Creating Counter Maps & Shared Geographies with Locative Media

Three months ago, I switched my PhD advisor and with it comes a new direction in my work.  My focus is still on locative media and sense of place (as with my prior research and publishing on this topic). But now I'm looking at how people are using the features of locative media (a.k.a location-based services) to define their own place, share this with others (i.e. friends or the public) and thereby shape their sense of place.

As this is a new angle on the topic, I'd love to hear people's feedback. Below is a summary of the major strands in my current work:

***

Having a relationship to the places we encounter and inhabit is considered a foundational human experience (Heidegger, 1996). As we interact and learn about places, we bestow meaning on such places, forming the mental concept of a sense of place (Tuan, 1976; Relph, 1977). Scholars have examined how various factors, such as individual attitudes, memories, values, interests and aesthetic sensibility shape how individuals form a sense of place (Steele, 1981). Sense of place is more than merely perception of physical stimuli and a conception of place as a meaningful location; it can be an embodied and metaphysical experience, shaping our notions of existence in the world.

For over forty years, scholars have discussed the conditions of modern life that make establishing or maintaining a positive sense of place difficult. Two of the main threats are considered to be contemporary urban planning and architecture (Jacobs, 1992; Relph, 1976) and international and domestic migrations (Connerton, 2009). Connerton (2009) and Farham (2012) argue that a deeper knowing of a place assists in forming a sense of place, yet various forces have resulted in people either forgetting or never knowing information about places that would aid in forming sense of place.

Humans have created and used information about places since prehistory, whether in the form of crude maps drawn in the sand or cave drawings of hunting grounds, to guide their experiences and knowledge of the world (Garfield, 2012; Jacob, 2006). Yet the information about locations that are readily available has often been hegemonic (Bidwell & Winschiers-Theosphilus, 2012; Farham, 2012; Thompson, 2007). The production and distribution of geographic information has been restricted for centuries as a means to control the masses (Crampton, 2008; Harley, 2001; Monmonier, 1996). In addition, map-making has traditionally been a professional activity, dominated by an elite with specialized training and credentials and access to necessary software and data (Tulloch, 2007)

Social critics such as Debord have been critical of such hegemonic control over place information and representation, noting that officials create a false notion amongst the public that the places they encounter are void of meaning: “On this spot nothing will ever happen, and nothing ever has” (Debord, 1983, p. 177). Debord asserts that forces of power attempt to create apathy in citizens by denuding spaces of their meaning. Debord and the psychogeographic movement he founded in the 1960s have staged interventions to counter these forces (in the forms of dérives and détournements, see Debord, 1956a and Debord, 1956a). More recently, critical geography scholars have cried for more open and egalitarian access to the power to define our spaces, such as Harvey’s notion of the “the right to the city” (2008), Soja’s “spatial justice” concept (2010), or Kitchen, Linehan, O’Callaghan, and Lawton’s “public geographies” (2013).

Concurrent to hegemonic geographical information, people have continued to produce and share their own accounts and interpretations of places through various means. The advent of open-access geographic data and mapping software (such as Google Earth or OpenStreetMaps) combined with distributed access to the Internet (this suite of resources is often called the “geoweb”, see Corbett, 2013) have made it more feasible for people to create and share their own geographic information. This practice, whether conducted on a desktop computer or a mobile device, can take the form of participatory mapping (Corbett, 2013; Tulloch, 2007) or participatory geographic information systems (Dunn, 2007; Elwood, 2006; Young, 2013). Such participatory efforts can consists not only of adding locations or descriptive data to a map or GIS software, but can also apply to place information, and can take the form of narratives, personal reflections, or imagery related to a given place.

