What does Google Earth Mean for the Social Sciences? - Geographic Visualization: Concepts, Tools and Applications - page 19

Figure 2.3 Boundary between high-resolution (approximately 1 m) and low-resolution (approxi-
mately 20 m) base imagery southeast of Bristol, UK
Many of these questions originate in work on the social significance of mapping that
began in the late 1980s, primarily with the research of Brian Harley (2002). Denis Wood's
The Power of Maps (Wood, 1992) carried this process of deconstruction further, asking
whether something as apparently innocuous as a road map might somehow reveal an agenda
on the part of its makers. By the early 1990s the growth of interest in GIS, and the lack of
concern for its social implications, led to the publication of John Pickles's Ground Truth
(Pickles, 1995), which raised a host of questions about the social impacts of this burgeoning
technology. Those issues that clearly apply to Google Earth are reviewed in the following
sections.
2.4.1 A mirror world
Much of Google Earth's appeal and ease of use stems from its apparently faithful replication of
the visible features of the planet's surface. The base imagery provides a reasonable rendering
of how the surface looks at close to local noon; the topography provides a faithful and
unexaggerated relief, and while roads and point features are symbolized, their rendering is
close to the familiar one of maps and atlases. It is not too much of a stretch, then, to assume
that users feel they are looking at a facsimile of the real world, and some first-time users
may even assume that the imagery is current to the minute.
In reality, of course, Google Earth presents a far-from-faithful rendering. The age of
imagery varies, and it may be difficult to determine exactly when a given area of imagery
was acquired. In March 2007 US Congressman Brad Miller drew attention to the apparent