From GIS to neogeography: ontological implications and theories of truth

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Neogeography has emerged as a descriptive and analytical tool for large numbers of people outside of academia, a process catalyzed by digital mapping technologies and the social networking practices of Web 2.0. This article examines the ontological and epistemological implications of this transition. It argues that neogeography has democratized GIS practices, facilitated the adoption of relational views of space and place, and broadened the ontological scope of GIS. Neogeography also poses epistemological challenges to the dominant theory of truth, in particular advancing a shift away from the correspondence model of truth toward consensus and performative interpretations. While recognizing the multiple unintended consequences of neogeographical practices, neogeography is held to be as a useful means for charting geographic space in light of intense postmodern time–space compression. Introduction The dazzling, sometime even dizzying, development of new technologies for handling geospatial information has caught everybody by surprise over the past decade, particularly in the last 5 years. Neologisms burst into our lexicon at an overwhelming rate: Web 2. All of these phenomena point to a profound shift in the nature and role of geographic information, a transition characterized by a 'bottom up' reconfiguration in how data are collected, transmitted, analyzed , visualized, and utilized that differs considerably from traditional 'top-down' models in which experts and government agencies dictate the criteria of data collection, analysis, applications, and standards of truth. These diverse geographical practices have been loosely called neogeography (Turner 2006), a term coined by Di-Ann Eisnor of Platial (www.platial.com) (Walsh 2008). As Haden (2008) noted, the term has been used multiple times at major technological or epistemological junctures in geography throughout the twentieth century. We adopt both a narrow and a broad definition for neogeography (Vander Wal 2005). …