First I spend my morning packing and going over the “Crisis in Darfur” project in Google Earth. The hotel, maybe this is even the reason why we are hosted here, provides for a perfect Internet connection so that works fine.  When done there is still time for a walk and some last field reading. So this means that I do manage to finish my fifth article: Writing Within the Map by Jeremy Hight.

Both articles deal with the possibilities of “publishing” a subjective, personal or even manipulative story on a (existing) digital map. This is discussed as in contradiction to the more traditional means of a linear story telling or even an interactive website. Both articles compete each other: the Parks article concentrates totally on the example of the  “Crisis in Darfur” project, and never really dives into the possibilities of Geo-Story-telling in general. The Hight article on the contrary, speculates enthusiastically on possibilities of Geo-Story-telling, but never so much gives any already existing example. Interesting observation: Hight emphasis several possibilities of the representation of historical spaces, (for example buildings that might not exist anymore)… while Parks’ mayor criticism on the “Crisis in Darfur” Project is that the Google Earth layer never offers for exact dating of the events it publishes about. And this is true and indeed frustrating as I experienced this morning: I can zoom in on destroyed and damaged villages but non of them were very exact dated, nor were the possibilities of “timeline” utilized that are capable of showing the course of events very neatly, even “animate” them, as other Google Earth Outreach projects, do use.

Parks’ other point of criticism is that although Google and the USHMM claim that the projects goal is a better protection of the Darfur civilians, all they talk about when it comes to project boosting is the amount of press coverage, amounts of downloads and media attention. They never seem to pay attention to the practical result of the project in terms of actual humanitarian effect. Cynical point is that people living in Sudan cannot even cutinize the project themselves, given that US export controls and economic sanctions against Sudan prohibit people in that country from downloading US software. (Parks, 2010) Anyway, what the article leaves me curious about is how Lisa feels about possibilities of the using a map (whatever map) as a platform for story telling (whatever story telling). Is the project a missed opportunity, or can we still use it as a learning experience for and Ginny Pig of what digital geo- story telling could offer? Let’s forget for a moment about the political issues for the sake of geo-storytelling development….. In that case it might be more interesting to compare different projects in the Google Earth layer, and or discuss what it brings to flight around 3D models of buildings. This is exactly what Hight touches upon is his article, but he never mentions the Google Earth possibilities nor Schetchup 3D buildings although the thought of these obvious examples forces itself upon me whilst reading. But maybe I have been a little bit to much focused on Google Earth lately…..

What the Hight story leaves me curious about is how he feels about the projects in the Google Awarness layer or is Google Earth outreach, and .kmz files as a platform for the kind of story telling he advocates. But luckily the Locative Media scene is rather small, so I will send all authors of the articles an email and ask if they would read this blog and hopefully even leave a personal comment.