One form of participatory mapping is counter mapping. Counter mapping was inspired by Bunge’s work in the 1970s. Bunge mapped urban poverty in the United States. Scholars using counter mapping took Bunge’s social justice objectives to help marginalized groups argue for territorial or socio-political claims (Rundstrom, 2009). The method involves specialists in cartography, geographic information systems, and/or place-based narratives (e.g. anthropologists, geographers, cartographers) working with groups to define and map their places and routes and to describe their associations and relationships with these places (Rundstrom, 2009). Counter mapping has frequently been conducted to support indigenous people’s land rights claims (e.g., Cooke, 2003; Corbett, 2013; Harrison, 2011; Hodgson, 2002; Peluso, 1995). Recent studies have extended counter mapping to new groups and locales, such as minority children in ghettoized urban locations (Taylor, 2013) and conservation efforts in protected, wilderness areas (Harris, & Hazen, 2006). Taylor’s study appears to be one of the first studies to use mobile devices with GPS in the creation of counter maps.

Conceptually similar to counter maps, but with differing objectives is the concept of shared geographies. The term “shared geographies”, although not a standard term, is used in human geography studies to denote groups sharing and collectively creating information and representations of place (e.g., Barker & Pickerill, 2012; Gatrell, 2002; Taylor, 2009). The degree of sharing and openness can be seen as within a continuum from fully public to privately shared geographies. Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers (2008) elaborate: “Private geographies are the mutual sense of different places that a social group share and which differentiate that group from others. The private geography allows members of a group to draw upon ‘shared in-common’ senses of different places, and what those places mean for the group”. As with Taylor’s study, Barkhuus et al. appear to be one of the first studies to examine how people are using locative technology to create shared geographies.

Geoweb technologies combined with emerging mobile, locative technology are increasingly helping people to capture and preserve a diverse range of information on place, virtually tie it to that place, and broadcast it to others. Although locative media is not without precedent amongst other media forms in this ability, recent scholarship is beginning to identify the unique aspects of locative media. The defining aspect of locative media is its ability to recognize its physical location and customize user experiences and content accordingly (Brimicombe & Li, 2009). Locative media also offers the possibility of a multiplicity of content and of ubiquity of access (Farham, 2013). Schianchi in her work with locative media (2013) identifies two of its unique qualities: 1) its ability to subvert physical laws, such as gravity and portability, and 2) its ability to subvert property laws, such as copyright, territory, and access. Farham has examined how locative media by brining the virtual and physical together for people has created a new form of embodied sense of place (2013). Despite the increasing growth in the use of mobile locative media (Zickuhr, 2012), the role of this technology may have upon our relationships to place has not been fully studied.

Locative media has been shown to provoke new interpretations and relationships with place through creative and playful interaction with place (Hjorth, 2011; Lemos, 2011; McGarrigle, 2010) as well as artistic interventions (Lodi, 2013; Schianchi, 2013). It is also increasingly being seen as a means to counter hegemonic representations (de Souza & Hjorth, 2009, Gazzard, 2011; Hjorth, 2011; Farham, 2012; Lapenta, 2011; Shirvanee, 2006).

Through the creation of shared geographies and counter maps via locative media people are able to create and share their own information and representations of their spaces in powerful and meaningful ways. Such acts may have the potential to shape a person’s relationship to their places and ultimately their sense of place.

This leads to my research questions:

1. How do people use locative media to create counter-maps and shared geographies?
2. How, and in what ways, does such use of locative media affect an individual’s sense of place?

****
As I mentioned, I'd love to hear people's reaction to this topic and to get any suggestions for useful literature or groups using locative media in this way.


*****
References

Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. (2012). Radicalizing relationships to and through shared geographies: Why anarchists need to understand indigenous connections to land and place. Antipode, 44(5), 1705–1725.

Barkhuus, L., Brown, B., Bell, M., Sherwood, S., Hall, M. & Chalmers, M. (2008). From awareness to repartee: Sharing location within social groups. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 497–506). New York, NY: ACM.

