More on the utter obviousness of geotagging your photos...

Media_httpgeofrothorg_thsxj

I just spent part of a week chasing the footprints of recent floods in central and western Arizona. As I explained the pure simplicity and logic of geotagging photos to my colleague (who still doesn't do it), I was struck by another layer of obviousness. In this case, it isn't just the accurate documentation of the location of flooded areas, it is the accurate documentation of the location of geomorphic and sedimentologic features related to flooding in a specific fluvial setting.

Seriously, check it out. This site is a somewhat low gradient alluvial fan in western Arizona. It experienced a moderate flood on January 20 or so. When we arrived there last week, we were totally psyched to see that the flood evidence was in near pristine condition. Only one off-road vehicle had driven in a part of the area and no heavy rain had occurred following the peak runoff event.

Few things are more interesting to a desert-oriented fluvial geomorphologist than wandering around on freshly flooded ground. While taking all the evidence in...the obvious and subtle, I realized that it was a great opportunity to photograph interesting sedimentary deposits and features that typified the flood in different parts of the system...channels, areas of unconfined flow, overflow, channel expansions, etc., and geotag them so they can be viewed in their specific geospatial context in Google Earth. Putting them into that context amplifies the information content of the image.

Hard to argue with how useful a large catalog of such geotagged images of fluvial deposits could be. Obviously the logic applies to whatever geologic feature you prefer...but I have my biases. Check out my geotagged album of this area here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/drjerque/TigerWashAZ#

View it in Google Earth and bask in its painfully utter obviousness.

Remember, you are (probably) a geologist, you take pictures of things because of what they are and where they are...then you worry about why they are there.

Everyone is busy. Quit waffling, put on a helmet, and learn how to geotag your photos.

Jerque's New [GPS] unit

I recently convinced myself that I had lost my trusty Garmin 60Csx. I was truly upset, but I cleverly leveraged the situation to purchase a fancier Garmin Oregon 550T. And, yes, I found the other unit in a 'hidden' pocket in a new pack I got at GSA in Portland. Sweet! Two units! Why the Oregon 550T? Well, why not? It is pretty sweet. The 450T that I demo'd at REI had a weird matte-like touch screen that I didn't like; whereas the 550T screen was nice and smooth. The 550T also had a camera that could, obviously, geotag any photos that I would take with it. Trust me, I knew that  the camera wouldn't be great, but suspected it could do in a pinch. I was actually pretty skeptical about whether I would like this thing or not. I was fully prepared to exploit the REI 'Return Every Item' policy if I didn't enjoy it (no shame here, have been a member since 1985). Turns out however, that I like it and it quickly supplanted the 60Csx as my unit of choice. My primary concern was the screen brightness issue that I had read about online. I am pretty concerned about this problem as it has resulted in my Panasonic Toughbook field computer sitting on a shelf for the last 2 or 3 years. The Toughbook, despite what Panasonic may tell you, doesn't work worth a crap in the sun...I map in the desert 90% of the time...you do the math. Actually, the screen on the Oregon works fine in the sun if not a little better than it does in filtered light. The touchscreen is far more pleasant to work with than the horribly tired rocker panel approach of the 60Csx. My only continuing complaint is that neither device can recognize a systematic pattern in waypoint naming and thus eliminate the need for multiple character entry. Am I wrong here? By far the best things about the Oregon are:
  1. Map detail. The shaded relief is particularly nice at 100k and larger. 24k base maps looks great as well...either the free ones or the paid ones (I have both, don't ask).
  2. Computer interface is smoother than the 60Csx. Behaves as expected when plugged into USB.
  3. Custom map option is freakin' huge! With a little effort you can upload any map or image you want. Even uses kml....zowie! Learning curve is present.
  4. Forthcoming 'Birdseye' satellite data may very well be the best innovation yet for handheld mapping assistance (at least in the desert). Maybe I will quit breaking out my Blackberry with Google Maps when I am in cell range...
  5. The camera doesn't suck, but it is not good enough to supplant my preferred field camera(s).
  6. I dig the carabiner attachment.
  7. It feels good in your hand.
  8. Works pretty well at a window seat on a commercial airliner...as does the 60Csx (Great time passer. Now more fun with nice base map of US). Planes go fast.

Media_httpgeofrothorg_jvmaa

Things I do not like as much:
  1. Why can't it recognize the systematic pattern in my waypoint naming and save me some time?
  2. Related Basecamp software has potential but needs work.
  3. This thing costs a lot! Try the Dakota or the lower numbered Oregon units to save some dough.
  4. The waypoint averaging is complicated and too involved for practical application. But I did learn about it on a handy new Garmin Blog: http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/outdoorrec/
  5. Battery life seems less than 60Csx. Interestingly, it comes with NiMh bats and a charger.
  6. No Garmin units seem to allow you to use GPS elevation in place of barometric altimeter to get profile data.
Overall, I do really like this unit and will soon test how well my feeble mind can handle the custom map options and report back. So far my experiments worked ok. I will also jump on the satellite imagery option the day it becomes available. Alas, note below that the camera is weak overall...but will do in a pinch. There are other ways to geotag your photos that take only a little more thought. Here is a comparison of photos taken with my field Pentax (top) and the Oregon GPS (same time, same place):
Media_httplh3ggphtcom_srdee
Media_httplh4ggphtcom_tgiws

Google Earth is indispensable for geologic mapping.

I've said it before, and I am sure I will say it again. But this time Google Earth is really making a major difference in my approach to making a geologic map.

