Chris Rowan is a geologist specialising in the dark arts of paleomagnetism, and getting people to pay him to travel to exotic destinations for fieldwork. Having drilled up New Zealand during his PhD, and South Africa in his first post-doc, he now works at the University of Edinburgh.
Anne Jefferson has a love of all things water-related and blends hydrology, geomorphology, geology, and climate change in her work. She has a Ph.D. from Oregon State University and is now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.The UJ mapping class this year were piloting electronic field notebooks, with each group being given a PDA in which they could enter a locality, a description, and any structural data they were measuring. Especially with the structual data, this may seem like a useful innovation which saves hours of tedious data entry when you're back home. Still, I remain to be convinced that using an electronic notebook is automatically a good thing; the batteries don't run out when you're using pen and paper, and there's also the fact that fieldwork is not kind to delicate electronics (for example, whilst I'm sampling for palaeomag, there's a lot of mud flying about, including all over me, and I doubt this interacts too well with computery stuff)
I'd be interested to know if anyone else has experiences in using such devices in the field, either in an educational or research context, and what your thoughts are on their usefulness (or lack thereof). Does the extra functionality make it any more useful than a basic (and more rugged) GPS?
Technology
Education & Careers
Comments
This sounds like the old story about NASA spending a lot of money developing pens that work in zero gravity while the Russians use pencil. The chemistry lab may not be as muddy as the field but I also remain unconvinced about carting my laptop around the benches just to type notes. All those chemicals getting on the keyboard - no thanks!
Now, an iPod touch with built in GPS, that'd be useful!
Posted by: Katherine Haxton | July 14, 2008 11:16 AM
An interesting idea - useful for those of us with horrible penmanship, inconsistent notetaking style, and a tendency to smudge whatever we've already written ("darn it, is that 35, -35, or 135?"). Might be easier to use when windy, too.
I wonder if PDAs are less likely to encourage drawing of outcrops (my field books were always crammed with sketches, but I've never had a PDA that was that easy to sketch on). Then again, I remember being lectured in field camp on how GPS would never be useful for mapping because it wasn't accurate enough... technology moves on.
Posted by: squawky | July 14, 2008 12:45 PM
I agree that you're looking more at a when than an if, sooner or later we're probably going to see something as robust and usable as a science fiction dataslate/PADD/whatever.
And about the NASA pen/Soviet pencil story: It's true, but it leaves off all the work the Soviets had to do to make a pencil that didn't leave graphite dust floating all over the craft.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | July 14, 2008 1:15 PM
If I had a PDA with a decent foldable keyboard and replaceable batteries (instead of rechargeables), I would probably be taking it on my forthcoming 2-week hike instead of a paper journal. The reason? I can type a lot faster than writing out by hand. But if I had to use that stupid Palm handwriting thingy or an iPhone keyboard, I'd prefer a handwritten journal.
But either way I probably won't be keeping my journal in the rain -- I'm a recreational hiker, not a geologist!
Posted by: Dave Munger | July 14, 2008 3:45 PM
I agree ... I'm not ready to go all digital in the field. That said, I think there are ways to integrate new technology, in certain cases. For example, I find it useful to download photos every night back in town or camp (if you have access to power) and quickly review them. We do a lot of cliff-face stratigraphy, so we'll make photomosaics (which can now be done quickly and virtually seamlessly w/ many programs) and discuss the patterns we see, which helps us target what to do the following days. My fiance helped a geology department purchase and set up a bunch of "toughbook" laptops loaded w/ mapping software ... they are going to test them pretty seriously this summer.
I still like my Rite-in-the-Rain books for logging sections or basic observational notes. Admittedly, I haven't done any hard-core geologic mapping in a few years, so perhaps newer technology is better suited for that application.
Posted by: BrianR | July 14, 2008 4:53 PM
I'm an echoboomer who's been using computers since I was 7 years old, but the idea of bringing electronics out in the field just so we're not doing it 'the outdated way' is absurd. Pencil? Check. Waterproof fieldbook? Check. Metal clipboard? Check. What more do you need?