Bidwell, N. J., & Winshiers-Theophilus, H. (2012). Extending connections between land and people digitally: Designing with rural Herero communities in Namibia. In E. Giaccardi (Ed.), Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture (pp. 197–216). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brimicombe, A., & Li, C. (2009). Location-based services and geo-information engineering. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Connerton, P. (2009). How modernity forgets. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cooke, F. M. (2003). Maps and counter-maps: Globalised imaginings and local realities of Sarawakʼs plantation agriculture. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 34(2), 265–284.
Corbett, J. (2013). “I don’t come from anywhere”: Exploring the role of the geoweb and volunteered geographic information in rediscovering a sense of place in a dispersed aboriginal community. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge (pp. 223–241). New York, NY: Springer.
Crampton, J. W. (2008). Will peasants map? Hyperlinks, map mashups, and the future of information. In J. Turow & L. Tsui (Eds.), The hyperlinked society: Questioning connections in the digital age (pp. 206–226). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Debord, G. (1956a). Theory of the dérive. (K. Knabb, Trans.) Situationist International Online. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/theory.html
Debord, G. (1956b). User’s guide to détournement, a. (K. Knabb, Trans.) Situationist International Online. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/presitu/usersguide.html
Debord, G. (1983). The society of the spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black and Red.
De Souza e Silva, A., & Hjorth, L. (2009). Playful urban spaces. Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 602 –625.
Dunn, C. E. (2007). Participatory GIS -- a people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 616–637.
Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708.

Elwood, S. (2010). Geographic information science: Emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography, 34(3), 349–357.

Farman, J. (2012). Mobile interface theory: Embodied space and locative media. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garfield, S. (2012). On the map: A mind-expanding exploration of the way the world looks. New York,  NY: Penguin.
Gatrell, J. D. (2002). Policy spaces: Applying Lefebvrian politics in neo-institutional spaces. Space and Polity, 6(3), 327–342.
Gazzard, A. (2011). Location, location, location: Collecting space and place in mobile media. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(4), 405–417.
Harley, J. B. (2001). The new nature of maps : Essays in the history of cartography. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harrison, R. (2011). “Counter-mapping” heritage, communities and places in Australia and the UK. In J. Schofield & R. Szymanski (Eds.), Local Heritage, Global Context: Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place (pp. 79–98). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Harris, L., & Hazen, H. D. (2006). Power of maps: (Counter)-mapping for conservation. ACME: An International e-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4(1), 99–130.

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, (53), 23–40.

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hjorth, L. (2013).  The place of the emplaced mobile: A case study into gendered locative media practices. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 110–115.

Hodgson, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania. Development and Change, 33(1), 79–100.
Jacob, C. (2006). The sovereign map. University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage.

Kitchin, R., Linehan, D., O’Callaghan, C., & Lawton, P. (2013). Public geographies through social media. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(1), 56–72.

Lapenta, F. (2011). Geomedia: On location-based media, the changing status of collective image production and the emergence of social navigation systems. Visual Studies, 26(1), 14–24.

Lemos, A. (2011). Pervasive computer games and processes of spatialization: Informational territories and mobile technologies. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 277–294.

Lodi, S. (2013). Spatial art: An eruption of the digital into the physical. Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 19(2). Retrieved from http://www.leoalmanac.org/vol19-no2-spatial-art/

McGarrigle, C. (2010). The construction of locative situations: Locative media and the Situationist International, recuperation or redux?. Digital Creativity, 21(1), 55–62.

Monmonier, M. S. (1996). How to lie with maps (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode, 27(4), 383–406.

Rundstrom, R. (2009). Counter-mapping. In (R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Relph, E.  (1976). Place and placelessness. London, UK: Pion.

Taylor, K. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1-2), 65–93.

Thompson, C. (2007). Smile when you’re lying: Confessions of a rogue travel writer. Ney York, NY: Holt.

Tulloch, D. L. (2007). Many, many maps: Empowerment and online participatory mapping. First Monday, 12(2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1620/1535

Schianchi, A. (2013). Location-based virtual interventions: transcending space through mobile augmented reality as a field for artistic creation. Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 19(2). Retrieved from http://www.leoalmanac.org/vol19-no2location-based-virtual-interventions/

Shirvanee, L. (2006). Locative viscosity: Traces of social histories in public space. Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 14(3-4). Retrieved from http://www.leoalmanac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Locative-Viscosity-Traces-Of-Social-Histories-In-Public-Space-Mapping-The-Emerging-Urban-Landscape-Vol-14-No-3-July-2006-Leonardo-Electronic-Almanac.pdf

Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. Boston, MA: CBI Pub.

