3 ms·
I think geospatial analytics is important (because of course I would), but to be frank geospatial software has been stagnant for a long time. Every new thing is
by jandrewrogers 2y ago
I think geospatial analytics is important (because of course I would), but to be frank geospatial software has been stagnant for a long time. Every new thing is just a fresh spin on the same stagnant things we already have. This more or less says exactly this?
For geospatial analysis, the most important thing that could happen in software would be no longer treating it, either explicitly or implicitly, as having anything to do with cartography. Many use cases are not remotely map-driven but the tools require users to force everything through the lens of map-making.
- azinman2 2y agoCan you give some examples?
- jandrewrogers 2y agoOf the stagnation? I’ve been doing geospatial analytics for over 20 years and shockingly little has changed, both in features and capability. Given the amount of time that has passed and the vastly expanded scope of the geospatial data models people are working with today, I think most people would expect more to have changed.
- azinman2 2y agoNo I meant to this: “Many use cases are not remotely map-driven but the tools require users to force everything through the lens of map-making.”
- dbreunig 2y agoI was struck by this as people suggest alternatives that refute the headline (QGIS, PostGIS, GDAL, etc): nearly every one emerged in the early 2000s. Strongly agree with your sentiment around maps: most people can’t read them, they color the entire workflow and make it more complex, and (imo) lead to a general undervaluing of the geospatial field. Getting the data into columns means it’s usable by every department.