• Talk to us on
    (+44) (0)1225 320050

Search Geofutures:

Archive for September, 2009

Is Oracle Spatial as revolutionary as Google Maps?

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

I spent an interesting day in Stratford ahead of the AGI conference this week, at an Oracle Spatial special-interest group organised by the Oracle User Group. Oracle Spatial is the mapping and spatial analysis add-on to the main platform from the database giant.

Oracle occupies an interesting position in the GI world: at once a significant challenge to established GIS vendors, and also challenged themselves by online mapping and data platforms. Would Release 2 of Oracle 11g make clear how they will move forward, I wondered?

The new spatial features in Oracle 11gR2 are certainly impressive. New functionality includes more complex network analysis including hierarchical shortest path analysis and a travelling salesman algorithm. It all felt good to me, perhaps because it makes the database technology seem more, well, GIS-like.

Enhancing usability

Speakers touched on some intriguing ways Oracle databases are powering applications with enhanced usability. Olivier Bucaille from Autodesk advocated using wizards and preset analytical environments to increase accessibility for every user, which I wholeheartedly agree with, and also 3D mapping and graphics at the building scale, which I’m less sure I support.

(I’m not a visualisation Luddite, but 3D bar charts have questionable legibility just used in a document – overlaid on a 3D map they can ask even more of the reader. In addition to this, there are significant statistical issues with taking aggregate data and assigning it to back down to the scale individual buildings in 2D or 3D, pretty as they may look.)

Evolution or revolution?

Anirban Acharya from Infotech Enterprises predicted that use of Oracle databases would increasingly become a key differentiator, and signal the end of proprietary database engines supplied by the main GIS suppliers. His suggestion that spatial databases were an evolutionary, not disruptive technology (like Google Maps was) got me thinking though.

My own talk had also recalled the transformative moment in 2005 when Google took web mapping mainstream. Disruptive indeed, though a highly positive development for our industry. But why did the development of Oracle Spatial (which we first used at much the same time) not feel similarly revolutionary?

Was it because database technologies were better known and understood than mapping platforms among IT professionals? Did Oracle in effect slide in spatial functionality when we weren’t looking? I think this is an illusion, and that Oracle Spatial was disruptive too. The monopoly of enterprise GIS vendors was broken when it arrived on the scene, ready to power online, desktop GIS applications.

And the spatial elements still present a knowledge gap for many highly savvy database developers. My own developers and GIS analysts continue to educate each other to span the divide between the database and the spatial model. Another speaker, Andy Spears from South Gloucestershire council, agreed; his central ICT team have had to learn spatial skills from scratch to support the technology.

So is Oracle Spatial the quiet, persuasive advocate prepared to play the long game from the inside to establish itself at the heart of GIS, to Google Earth’s loud, media-hungry revolutionary, delighted to stir things up as it (literally) takes on the world? And which one do we back in the race?

Mark Thurstain-Goodwin

Food security and the need for GIS models

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

As expected, the recent paper ‘Can Totnes and district feed itself?’ (see earlier posts) has started stirring things up. An intriguing response comes from Colin Tudge, a director of LandShare CIC (co-funders of the research) and leader of the Campaign for Real Farming.

Colin’s thesis is that the food security issue is a simple matter of feeding the population as far as practical from local sources, recognising that some trade between specialist production areas will always be necessary. He argues that we simply need macronutrients (energy foods and protein), mainly in the shape of grains, and micronutrients – vitamins and minerals – and that by growing lots of wheat and encouraging more urban horticulture we can feed ourselves. I’m brutally over-summarising, of course, but he is keen to keep things simple.

This desire for simplicity makes him question the value of analyses like the land use mapping Geofutures did for this piece of research: “Elaborate models analyzing overall ecological footprints of particular communities in fine detail are not necessary. So long as we do the best we can within the guidelines we can’t really go wrong,” he writes.

However, at the end of his commentary he includes a postscript in a different mood. “This and all the other questions raised in this essay could and should have been addressed decades ago, and would have been addressed by any government that was truly alert to world trends. There are many other questions, too – scientific, economic, sociological, moral, practical. Since the government is unlikely to act this side of food riots (which it will treat at “terrorism” and call out the riot police) people who give a damn need to ask the questions for ourselves.”

I believe in these sentences Colin contradicts his own conclusion that research – even elaborate models – are unnecessary. The Transition movement has been successful because it responds positively to this fear. People who have never been engaged in environmental questions are getting involved and feeling empowered to help plan their communities’ futures.

And government (here I include many local authorities, which have embraced Transition planning in local strategic plans) is witnessing this community feeling and slowly starting to respond. To encourage this and make energy-descent planning truly meaningful, major resources and policy shifts are needed. My experience of this kind of government is that is moves slowly and demands evidence before committing taxpayer’s money. The farming community needs evidence before it will change any current practices too.

Food security is not a stand-alone issue, of course. The land use analysis and mapping undertaken for this study was not as detailed as we would like – it needs local data from across the country to move to next level – but even so it revealed absolutely fundamental issues which will impact food relocalisation and our life experience after Peak Oil.

There is not enough woodfuel for space heating. If we need to relocalise food production, people will need to live in rural areas, including building houses on protected rural land. And major conurbations overwhelm the foodsheds of surrounding communities. Even if we could be steadfastly common-sense in our approach to planning future food supply, I’d say joined-up planning encompassing these kinds of issue is going to need a wee bit more research to get it right.

Colin describes his own analysis of food security as ‘radical’, and his faith that common sense will prevail without major shifts in political and economic priority is certainly that. In using phrases starting “What all cities can do is…” he is not acknowledging the gap between technical possibility (yes, we can all plant tomatoes on our balconies) and reality (but we won’t while we can still get them dirt cheap at Lidl, and by the time we realise we’re really in an energy crisis it will be too late).

The Transition movement is precisely about how we move from here to a more attractive version of the future, and for me that’s where there’s plenty more meaningful research still to be done.

Mark Thurstain-Goodwin

Read Colin’s full commentary here.

Geofutures - GIS Web Maps Data Sustainability Research - (+44) (0)1225 788870 - Contact us - Sitemap - Online GIS products - © Copyright 2012