Taylor, B. (2009). “Place” as prepolitical grounds of democracy: An Appalachian case study in class conflict, forest politics, and civic networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(6), 826–845.

Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Veronesi, F., & Gemeinboeck, P. (2009). Mapping footprints: A sonic walkthrough of landscapes and cultures. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15(3), 359–369.

Young, J. C. (2013). The spatial politics of affect and emotion in participatory GIS. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(4), 808–823.

Zickuhr, K. (2012). Three-quarters of smartphone owners use location-based services. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Location-based-services.aspx

Mobile Apps & Sites Usability Top 10 Tips

This Thursday is World Usability Day, so in honour of that I thought I'd share my top ten list of mobile website and application usability tips.

My tips are just the tip of the iceberg - but surprisingly frequently missed. As with all digital media usability issues, Jakob Nielsen is the definitive source.

Mobile Usability Top Ten Tips:

1. Mobile deserves its own design - shrunken web is not acceptable
2. Load quickly 
3. Reduce or avoid images on main pages 
4. Simplify navigation 
5. Make buttons BIG
6. Condense text - either by writing shorter copy or chunking up into paragraphs
7. Make most common info very easy to find (e.g., phone number, directions, event listings) 
8. Have only horizontal or vertical scrolling, not both
9. Make input easy  - user input is difficult on mobile devices (other than touching) when possible do things for the user automatically and minimize / avoid the need to type in anything
10. KISS - Keep it simple stupid - this is almost always true in all user experiences but in the reduced display of mobile devices and challenging user input, this maxim is even more true

I realize that user testing is rarely down in digital media production, and of course it's always necessary. But considering how absolutely awful and impossible to use some mobile websites and apps are, it often seems like even the developers haven't tried out their designs on a device. And I don't mean test them out on tablets as the user experience on these are much better than on tiny smartphones. Try it out all mobile designs on a mobile device that's a couple years old - as this is what a lot of customers are using. 

And if in doubt, consult a professional. 

Online Dating Basics: Know Your Rights

I know many people who have used dating websites. Although dating websites often don't get the respect they deserve (well, Ashley Madison doesn't deserve respect) for their commerical and social success. I know many people who have used online dating with mixed results. Unlike offline dating, people don't talk a lot about the ins and outs of online dating widely nor has the practice permeated our popular culture for everyone to have developed some streetsmarts about it.

So even though online dating has been around since at least the 1990s, it can still feel like navigating through the wild. Or so I've heard, as I've been with my spouse since I first got an Internet connection - and she will probably wonder why Ashley Madison is now in my browsing history.)

A friend has an matchmaking business focusing on helping people navigate the world of dating websites and online courtship. She recently posted on her company's blog, Junia Blog, fundamental tips for online dating to form an Online Dating Charter of Rights. She has kindly allowed me to repost it here:

******

A lot of the people I talk to seem easily frustrated by their dating website experiences. I often think that’s because they're worrying about matters that really should not concern them. In this yenta's opinion, some clarification is needed around some pretty basic issues. I'm drafting an Online Dating Charter of Rights so that we can all stop wasting time on the unproductive behaviours that lead to internet dating burnout.

You have the right to remain silent.
Opinions on the matter vary, but I don't write back to people who don't interest me. Not for myself, and not on behalf of my clients. Even if they seem really really nice, or have clearly taken some time to craft their message to you. On the few occasions I've bothered to write a nice let-down message, it's bitten me in the ass and fast. Unless you think they'd be perfect for someone else you know, just don't bother. It’ll save everyone time in the long run, even the person you’re rejecting. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable. You can choose to ignore it, or you can simply say, "I'd rather not share that with you right now, if you don't mind" and carry on nicely, if you like everything else that's happened so far. But you are never obligated to respond, ever.

