Mashing-Up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mashing-up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity Craig M. Dalton A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in the Department of Geography. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by: Dr. Scott Kirsch Dr. Banu Gokariksel Dr. Kenneth Hillis Dr. John Pickles Dr. Sarah Sharma © 2012 Craig M. Dalton ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Abstract CRAIG DALTON: Mashing-up Maps: Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity (Under the direction of Scott Kirsch) How are Google geo services such as Google Maps and Google Earth shaping ways of seeing the world? These geographic ways of seeing are part of an influential and problematic geographic discourse. This discourse reaches hundreds of millions of people, though not all have equal standing. It empowers many people to make maps on the geoweb, but within the limits of Google’s business strategy. These qualities, set against the state-centeredness of mapmaking over the last six hundred years, mark the Google geo discourse as something noteworthy, a consumer-centered mapping in a popular geographic discourse. This dissertation examines the Google geo discourse through its social and technological history, Google’s role in producing and limiting the discourse, and the subjects who make and use these maps. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation was only possible with the help of a large number of people. I owe each a debt of gratitude. Chief among them is a fantastic advisor, Scott Kirsch. His patience, grace, and good criticism saw me through the trials of graduate school. Thank you Scott. I owe John Pickles a great deal not only for his advice and for serving on my committee, but for his tireless administrative support of me personally and of UNC-Chapel Hill’s geography department as a whole. This dissertation also would not have been possible without rich input from Banu Gokariksel, Ken Hillis, and Sarah Sharma. Joseph Palis, Sebastian Cobarrubias, and Maribel Casas-Cortez went before and showed me the way. Liz Mason-Deese, Tim Stallmann, Nathan Swanson, Lan Tu, Murat Es, David Terry, and Adrian Wilson kept me sane as we walked the path together. Denis Wood somehow both provided inspiration and kept my feet on the ground. In a different field, I also owe a great deal to those who participated in my research. Without their work and their help, I would have nothing to write about. Paul Rademacher, Mano Marks, Greg Coombe, John Coryat, Frank Taylor, Brady Forrest, Andrew Turner and Anselm Hook deserve special thanks for taking the time to talk and/or for helping to organize neogeography through blogs and events such as Wherecamp. The research itself would not have been feasible without the University of North Carolina’s Ferdinand Summer Research Fellowship and consistent support from UNC Chapel Hill’s Department of Geography. iv I am thankful for the unshakable confidence of my parents, Jim and Carolyn, who made it possible to dream. Finally, thank you Cecilia, my partner, for moving to North Carolina, for your patience, and for your loving support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 1 Why Google Geo Services?………………………………………………………………. 2 Problem statement………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Three general themes……………………………………………………………………… 8 Dissertation outline…………………………………………………………..…………….. 19 Chapter Two: Understanding Web Mapping: Conversations and Methods……. 21 I. Conversations……………………………………………………………………………… 22 II. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………….. 39 Chapter Three: Sovereigns, Spooks, and Geeks: A History of Google Geo Services through 2005……………………………………………………………………………. 55 The purpose of a history…………………………………………………………......... 56 Sovereigns, maps and the nation –state……………………………………………. 60 Spooks: secret hyperlocality from space……………………………………………. 65 What’s in a name? KEYHOLE and Keyhole…………………………………………. 71 Geeks: Google enters the field………………………………………………………... 81 Mashing it up…………………………………………………………………………………. 87 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………….............. 95 Chapter Four: Seeing the World through Google’s Eyes…………………………….. 98 Chapter roadmap……………………………………………………………………………. 99 vi Getting to know Google………………………………………………………............. 102 Google’s capital accumulation…………………………………………………………… 104 The geography of ubiquity……………………………………………………............ 116 Mapping for consumption………………………………………………………………… 118 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………. 135 Chapter Five:Google, Ergo Sum: The Subjects and Knowledges of the Google Geo Discourse…………………………………………………………………………….. 138 Chapter roadmap……...……………………………………………………….............. 