Talk:Technical geography

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography}}

Hi, thank you for this article. I'm afraid there's not enough sources to verify the current content separation between sub-branches and techniques, content which I dispute. At least cartography, photogrammetry, remote sensing and surveying, all have well established international learned societies to demonstrate each one is a field of study or academic discipline, not just a tool. On the other hand, geodesists would hardly call themselves a geographer (or technical geographer), similarly for scholars and professionals in geomatics and geoinformatics. So, I'd like to propose creating a section titled Related disciplines with the terms mentioned above. Sub-branches would contain only things that are called explicitly a "geography" variant. And it's okay if the list of Techniques and tools is expanded to include topics also studied by a related discipline, such as GPS. fgnievinski (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I based the majority of the outline on the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, but have additional citations. For example: {{Quote|The technical geography topic presents a range of subjects that provide essential tools to geographical research, teaching, and practice. On one hand it includes geomatics, one of geography’s classical subject matters; on the other it introduces modeling of geographical systems, a field that has gained an important place in modern geography. It contains two articles related to the most traditional geographical techniques: geodesy, topography, mapping, and atlas production. The other three articles present modern techniques now very widely used by geographers: remote sensing, geographical information systems, and modeling.| [https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c01/e6-14.pdf GEOGRAPHY], Maria Sala}}

:There is an "ontological criticism" section already, and it is based largely on the work [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-78145-3 The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies]. Fundamentally, there isn't a single way to organize the discipline(s), and "technical geography" is one way. I have created a page for Four traditions of geography which takes a different approach. It is impossible to respect the organization presented by every source, by every discipline, in every country, so I chose to go with what the sources specific to technical geography were saying here and flush around that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yet sources still fail verification. Take, for example, the sources for cartography: Haidu (2016) just says "Ormeling (2009a) sees Technical Geography as a natural and modern consequence of the evolution of Cartography". Then Ormeling (2009, available only as a sample), doesn't even mention "technical geography" in the first few pages (despite the title). The first volume of Geographia Technica doesn't mention anything substantial about the topic.

::In this case, of a challenged and failed verification, one would need multiple sources making an explicit claim. Without such extraordinary evidence, the writing should be softened. It'd be more acceptable to state "technical geography employs many techniques and technologies developed in related fields such as: cartography" instead of "technical geography employs, and has developed, many techniques and technologies, such as: cartography". The proposed phrasing recognizes cartography as a field on its own. Similarly for photogrammetry, remote sensing, surveying, which Ormeling (2009) actually includes under the "mapping sciences", not technical geography. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::* The Sala quote above specifically mentions "mapping and atlas production" as techniques. They also grouped geomatics and geodesy into technical geography. It goes on to state {{Quote| "The system of geographical sciences also includes several specific techniques, such as geodesy and cartography, which allow understanding of the earth’s scale, and the principles and methods of mapping. The map is the primary tool of every geographer."}}

:::* Ormeling's entry in the UNESCO EOLSS literally on the topic of Technical geography, it is an encyclopedia entry within an encyclopedia that isn't repeating the term it is discussing/defining of the term. The title of the article is "Technical geography: Core concepts in the mapping sciences." The mapping sciences being a sub-discipline within the broader geography, which is where they are placed within the organization of the UNESCO EOLSS, as discussed by the Sala quote.

:::* You can critique the publication by Haidu, but that doesn't change Haidu's interpretation of the source of Ormeling's work in that publication. Saying "despite the title" is a bit disingenuous, it is not a huge leap in logic that is made to assume the discussion about cartography in the technical geography article pertains to the subject of the article, but it was the source that made that leap. To quote another article not cited in the article by Haidu: {{Quote|In my opinion, spatial and temporal data and information achieved by such techniques and tools should be kept as data of specific technico-geographical character, even if these are used by other disciplines. It is well known that at the beginning GIS was used for geographical and spatial applications, but today this technology is claimed by other sciences. }}

:::* {{Comment}} I have not cited the second publication by Haidu because it explicitly mentions this Wiki article. Instead, it is linked above under "This article has been mentioned by a peer-reviewed publication:". I want to clarify I don't know Haidu, and am not affiliated with the journal in any way. I explored it as a possible outlet for some of my professional research, but have not submitted anything as of now.

:::* I found that I had accidently used the citation to the first issue of the Geographia Technica after reviewing your comment and fixed that. I intended to point towards their "[https://technicalgeography.org/index.php/aims-and-scope aims and scope]" page, which states: {{quote|Our understanding of Geographia Technica expands the concept of technical methods applied to geography to its broadest sense and for that, papers of different interests such as: G.l.S, Spatial Analysis, Remote Sensing, Cartography or Geostatistics}}

:::*Going deeper into sources, looking at the 1749 text [https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_geography-reformed-a-ne_1749/page/250/mode/2up Geography reformed: a new system of general geography, according to an accurate analysis of the science in four parts]: {{Quote|"The Description confider'd as to Form is of three Sorts; The first exhibits the Earth, by a Draught or Delineation; the second by Tables, or Registers; and the third by Treties or Discourse. Hence Technical Geography may be divided into Representatory, Synoptical, and Explanatory."}}

::::Where representation is defined as:

:::{{Quote|"A representation therefore is of two kinds according to the Subject; that on a round Superficies is called a Globe, and that on a flat plane is called a Map"}}

:::Within the technical geography literature, cartography is one of the things they are studying/employing/developing and is generally refereed to as a "method" or "technique," not a stand alone discipline. While I'm aware other literature does explicitly state cartography is a stand alone discipline, that does not appear to be the opinion of the sources as I'm reading them. Based on your feedback though and wanting to address an ontological debate I know exists, I changed the caption on that gallery to Technical geography employs, researches, and has built upon, many techniques and technologies. These technologies are employed by other disciplines, and may be consdiered stand alone fields in their own right, such as:. I think this helps account for your criticism of the wording.

:::

:::* {{Note:}}:The Encyclopedia Britannica, not cited in this Wiki, also places cartography under geography in their [https://www.britannica.com/science/cartography article] on the topic.

:::GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)