You have the right to know what you like.
Do you prefer tall women? Are you utterly opposed to dating a police officer? Do non-drinkers make you as nervous as raging alcoholics? Have you got lots of male friends with goatees, but couldn't stand the thought of kissing one? Well, go right ahead and say it! There is utterly no point to being coy about these things. But make sure that you say it nicely, and not in the threatening "you'd better not send me a message if" fashion that so many people seem to employ online. Stating your preferences as a warning, like a bitter Buffalo border guard on the graveyard shift, doesn't exactly invite others to get friendly with you. In my work I have sometimes avoided messaging potential matches because even though my clients did fit their criteria quite nicely, the way the candidate laid out his or her parameters was simply off-putting.

You have the right to expect a picture.
There is absolutely no reason, at this point in history, for anyone to be ashamed of the fact that they are online dating. If you are, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I don't care if the person promises to send pictures later on. You’ve got a picture up, why don't they? (Please tell me you have a picture up.) Worried their mom/boss/neighbour/ex is going to see it? Well, just what are they doing there themselves? Seriously, the people who don’t have pictures online – or who only share pictures of animals, cars, or cartoon characters – are hiding something. I don't know what it is, but I guarantee you won't like it. Don't bother with these paranoid Luddites because they're probably married anyway.

You have the right to change your mind.
After one message, after three messages, after twelve. (Please don't let it get to twelve messages before you meet somebody though. See below for more clarification.) You don't have to answer any questions you don't like. You don't have to come up with excuses as to why you didn't write back immediately, or jump on the offer of a meeting. It's really important to trust your instincts when it comes to online dating. It's not "shopping for people," but when you're at the pre-meeting stage, you are allowed to hit pause, rewind, or erase at any point. Most dating sites have a "hide" or "block" feature; use it if the person doesn't take your backing away well. While it's preferable to be upfront about it and not just disappear on someone you've been messaging, if they've done something to upset or offend you, you owe them nothing.

You have the right to request a meeting.
If you've been messaging back and forth with someone, and things are going reasonably well, then it does not make sense to keep playing pen pals. Three messages sent and three received is about as many as I feel comfortable with before I start to get antsy, and too much literary foreplay can result in greater disappointment if the real-life encounter is a bust. Why wait? Unless your schedules are mutually very crazy, there's no reason to prolong that coffee (even though you know I don,t suggest coffee). You’ve all heard of the Catfish thing by now, right? Well, this is just how it starts.

You have the right to keep looking.
There is no such thing as "exclusively messaging." Anyone who tries to glean whether you're also chatting with other candidates – on the same site, or others you may be using – is best avoided. Even after you've met in person. I advise all of my clients to avoid any suggestion of exclusivity before at least a couple of weeks (and several good dates) have passed. (Note: this is true no matter what you personally get up to on a first date!) If the person you're seeing immediately expects you to disable your profile – or does this to their own – after a successful meeting, I don't think that's a good sign. I think it's needy, impetuous, and demonstrates a lack of discernment that could lead to relationship problems in the future. You both need to approach the situation with care, and taking yourself offline every time someone turns your head makes you seem flaky. It'll be noticeable to other users, too.

I’m now opening the floor to comments. What other internet dating rights (or responsibilities) do people need to respect? And as always, be sure to visit Junia.ca to learn more about my work and available services.

Hashtag Hell!

I have nothing against hashtags in theory - they are a great way to distinguish tags. And I love tagging - in fact I have tagged 1000 articles with my tag "net news" for bookmarking on Delicious and to share the stories I find particularly interesting and useful about Internet and digital media. These items are then displayed on the left of this blog (----> check them out ---->).

The thousandth article tagged was a story highlighting Justin Timberlake and Jimmy Falon's parody of insane tagging practices on social media. Their video really describes one of many reasons why I dislike Twitter.

I Wonder What the App Developers Were Thinking?

