georeferencing: collaboration and automation john wieczorek 1 reed beaman 2 1 museum of vertebrate...

30
Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center for Biodiversity Research University of Kansas

Upload: jason-riley

Post on 26-Mar-2015

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Georeferencing:Collaboration and Automation

John Wieczorek1

Reed Beaman2

1Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of California, Berkeley

2Center for Biodiversity ResearchUniversity of Kansas

Page 2: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Caveat:I’m going to over-simplify

everything.

Warning:Apertem os Cintos

Fasten your seat belts

Page 3: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

What is georeferencing?

Page 4: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Georeferencing is the expression of a

terrestrial spatial description in

coordinates within a

frame of reference

Page 5: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Terrestrial Spatial Descriptions:

• Bakersfield• 10 mi E (by air) Bakersfield• 5 mi from Bakersfield• 2 mi E and 1.5 mi N of Bakersfield• 13 mi E (by road) Bakersfield• 10.2 mi E of Bakersfield• E of Bakersfield T29S R29E

Sec.34

Page 6: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Coordinates

• Points (have no spatial footprint)

• Shapes (have bounded footprint)

Polygons

Multipolygons

Page 7: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Coordinate Systems

• decimal degrees35.3733 -119.0178

• degrees minutes seconds35 22 23.88 N, 119 1 4.08 W

• degrees, decimal minutes 35 22.398 N, 119 1.068 W

• UTM Zone 11S 316695E 3916111N

• Innumerable other grid-based systems

Page 8: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Frames of Reference

• Australian Geodetic 1984

• Japanese Geodetic Datum 2000

• North American Datum 1983

• South American 1969

• World Geodetic System 1984

Geodetic Datums

• … over 100 others

Page 9: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Why is the datum important?

Page 10: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center
Page 11: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center
Page 12: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

What is an ideal georeference?

I propose that it is a shape, with a frame of reference, which exactly describes the spatial extent of a terrestrial location.

The answer depends on the questions you want to address.

“The Shape Method”

Page 13: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

“Davis, Yolo County, California”

Page 14: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

“Davis, Yolo County, California”

Page 15: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Is this method currently practical?

• Requires sophisticated software to capture these data.

• Requires database capabilities beyond the scope of many collections

• Requires baseline digital data that are neither freely, nor globally available.

The remedy is costly.

Page 16: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

What is practical?

Describe spatial extent using elements that can be captured and stored by anyone using current technology.

Page 17: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

One possible solution

Describe the locality using one set of coordinates, the datum, and a bounding radius.

“The Point-Radius Method”

Page 18: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

“Davis, Yolo County, California”

Page 19: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

“Davis, Yolo County, California”

Coordinates: 35.32443 -119.32343Horizontal Geodetic Datum: NAD27Maximum Error Distance: 8325 m

Page 20: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Advantages

This remedy is relatively inexpensive.

• Describes the locality in a minimal element set.

• Obviates the need for investment in new technology.

• Establishes a maximum spatial scale of the locality.

• Does enable spatial visualization and a broad range of analytical applications

Page 21: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Disadvantages

The remedy will remain just as costly as before.

• This solution does not contribute toward the ideal solution.

• There may be future applications for spatial footprints that cannot be met by the data produced by the Point-Radius Method.

Page 22: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Who is georeferencing?

Who isn’t, and why not?

Page 23: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Who is georeferencing?

• MaNIS – 17 mammal collections; institutions in Canada, Mexico and the United States; global holdings; 1.4M specimens; 284k localities; 3 years; started Sep 2001.

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/manis

• HerpNet – 37 North American herpetological collections; global holdings; ca. 3M specimens; 5 years; first georeferencing North and Central American localities; starts 2003.

Page 24: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

How are we georeferencing?

Page 25: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

How are we georeferencing?

Collaboration

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/manis/search.shtml

Page 26: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Advantages

• Reduces overall cost of supplies – no duplication• Expands the pool of resources – geographic

expertise and reference material• Increases georeferencing rates – economy of

scale• Promotes standardization – methods• Increases skills in a community• Increases exposure and awareness inside and

outside of a community

Page 27: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Disadvantages

• Vulnerable to procrastinators, cheaters, and numbskulls.

• Can distance georeferencing process from useful primary resources (e.g., field notes).

• Introduces time sensitivity to the georeferencing process

• Requires project-level management

Page 28: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

One way to improve upon the georeferencing process will be

to collaborate with a distributed query mechanism

already in place.

Page 29: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Reed will talk about another way we hope to improve the

georeferencing process.

Page 30: Georeferencing: Collaboration and Automation John Wieczorek 1 Reed Beaman 2 1 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley 2 Center

Special Thanks

CONABIOBell Museum

Kansas State UniversitySan Diego Natural History

MuseumA. Townsend Peterson1

1University of Kansas Natural History Museum