this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
270 points (97.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43893 readers
750 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And, well... They're not super wrong about how mapped earth is. They just misjudge the sheer, enormous amount of detail we need (which keeps growing with our ability to get more of it), along with the fact that sometimes it changes a bit.
"Haven't we mapped everything already?" is a bit like saying "Haven't we born everyone already?".
GIS also is far more complex than what is visible in a single map. An example for this are the capabilities of satellites observing the earth, IIRC very few to none of them are mere security cameras - most of them have quite interesting spectra to observe green house gas emissions or vegetation (ie. land use changes) for example. GIS can then use this data and gather hidden information, sometimes over large spatial dimensions.
Exactly. We know what shape the land is even for the bottoms of the oceans. But that doesn't mean we're done making maps.