Every year, we take our daughter to an amusement park to celebrate her birthday.  This year we went to a nearby amusement park, Canada's Wonderland, after the summer break in the hopes of avoiding jam-packed crowds and endless lines. We didn't.

We went the past couple of years and have always found it difficult to find one's way around the park. There are almost no way-finding aids such as signs in the p0ark. Even the mountain in the park central that used to be a reliable landmark for years is no longer visible from much of the park.  So we rely on the paper map that Wonderland distributes (at the front gate). The map is more of a stylish map with a high-level artistic rendering and listings of restaurants and shops.  It's not great for finding the rides as, for example, the entrances to rides are never indicated on the map and are often difficult to locate.

Considering that one wants to get in the maximum number of thrill rides and that easily 80% of one's visit (even on a good, less-busy day) is spent waiting in line (there are lines even for the men's bathroom). Time is of the essence and thus the need to plan an optimum route and get from ride A to ride B in the shortest amount of time possible is essential.

My daughter passed a height restriction milestone recently so she was now able to go on some wild rides. My wife hates rides, so I've had a thrill ride drought lasting decades.

So it was clear that this year pre-planning our trip was mission critical.

Our first stop was Wonderland's website to read up and prioritize the rides. Their website is good but not fantastic. I tried to download their mobile app based on a QR code they provided. But once I scanned the app instead of commencing my anticipated download of their app it took me to their mobile website and a pop-up message said I should download their app. When I clicked it nothing happened. It would have been easier if they just linked to the app on the various app stores.

Their mobile website is actually pretty good - and would serve the needs of most visitors. I'm a big proponent of the mobile Web, particularly when does not need to interact with a business/service very frequently. Most apps that people download never get used more than a couple times and the habit of endlessly downloading apps is not sustainable for users - so eventually we are all going to have to embrace the mobile web.

But the app promised to have GPS Enabled map, which I thought would be invaluable and would be difficult to do with only a mobile website. So I had to go to my device's app store and find the official app (annoying - as they should have had a link to it in the first place and it's difficult to find the official one).

After installing the app, I realized it is not significantly different from their mobile website. Mostly, it offers brief static content - most of which is useful, if not spectacular. The have an events feature that doesn't appear to work as it has pulled up nothing for September or October (despite at least a couple of events that I know are occurring). There is a "Friend Finder" feature that seems promising (as I frequently lose track of my wife) but they have no description of what it is anywhere and one need an individual and their friends PIN numbers before it can be used.

But the worst disappointment is the map function. Granted, they do have their illustrated map, which is handy as users can look up an attraction and have it flagged prominently on the map. But it has flaws: it's not completely accurate, it does not the ride entrance, and it does not zoom to a high level. Despite the claim that it is "GPS Enabled" it does not indicate where one is in relation to the desired attraction, as one expects with GPS-enabled maps. I can't see any GPS functionality whatsoever and it doesn't even have a manual way to highlight the route between two points.

Of course, there is even more they could be doing with their app - not only with maps such as showing where the nearest snacks or bathrooms are or where one parked their car - but also buying tickets to their attractions that cost extra, or delivering geo-targetted promotions.

What I'd like most is an excellent planner feature that would let me plan my day on their website and then view it on their app in a timeline or map. I'd also love it if they had dynamic information on the wait times so that I could hustle to a ride with short lines and avoid those with killer waits. Hell, since no matter what I'm going to be waiting for a long time - at least give me some content to pass the endless time!

Exploring the World of Geocaching

A couple weeks ago, I decided to start geocaching. I have always liked hiking and exploring plus I figured geocaching was an interesting way to engage with my research interest on locative technology and people's playful interactions with place via their mobile devices.

Briefly, geocaching is activity wherein average people across the world hide a box (cache) which contains a log book and possibly trinkets. The cache hider then enters the geocache's GPS coordinates and description  into an online database. The people like me try to find them the caches on their GPS device or smartphone using the location coordinates. Then the finder goes online to log the find and share their story.

