View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Georeferencing Train-the-TrainersSurvey ResultsSelected Findings
You are a Diverse Group!
• Undergraduate• Graduate student• Post-doc• Collection manager• Collections Assistant• Curator• Curatorial assistant, technician• University faculty• Museum scientist• Project Manager• Georeferencing Technician• ITS professional• Technology department staff
Range of Georeferencing Experience
• Zero to thousands of records
Participants’ Experience:What have you georeferenced?
Fungii and lichens
Herps
Birds
Other
Insects
Mammals
Fish
Fossils
Plants
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
10
Number of Respondents
Other: Geologic materials, cultural artifacts
Participants’ Projects
Databases range from 1 – 100+Institutions range from 1 to 65Unique locality records range from
1000 to 1,000,000Specimen records range from 10,000 to millionsNumber of people to do georeferencing ranges
from 2- 3 to hundreds
Software Used to Georeference
Alexandria Digital GazetteerNational Geographic Topo
Mexican INEGI websiteGeoNames (NGA)
General Google searchesCustom google map layers
DIVA-GISTRS2LLArcGIS
TopoMapsBioGeomancer
GEOLocateGoogle MapsGoogle Earth
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Respondents
Geo
refe
renc
ing
Soft
war
e
Data Management Software
FilemakerArthropod Easy Capture
GeoLocateMuse
TROPICOSMIMSY XG/Oracle
Custom PostgreSQL DatabaseKE EMu
Microsoft AccessSymbiota
Microsoft ExcelSpecify
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Respondents
Dat
a M
anag
emen
t Soft
war
e
Topics of Greatest Interest• Online tools for georeferencing• Semi-automated tools for georeferencing • Data cleaning, processing, and analysis• Collaborative georeferencing using GEOLocate• Localities and locality descriptions• Post automation validation • Examples of possible workflows using GEOLocate,
Symbiota and/or Specify• Working with polygons and representing localities as
polygons
Participants’ Future Workshops
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Length of Workshop (Days)
Num
ber o
f Par
ticip
ants
TTT Cohort 1
• 13 of 19 respondents have conducted at least one training
• 11 - one-on-one or small group training• 6 - conducted large group trainings• More than 13,000 records have been
digitized as a result of the training**need a better way to track this metric!
Resources Used
• 11 of 13 used resources from the workshop• Georeferencing Quick Reference Guide extensively (and have several
copies on hand in the lab). I have also utilized the georeferencing calculator, the GBIF georeferencing guide, and almost all of the material covered at the workshop in Gainesville (2012). I have an EverNote folder with all of the notes I took at the workshop, including Powerpoint links, worked examples, discussion topics, links to external resources, and activities that I draw upon on a daily basis.
• Vimeo Videos Power Point presentations Excel Template• Geocalculator Geolocate• Geographical Concepts, GeoLocate, georeferencing calculator• Yes, I have shared online resources with students and colleagues.
Resources Used
• I've used the online tools and quick guides to provide a quick overview of the methods/workflows. I usually will send the wiki as a link prior to the training as sort of overview/read ahead.
• Used the content from the Workshop to write up my own protocol• Georeferencing Calculator; Presentations from The First iDigBio GWG Train the
Trainers Workshop (if nothing more as a refresher to make sure I am including everything)
• I reviewed ALL the materials before conducting the training. I modeled the workshop after the session on the georeferencing calculator but made my own materials.
• Georeferencing Quick Reference Guide, Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing, MaNIS Georeferencing Calculator, Selected Online Resources & Tools, Google Earth Statoids
• Yes we absolutely used all of the resources on the wiki to plan our training. Some of the slides depicting various georeferencing principles were particularly helpful.
What Worked Well—Small Group
• Personalized attention• Watching the videos
– Watching the videos prior to the workshop meant we could save some time going through those topics and also gave them time to get used to some of the basic concepts. Although they will end up using GEOLocate all the time in the database it definitely helped to have them work without it at first, that way they understood the kind of assumptions and calculations are going on behind the scenes, and to be more discerning when accepting or altering their results.
• Working through examples• Explaining good and bad localities and basic geographical
concepts• Referring back to workshop presentations• Working with the paper maps
– It seemed to work well to convey basic geographic concepts such as datums.
What Worked Well—Large Group
• Working in pairs. Having two trained staff to stand by to assist. But the thing that worked the best was having John Wieczorek on call through Google Hangouts to get us out of trouble--mostly this was due to people using different browsers and operating system combinations along with the Georeferencing Calculator.
• I used many screengrabs from the various resources in my PowerPoint. I demonstrated each online tool as we went through the PowerPoint, rather than doing it all at the end. I feel this was a very effective teaching method, and have received a lot of positive feedback about the way the tools were presented.
• I thought having a number of short sessions worked well for groups as people could attend those sessions they felt were most applicable to what they needed.
Change anything?
• There was a lot of information to take in on Day 1, I think I would go through more examples before the exercises. If we had more time I would have covered paper maps, so that they also had a better understanding of the georeferencing calculator and why measurement error, scale etc. is important.
• I would get a more targeted set of maps at different map scales and different datums if possible. The maps I had were from many different parts of the globe, which was good, but it would be nice to have them overlap at different scales.
• I was surprised to learn that I assumed a greater amount of background knowledge than individuals actually possessed. I had planned on the introductory/theoretical background of geographic information systems (projections, datum, coordinate systems, sources of uncertainty, Darwin Core fields) being brief, but it turned out the be a highlight of my presentation.
Change anything?• For the next training, I would like to ask for more examples from the participants
ahead of time, so I can get a better idea of what their collections are like and what their specific goals and concerns are.
• Some topics were rushed. More time needed in the future (but the presentations were intended to be introductory so it worked). Will have hands on activities in future sessions.
• I would insist that people remain long enough to practice more. (It was the end of the meeting and understandably they wanted to get home.) I also would make sure that they understood all the fields in their database that they would need to document the georeferencing--we didn't go over all of the fields recommended, although I did give them a list of the fields and their definitions. Finally, instead of giving them the answers to the coordinates that they were supposed to find, I asked them to check their locations in Google Earth or Google maps by copying and pasting the coordinates into the search field. This worked well--but I forgot about the datum shift! So either I should build in a step to convert from NAD27 (topo map datum) to WGS84 used in Google Earth, or at least use it as a Teaching Moment to show them what a datum shift looks like.
Evaluation Notes
• Please watch for post-workshop survey(s) and follow-up
• Try to join us in tracking number of records georeferenced
• Consider contacting me (Shari Ellis) at sellis@ufl.edu for assistance in evaluating your workshops or training efforts
Recommended