My mapping project on the Lower Walker River and the piedmont of the Wassuk Range, NV is taxing my skills as a geologist and as a mapper. It is an extremely complicated setting with active tectonics, catastrophic debris flows, rock avalanches, a wildly fluctuating terminal lake, and a river madly scrambling to keep up with the lake's rapid, historical decline (50 m in ~100 years). Documenting the ancient, historical, and recent shorelines along the lake is a key component of developing a fairly tight chronology of alluvial fans, abandoned delta lobes, and Quaternary fault activity. However, efficiently digesting all of this information is a far more laborious task with the 24k USGS base maps because the relief in the area is too extreme to accommodate small contour intervals. Air photos are certainly nice, and I do have access to some marginally good LiDAR data and scattered high-precision GPS points, but nothing brings the area into full focus as easily and as efficiently as Google Earth. On this project I have explicitly incorporated GE into my mapping and it has worked extremely well.

GE allows me to quickly and repeatedly pan and zoom my map area and evaluate all of these features of interest. With particular reference to the logistics of making a geologic map, I have used GE extensively to quickly trace mappable shorelines, tag key elevations, and decide how (or whether) to group them for mapping purposes. I have also marked some of the more flagrant fault traces to improve the frame of reference for the map. Of course, I have also linked my geotagged set of field photos so that I can get some clear reminders about key areas I am mapping. The map is being compiled in ArcGIS with good imagery (NAIP) and I can simply transfer my interpretations by visual inspection. Of course, I keep turning to GE to check things out in detail because, somehow, the clarity of the imagery far exceeds what I can force out of the NAIP. Likely I will turn the map of this intriguing area into a kml project. Best area yet for that.


Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

Creating virtual context for geologic maps

Geotagging photos, diagrams, and map excerpts is an excellent way to aid in illustrating stratigraphic and geomorphic relations to colleagues. I have recently been doing field work in the Lake Mohave area and have photographed some key outcrops (see related posts here and here) that may be of interest to colleagues who are also trying to understand stratigraphic relations along the lower Colorado River. The slide show below includes those photos and illustrates another way to share geodata online.

Want to see the images on a map? Click this link and then you can view as online photo album or you can view it in Google Earth for the full effect. In cases where high resolution imagery is available, it only takes a little geo-imagination to comprehend the context of the image. No match for a field trip per se, but I think that it is one hell of a lot more illustrative than a discussion over the phone or showing a slide in a talk if you are simply trying to share information about a key outcrop.

I am currently experimenting with integrating several of my projects with online geotagged photo albums that include annotated stratigraphic diagrams, photos, and geologic map snippets. This is in the interest of developing quasi-interactive geologic data sets available for online evaluation, commentary, and review.

Captain Obvious says: 'Geotag your photos'

Geotagging photos of key outcrops or geoscapes in the field is a very useful thing to do. To geotag a photo is to inscribe the digital file with geographic coordinates. Lots of people are doing it, but I fear that not enough geologists are.

All photo files from digital cameras have an exif header. This stands for 'exchangeable image file format' and it is the area where the file name, date, time, exposure, etc., info is stored. Recent interest in digital mapping has lead to the ability to add specific geographic information (i.e. geographic coordinates) to the exif header. This offers great potential to the field geologist. There are various ways to geo-tag a photograph. Up to now, my preferred way has been to use the free photo-sorting program Picasa (yup, a Google product...more on this at related post) wherein you can manually link a photo to a specific location by dragging it to the map. This works fine in many situations, but can be tedious. Over the last couple of days, I have experimented with a more automatic approach using a program called 'Geosetter' which very efficiently and easily geotags my field photos by directly linking their time-stamp with a corresponding GPS tracklog. Brilliant! In this way, you automatically create a geographically accurate set of field photographs. If you use Google Maps, Picasa, or Google Earth, you can then display the images on a base map of your choice.

Check out an example I made using a Picasa Web Album:

http://picasaweb.google.com/drjerque/SMNW

Once at the album, click the 'view map' link. Be sure to zoom way in using the satellite mode to fully appreciate how useful this application is. Furthermore, consider the fact that some of your field photos may be of great value to other geologists, botanists, historians, etc., at some point in time. By tagging them with key words, geo-tagging them, and making them available online, you may be doing a great service to other scientists. Burying them in a paper archive or on a CD somewhere does no good.

Note, you can use Picasa to geotag your photos one-by-one through a link with Google Earth, using a simple drag-and-drop procedure. At some point it is obvious that digital cameras will automatically stamp the file with the coords, but I think the linkage between digital photos and a GPS tracklog may be the best way to go.

Very Basic Example of a Virtual Field Trip

As I have mentioned in previous posts, Google Map's 'My Maps' feature offers a way to very quickly develop some interesting maps that incorporate images and commentary. This is the most basic application. It is possible to make the interface considerably more elaborate with additional coding using an API--application programming interface. The example below is one that I put together with a few hour's work with photo editing and Google Maps. It highlights some scenic points on recent flights between Reno, Vegas, and Oklahoma City (although the scenery ends near Albuquerque). The potential for this to highlight geologic features of Nevada is obvious, no? It can even be made very technical to share with other scientists. I made mine for fun, but it could be augmented considerably with text on history and geology along with relevant links.

[googlemaps http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&om=1&s=AARTsJqxy2sRU...,-114.345703&spn=12.185677,18.676758&t=p&z=5&output=embed&w=425&h=350]