There are various versions of geocaching and sites, but the most commonly used one is Geocaching,com. The site also has best introduction on the topic. 

I've now found four geocaches in three different cities and used both my mobile device and two different GPS devices (Garmin and TomTom) so I feel enough of a non-muggle (yes, they use that term as much as I hate it) to comment on it.

Applications and devices
I am in limited budget, so when I noticed that the official geocache mobile was $10, I was nonplussed. $10 is one of the most expensive mobile apps that I have encountered and it is a lot to fork out for someone just trying out geocaching.

So I found a free open-source app for Androids- c:geo. For novices, c:geo is not the simplest app to use but once one gets more familiar it becomes easier to use. Now, I like using it so much, I can't see why anyone would pay $10 for the "official" app.

The activity
I like going for walks and hiking and don't need much motivation beyond some pleasant scenery to get me going (although a good pastry at the end certainly doesn't hurt). But I thought geocaching might add a dimension of fun to a hike, engage my daughter, and possibly learn something about a location. I also thought it might make going for a walk in a dull or nondescript location more enjoyable.

So in most of these regards, geocaching is a hit with my me and my family. If you are going to go on a hike anyway, it definitely adds to one's enjoyment and is not a distraction.

My daughter enjoys the hunt for the cache when we are close, but mostly she's in it for the treasure contained within. From my small sample, this has been a bit of a bust as half our geocaches we found were empty or had essentially garbage (business cards, broken stuff, etc.).

I really like the "Earth Cache" type that I did as I learned a lot about the difference between geodes, vugs, and other cavities.  But to log it the cache, one needs to have a portable black light. I hate it when people set up such ridiculous and frankly elitist requirements to any activity (as really who owns a portable black light). So if this is any reflection of the requirements allowed for Earth Caches then this isn't really for me.

I've heard that people are competitive about the amount of geocaches they find. This element of the activity doesn't appeal to me. But I do like the ability to log one's finds and have that as a personal travel log.


It is rewarding to find a cache after a difficult search, all the while not trying to clue the muggles into what you are doing.  On our last geocache (in Peterborough, Ontario), the cops pulled up beside us and waited for us to leave. I'm not sure what trouble they thought a couple with a young kid were going to get into.

Overall
I didn't really like using a GPS device as it provides so little information beyond the location. I want to know about the context of the cache, other people's comments, and ideally background information about the area of the cache's location. So I'm not going to buy a GPS handheld device.

My smartphone app does offer this background info nicely. But with roaming costs being what they are (exorbitant), I doubt I'll do it much beyond the major metropolitan areas where my coverage is included in my existing package. For this reason, I'd like to see more geocaches in my city than is currently available.

My daughter and I enjoyed geocaching and will likely do it again (during the few months of agreeable weather we have in Ontario, of course). And as I mentioned, if I'm going on a hike/walk anyway, I may check it out to see if there is a geocache en route.

Overall, I would like more playful ways to find the cache then just plugging in coordinates and then go. I'd also like to see more information about the cache's context than seems commonly provided.

I'm new to this, however, and maybe there are solutions to my problems or workarounds? If so, please let me know.

Related activities
In researching this article. I uncovered many other activities that use locative technology to encourage physical explorations whether finding objects, (via QR codes), solving clues or puzzles to find a location, or various other games fostering playful interactions with the world.  I've compiled a list of location-based games on Delicious, but here's a good article highlighting ten GPS-related games.

These sound appealing to me and would likely be a hit with my kid, so I want to try some of these out. There are so many though. Anyone have any recommendations?

My Snapshots of Canada

In honour of Canada Day today, I wanted to do a special post to honour my country. I normally update my list of Canadian Who's Who of Digital Media, but there hasn't been many changes since last year.

Now that Flickr has increased its upload limit, I decided to share my favourite photos I've taken from my various trips across this country (since getting a digital camera at least). So here are my favourites snapshots of Canada on a map and in thumbnails:

See in fullscreen mode

Canada, a set on Flickr.