140 Plotting subject positions………………………………………………………………… 141 I. Googlers………………………………………………………………………............... 149 II. Neogeographers…………………………………………………………………………. 153 Neogeographers at work………………………………………………………............ 154 Neogeographic limits………………………………………………………………………. 160 Neogeographic knowledges…………………………………………………………….. 172 Neogeographic democracy? ……………………………………………………………. 176 III. Users…...………………………………………………………………………………….. 178 Seeing and knowing………………………………………………………………………… 183 Personalized geographic efficiency……………………………………………......... 188 User Privacy…………………………………………………………………………………… 192 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………. 196 Chapter Six: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………… 198 Popular geography…………………………………………………………………………………. 198 Maps, power and technology………………………………………………………………….. 206 vii Appendix A: Glossary…………………………………………………………………............. 214 Appendix B: Figures……………………………………………………………………………….. 224 Appendix C: List of Interviewees and Significant Personal Communications…. 236 Appendix D: Copyright permissions for images…………………………………………. 239 References…………………………………………………………………………….................. 243 viii Chapter One: Introduction “I will build a motor car for the great multitude.” “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.” -Henry Ford (72, 73, 1922) This dissertation explores how Google’s geographic services are related to new geographic ways of seeing, subject positions and forms of mapping. Just as the Model T helped create a mass market of motorists that continues to dominate American transportation, Google geo services1 and the discourse around them have the potential to reshape mapmaking and open new opportunities for map users and mapmakers. This mapping discourse offers powerful knowledges, but also has real, built-in limits.2 Google’s web technologies, cultural visions and associated maps are closely tied to the economic and social relationships around them. For the people making and using maps with Google, these technologies and social relations can facilitate new geographical visions, what Cosgrove (1998), drawing on John Berger (1972), calls “ways of seeing”, that are both powerful and problematic. Set against the cartographic history of the last six hundred years, the discourse around Google geo services is something new. Most of the systematic mapmaking since 1 Terms that are bolded the first time they appear are listed in appendix a, the glossary for this dissertation. 2 The Model T was not always limited to a black, but in 1922, the only consumer color scheme was black due to Ford’s cost-cutting use of a quick-drying paint then available only in black (McCalley, 1994). 1 the Renaissance has been state-centric, whether thematically centered on or produced by and for the state, its agents and citizen subjects (Crampton, 2010; Wood, 2010). By contrast, Google geo services are part of a company that focuses on consumer-users. Furthermore, these people play an active role by not only using maps, but also by creating their own new maps in the form of geographic web applications (web apps or apps). There is more at stake in the Google geo discourse than professional map production or Google’s profit margin. These maps and related ways of seeing exist within a popular geographic discourse that extends to everyone who uses Google geo services. Such a common and potentially powerful concept of geography calls for critical examination of its strengths and limitations. These points underpin the overarching question of this dissertation: How (if at all) are Google geo services producing new ways of seeing and understanding geography, and recursively, how are they are producing new maps and mapping subjects? How can we understand the visual geographic knowledges, maps and subjects at work in the Google geo discourse without resorting to overly-simple conceptions of heavy-handed cartographic dominance by Google, capitalism or the state? To begin to analyze that complexity and productivity we must understand more about Google geo services themselves. Why Google geo services? Google entered the world of web mapping in 2004-05 by acquiring several companies and rebranding them as Google services. When Google launched Google 2 Maps in early 2005 and Google Earth later that year, it was already clear to technophiles that something new and different was afoot. MapQuest was the most popular web mapping service at the time, having offered free internet driving directions maps since the mid-1990s. At the same time, a few services, most prominently Microsoft’s TerraServer, made aerial photographs of the United States available to internet users. Google put all of these qualities together in a more user-friendly package. Its services used true color aerial images and became known for speed and being easier to operate