I'm spending my days logging core for a junior company and I've tried paper logging vs laptop logging and notice no clear benefit on technology's part. The time I waste entering the data from the paper log into the computer is more than made up by running back and forth from the core to the computer (and forgetting meterage and angles on the way), or having to move it everytime I need to wet the core down. With a pen and pad, I can get right up close and enter it all real-time; plus, I can format it on the paper in a way that's most readible to me.
Technology is great - don't get me wrong - but I think some people get carried away with it. You're just recording data, so does it really matter what medium you use?
Posted by: KC | July 14, 2008 10:11 PM
I am experimenting with technology in the field and have previously blogged about it here.
Specifically, I'm trialling a Samsung Q1 ultra-notebook running ArcGIS. It is a useful combination but battery life is not good (especially as it needs a bright screen and insists in powering the GPS through the USB connection) and electronic technology does not go that well with the British weather.
Posted by: Hypocentre | July 15, 2008 7:48 PM
I wonder if PDAs are less likely to encourage drawing of outcrops (my field books were always crammed with sketches, but I've never had a PDA that was that easy to sketch on).
Perhaps a digital camera could be used to take pictures of outcrops. Some PDAs have built in cameras, as well.
Anyway, one thought that comes to mind, while everyone is talking about logging data by recording it on paper or on a computer, how impractical could it be to, well, record it--either on a standalone voice recorder or some other device (like a PDA) that might have voice recording features?
Posted by: Nick Gardner | July 16, 2008 1:46 PM
I presume they will be going into the field with paper notebooks, too. Just sit back and watch the experiment. If they start leaving either their PDA's or their notebooks back in camp, you'll know what works.
Posted by: CherryBomb | July 16, 2008 7:08 PM
I've been logging drilling on computer (a panasonic toughbook), but using paper for mapping. Logging on paper would suck during a drilling program, as it would turn a 15 hour work day into a 17 or 18 hour one. If computers were a bit less bulky, they would be great for mapping- typing up field notes is always a chore at the end of the day when we're all tired and have better things to do.
Recording during a drill program would be tricky, simply due to the noise of the rig- the humans all wear ear protection, for example. For the same reason, ipods are frowned upon.
Posted by: Lab Lemming | July 16, 2008 9:00 PM
To log during a drill program, the way we do, you just need more people and a warehouse, trailer, or office to retreat to.
They've been threatening to take our computer logging method to the next level by adding voice recognition, which has apparently already been done by at least one company in the mining industry. I'm a little leary of having to do that, although once used it, it would probably be a bit faster than turning around and entering on the computer.
For mapping, we use a giant map board with gridded paper, map the outcrops with the GPS, record all structural info on the GPS. It can go pretty fast. (I still use a field book, though.)
My phone takes okay 2 MPixel pics, which really aren't good enough for actually recording good outcrops.
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 17, 2008 8:50 AM
PDA's can be great in the field... given they are programmed properly. I have used one mapping in the Northwest Territories in Canada. There has been a big development from the Northwest Territorie Geoscience Office in Yellowknife for these in mapping situations. THere have been bugs in the system, but overall they are efficient. They had built in GPS devices and digital airphotos and basemaps loaded and all data is automatically put into a database and plotted into an Arc program at the end of the day. We did carrying proper air photo with mylar and a compass for navigation and filed plotting... makes things easier to visuaize.
However, there will always be a need to bring the old fashioned notebook into the field, for drawing diagrams/sketches, or taking detailed notes. I have also seen a combo with notebooks where only data and locations are entered and all other notes are kept in notebooks.
Posted by: Micheal | July 21, 2008 11:37 AM
I am a geologic mapper for a living for a state geologic survey in the U.S. I'm a very young mapper, raised in the digital age, and use computers extensively for paper and digital map production. I've used PDAs in the field and been in the field alongside students I'm supervising who themselves are using PDAs / tablet PCs in the field. Here are my observations and (admittedly strong) opinions from those experiences:
1.) The two times I've brought PDAs into the field, they've broken before lunch.
2.) Bringing such technology into the field increases the shear amount of *stuff* one has to carry and manage, which slows one down. If you're a production mapper, this is not good.
3.) Additional time has to be spent in the field backing up data, waiting for the electronics to do their thing, switching batteries, and recording your data in a paper notebook (which doesn't lose the data if it gets wet, etc...). This is time that could be spent looking at rocks and thinking about them.
