SpatiaLite is not the Shapefile of the Future
So we’ve got yet another blog touting the future of the SpatiaLite format as being the next Shapefile. Now, don’t you dare look over at that search feature on the right side of my blog and type in SpatiaLite because you’ll probably see the same thing (though honestly, I can’t recall if I was of sound mind when writing it)? The simple fact is SpatiaLite is a favorite format for those of us with nothing better to do than tell the rest of the world what they should be looking at.
Ah! But like most things, just because a bunch of bloggers thinks it is a good idea doesn’t mean it will actually matter. In this case, SpatiaLite is dying a slow death because no one is actually implementing it. Now yes OGR, FDO, and other libraries support it, but you don’t see that making its way into mainline software (QGIS aside, but even its support is poor) and in turn, you rarely see it in the real world. Offhand I can only think of the “beta” format that GeoCommons has on their service (and they’ve had beta attached to it for almost a year).
Now yes, I think we all need a better format than the venerable shapefile (and it’s three amigos) which as a transmission format fails miserably. But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that this is a problem people actually want to be solved. I’ve seen much more effort put into KML, GeoJSON, and LAS by the community than SpatiaLite or even SQLite. This isn’t because the SpatiaLite project hasn’t given tools to us to implement, it has been the community could care less about it. SHP works for them and there isn’t any reason to change.
So what is going to change things? Well, it will be web services, not GIS formats that matter for users moving forward. So I say let’s stop focusing on SpatiaLite as a consumer format and actually work harder at making better web services for these users (like stop it already with the WxS please). SpatiaLite still has its place in the world, but does anyone really want to bother downloading GIS files anymore? Of course not…
Shapefile can’t #FAIL!
Oh and the FGDB API - just assume it is dead as well. ESRI can’t get it out the door and in reality, no one gives a hoot other than federal agencies that have to provide open data, but are locked into the ESRI stack.
SpatiaLite is not the Shapefile of the Future
So we’ve got yet another blog touting the future of the SpatiaLite format as being the next Shapefile. Now, don’t you dare look over at that search feature on the right side of my blog and type in SpatiaLite because you’ll probably see the same thing (though honestly, I can’t recall if I was of sound mind when writing it)? The simple fact is SpatiaLite is a favorite format for those of us with nothing better to do than tell the rest of the world what they should be looking at.
Ah! But like most things, just because a bunch of bloggers thinks it is a good idea doesn’t mean it will actually matter. In this case, SpatiaLite is dying a slow death because no one is actually implementing it. Now yes OGR, FDO, and other libraries support it, but you don’t see that making its way into mainline software (QGIS aside, but even its support is poor) and in turn, you rarely see it in the real world. Offhand I can only think of the “beta” format that GeoCommons has on their service (and they’ve had beta attached to it for almost a year).
Now yes, I think we all need a better format than the venerable shapefile (and it’s three amigos) which as a transmission format fails miserably. But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that this is a problem people actually want to be solved. I’ve seen much more effort put into KML, GeoJSON, and LAS by the community than SpatiaLite or even SQLite. This isn’t because the SpatiaLite project hasn’t given tools to us to implement, it has been the community could care less about it. SHP works for them and there isn’t any reason to change.
So what is going to change things? Well, it will be web services, not GIS formats that matter for users moving forward. So I say let’s stop focusing on SpatiaLite as a consumer format and actually work harder at making better web services for these users (like stop it already with the WxS please). SpatiaLite still has its place in the world, but does anyone really want to bother downloading GIS files anymore? Of course not…
Shapefile can’t #FAIL!
Oh and the FGDB API - just assume it is dead as well. ESRI can’t get it out the door and in reality, no one gives a hoot other than federal agencies that have to provide open data, but are locked into the ESRI stack.
Ovi Maps? Is anyone actually implementing this thing?
So a week doesn’t go by where I don’t see some news about Ovi Maps.
The new, improved Ovi Maps will offer, live?traffic?flow information, a new drive assist mode, public transportation maps, a redesigned places page, and social check-ins. The public?transportation?maps will be available via a map layer for over 80 cities around the world and check-ins will allow you to broadcast your location via SMS or to your social network of choice.
OK, so does anyone actually use Ovi Maps on purpose? I mean MapQuest learned how to fit in with the new world order, but Nokia seems to still think we are all ready to jump on their platform. Part of why Where 2.0 doesn’t interest me anymore is they keep getting up there pushing this platform like it is viable or something. But hey I doesn’t matter right? Name one product of value that ever launched at Where 2.0? **[editor’s note: I must remind Mr. Fee that his passion launched at Where 2.0**]
I wonder where Ovi Maps is? At least Nokia is consuming their own dogfood.
Ovi Maps? Is anyone actually implementing this thing?
So a week doesn’t go by where I don’t see some news about Ovi Maps.
The new, improved Ovi Maps will offer, live?traffic?flow information, a new drive assist mode, public transportation maps, a redesigned places page, and social check-ins. The public?transportation?maps will be available via a map layer for over 80 cities around the world and check-ins will allow you to broadcast your location via SMS or to your social network of choice.
OK, so does anyone actually use Ovi Maps on purpose? I mean MapQuest learned how to fit in with the new world order, but Nokia seems to still think we are all ready to jump on their platform. Part of why Where 2.0 doesn’t interest me anymore is they keep getting up there pushing this platform like it is viable or something. But hey I doesn’t matter right? Name one product of value that ever launched at Where 2.0? **[editor’s note: I must remind Mr. Fee that his passion launched at Where 2.0**]
I wonder where Ovi Maps is? At least Nokia is consuming their own dogfood.
The Need of a Good Basemap
I found this blog post on basemaps over at the 41Latitude blog (if you aren’t following this blog you need to start right now) to resonate with me.
perhaps, in trying to make a basemap that’s optimized for everything, we’re actually creating one that’s optimized for nothing.
We all see it quite a bit these days. Some data overlaid on a default Google Map and you can’t read a darn thing. Working for the GNOCDC, we picked the Terrain map as our basemap (even though there is no “terrain” in NOLA) because it was the least cluttered basemap.
gnocdc-terrain.jpg
Over in the ESRI world, I’ve had a couple people ask me to put their data on the Esri Topographic web map servicebecause it looks so good. Now I do agree, it is a beautiful basemap, but it isn’t one that lends itself to being a basemap. Esri should be offering a muted basemap and allow for the most important part of the data, the information being overlaid, to stand out.
The Need of a Good Basemap
I found this blog post on basemaps over at the 41Latitude blog (if you aren’t following this blog you need to start right now) to resonate with me.
perhaps, in trying to make a basemap that’s optimized for everything, we’re actually creating one that’s optimized for nothing.
We all see it quite a bit these days. Some data overlaid on a default Google Map and you can’t read a darn thing. Working for the GNOCDC, we picked the Terrain map as our basemap (even though there is no “terrain” in NOLA) because it was the least cluttered basemap.
gnocdc-terrain.jpg
Over in the ESRI world, I’ve had a couple people ask me to put their data on the Esri Topographic web map servicebecause it looks so good. Now I do agree, it is a beautiful basemap, but it isn’t one that lends itself to being a basemap. Esri should be offering a muted basemap and allow for the most important part of the data, the information being overlaid, to stand out.