[Geowanking] spatial spam, [was Introduction]

[Mike Liebhold]

  Mike Liebhold wrote:

>>'Spatial Spam' is one of my current big worries. It's inevitible, unless
>>we begin thinking deeply, right now, about appropriate mitigation.
>>
>
>Joshua Schacter wrote:
>
>So combining "relevance" and "nearness" (or any other pair, for that
>matter) ends up being very difficult indeed.
>
>-
>
Yes. And nearnesss is always a function of the scale of the queried 
spatial coverage.   Any data and geocoded objects common within a 
geospatial polygon, are truly nearby, 'everywhere' , so spatial spam 
objects could be 'everywhere', like visible litter. How  to decide what 
is cartographically 'true'  let alone 'relevant'?

Here's an illustration of a clearly different, but related fundamental 
UI problem:

mcspam image

>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/attachments/20030428/a72052a0/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 47998 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/attachments/20030428/a72052a0/attachment-0003.gif>