Muki’s article is relevant to one of the outputs from the fem2map project. Discussing definitions is one of the most boring things that excite academics and hence leads to heated debate. In the conference paper “Gender dimensions in UGC and VGI – A desk-based study“, my co-authors and I were so ambitious (and perhaps also naive) that we tried to define not only VGI but also UGC. We thought we were doing a good job comparing OSM with other UGC and VGI projects. Now I feel it’s an open call for criticism / feedback to an over-simplified sets of definitions and to this conference paper.
As far as I can tell, Nelson et al. 2006 ‘Towards development of a high quality public domain global roads database‘ and Taylor & Caquard 2006 Cybercartography: Maps and Mapping in the Information Era are the first peer review papers that mention OpenStreetMap. Since then, OpenStreetMap received plenty of academic attention. More ‘conservative’ search engines such as ScienceDirect or Scopus find 286 and 236 peer review papers that mention the project (respectively). The ACM digital library finds 461 papers in the areas that are relevant to computing and electronics, while Microsoft Academic Research find only 112. Google Scholar lists over 9000 (!). Even with the most conservative version from Microsoft, we can see an impact on fields ranging from social science to engineering and physics. So lots to be proud about as a major contribution to knowledge beyond producing maps.
Michael Goodchild, in his 2007 paper that started…
View original post 497 more words