensitive or vulnerable and social processes that foster continual interaction between the producers and the consumers of forecasts.”

Fifth, not all information is publicly available and perhaps it should be? In climate forecasting, having access to the “best” information is in the national interest: it can save lives. And in some cases, the private sector is the keeper of such information. A recent study by ForecastWatch, found that in terms of recent historical forecasting of next day rain and snow, government sites had a 21% greater error rate than some of the private companies that do similar projections.

What Could the Future Hold?

The new web is fertile for the development of a system by which forecasts can be provided to the public in a more usable, digestible and efficient manner. Sites like Geocommons could be a one-stop location for viewing forecasts, such as those related to hazards and climatic conditions. In such an environment, visitors could interact with each other or the producers of the forecasts, discuss the validity of the forecasts or provide additional information to augment the projections, all through a wiki or blog-style environment. They could also create custom forecast maps with overlays of additional information that is of most useful to them for solving a problem, understanding a situation or simply planning ahead.

Popularity: 21% [?]

It’s almost 125 years ago that the first workingmen’s holiday was celebrated (Tuesday, September 5, 1882) in New York. Over the next dozen years nearly 27 states recognized this holiday and in 1894, the U.S. Congress enacted it as a Federal holiday.

Among many things, the holiday has come to symbolize the unofficial end of summer, the beginning of government budget battles, serious politicking and ever busy cycle of campaign fund raising

And talking of campaign fund raising, on this Labor day holiday, one may wonder the degree to which Labor Union's have any influence on today’s politics? According to Dept. of Labor the rate of union membership has declined steadily from 20.1% of total workforce in 1988 to just 12% in 2006 (15.4 million). With decreasing membership dues; can the Labor Unions, as special interest group PACs (Political Action Committee) have any sway over what happens on the Capitol? And how do they (318 PACs strong) measure against other special interest group PACs from the Corporate world (1,697 PACs) and Trade groups (1,033 PACs). Zoom in and pan to explore the maps below that show the spatial distribution, as on 2nd Sept, 2007, of political donations to Senators and Congressmen, from both parties, by these three special interest groups. The map data is available on Geocommons for downloads.

Spatial distribution of Labor donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Labor PACs are: Congresswoman Laura Richardson, (CA District 37;~$310k); Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (CA District 8; ~$194K); Congressman Joseph Sestak (PA District 7; ~$151K); Congressman Joseph Donnely (IN District 2; ~$140K); Congressman Steven Kagen (WI District 8; ~$133K)

What is surprising is that Democrats also do well with Trade Groups ($15 mill) and Corporate PACs ($19.3 mill).

Spatial distribution of Trade Groups donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Trade PACs are: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (MD District 05; ~$347K); Senator Max Baucus (MT; ~$331K); House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (NY District 5; ~ $310K); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (KY; ~$273K); Senator Norm Coleman (MN; ~$242K)

Compare that to Republicans who have received 11.8 mill from Trade and $18.9 mill from Corporations so far.

Spatial distribution of Corporate donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Corporate PACs are: Senator Max Baucus (MT; ~$636K); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY, ~$631K); House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (NY District 15; ~$576K); House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD District 5; ~$562K); Senator Mark Pryor (AR; ~$459K)

Of the three groups, Labor has given the smallest share of campaign contributions ($13.5 mill); and overwhelmingly, by a ratio of 11 to 1, to Democrats. On the other hand the Corporate and Trade PACs appear to give to both parties in near equal proportions. The Corporate PAC contributions at $38.7 million is the highest, compare that to Trade Group PACs at $27.39 million. If campaign money is one way to measure political influence, Labor has much to worry about. What do you think?

FortiusOne

Popularity: 32% [?]