4.) Making detailed, colored sketches (critical for mapping and interpreting structure) is rather difficult on a computer screen.
5.) You cannot see the entire map at the scale you're mapping on a computer screen. You can with a paper or mylar base. The latter is much more preferable when in the field.
6.) The students I've observed who use PDAs to record data commonly have abysmal field maps, and don't take notes or sketches. Granted, this may be more a reflection of their professor, or them, than the technology. They are not making their maps while in the field, but downloading their data at night and try to make maps at camp based on their data and what they could remember that day. This is bad field practice. There is also a tendency to believe the GPS over ones own eyes when it comes to locating oneself.
7.) By the time someone is finished entering data into a PDA, I have already moved on to the next outcrop, having taken extensive notes and data, notated my fieldmap, taken a GPS reading, and made a sketch if necessary.
8.) Re: Photos. Photographs are worthless without metadata, and the best form of metadata for a photograph is a detailed, labeled sketch.
*** I have found that having entered my data in digital form in the field saves no time in the long run in map production, and does not improve the quality of my work or map. Some of my colleagues in other state surveys have come to the same conclusion. The liability of having ones data *only* in an unstable digital form in the field is too great a risk to take, and the time spent recording the data twice is much better spent actually doing geology.
Entering data into the computer while not in the field does not take that much time (only 3-4 days for 3000+ structural measurements), and can be made very pleasant experience when done on a laptop in the local coffee shop when you're done with fieldwork.
PDAs with GPS capability are very useful in the field for their ability to display areal orthophotography, nearby well borings, geophysical data, etc... to assist your mapping in the field. For the reasons expressed above, though, I'm not a fan of using them to record data and observations.
My main argument is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it: A paper notebook and a paper map base are elegant, simple, low-tech solutions to mapping in the field efficiently. They are also inherently more stable and durable than digital data-- decades down the road, a geologist working in your area can look at your paper fieldmap and notes and see how you interpreted the geology. Not quite the same with digital. They still work if the electric goes out. They can be converted to digital form in the office.
Posted by: Joe Kopera | July 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Having read the last comment from Joe Kopera I must say I agree with him a lot. During my 3 field exercise mapping courses at university we were never allowed to use other electronic equipment than the GPS. Only foto cameras were tolerated but fotos generally only accepted in reports if they were accompanied by a sufficient description or were absolutely necessary to illustrate certain matters. So cameras were basicly private fun or simply additional memory aids for oneself besides the field book notes. We also keep mapping when it is raining heavily or snowing as long as we see enough. Most electronics will break down under such conditions or if they are shielded against it have the same weight like 5 or 6 good samples of rock. By chance I always worked in the student groups who did NOT have a laptop with them in the field trips. Oddly enough we were not only the ones who were done first but also the ones with the best and most accurate reports and map. The computer guys spend an elaborate amount of time on fancy computer grafics or illustrating their compass measurements - but it does not deliver you more data (usually).
Also, often we didn't have enough GPS devices for everyone. We were made to find our position on a map without it more often than not.
Forgetting everything above I personally have just one important issue about these things. Is the added weight going to improve the data/mapping/whatever significantly AND will it save me time? If not it's worthless IMHO.
Posted by: Lost Geologist | July 22, 2008 12:54 PM
I'm not a scientist, just a random AV geek, but I have to chime in. I usually have a PalmPilot on me (currently a Zire 31, bought used) and I have to say that the screen on that particular model is terrible in sunlight. I'm sure things have gotten better with newer designs, but the fundamental problem seems to be inherent with LCDs.
Truthfully, PDAs are simply too small. I've seen Sony's ebook reader with an eInk display, and it's about the right form factor, but eInk is not yet available widely in color, and I don't think Sony's unit really has the horsepower to meet the demands stated in the article. Palm/Apple/WinCE gear has the horsepower, but they aren't really optimized for sketching. My advice, from my daily experience: PDAs in general are just fine for what I use mine for ("shopping list with games"), and they're so-so for basic note-taking, but you're still better off with a waterproof notebook.
Posted by: Brian X | July 23, 2008 12:55 PM