Software developers who create geographic web applications are a new kind of mapmaker producing new kinds of maps. They typically use private web-mapping services, such as Google Maps, without training in cartography or geographic information systems. How do software developers become mapmaking subjects producing geographic knowledges in the context of corporate mapping services? I argue that geoweb developers' subject positions and geographic knowledges are produced through the social relations of geoweb technology. Specifically, two culturally derived technical codes, playful fun and profit-seeking, are enormously influential in defining the subject positions and knowledges of geoweb applications. Utilizing both textual and in-person research, I analyze the social formation of third-party geoweb applications based on Google Maps, the social, technological limits that application developers work within, and the possibilities for developers in that context. Most developers and their knowledges stick with the technology's social codes, but a few create applications that transgress their contextual limits, opening further new possibilities for mapping, subject formation, and geographic knowledge on the web.
CobarrubiasSPicklesJ (2008) “Spacing movements”. In: WarfBAriasS (eds) The Spatial Turn: InterdisciplinaryPerspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 36–58.
11.
ColemanDGeorgiadouJ YLabonteJ (2009) “Volunteered geographic information: the nature and motivation of produsers”. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research4: 332–358.
12.
CosgroveD (1998) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 2nd. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
13.
CramptonJ (2009) “Cartography: Maps 2.0”. Progress in Human Geography33(1): 91–100.
14.
CramptonJ (2010) Mapping: A Critical Introduction to Cartography and GIS, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
15.
CramptonJGrahamMPoorthuisASheltonTStephensMWilsonMZookM (2013) “Beyond the geotag: situating ‘big data’ and leveraging the potential of the geoweb”. Cartography and Geographic Information Science40(2): 130–139.
16.
CramptonJRobertsAPoorthuisA (2014) “The new political economy of geographical intelligence”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers104: 196–214.
17.
CrutcherMZookM (2008) “Placemarks and waterlines: racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth”. Geoforum40: 523–534.
18.
DaltonC (2013) “Sovereigns, spooks, and hackers: an early history of Google geo services and map mashups”. Cartographica48(4): 261–274.
DodgeMKitchinRPerkinsC (2009) Rethinking Maps, New York: Routledge.
21.
ElwoodS (2010a) “Geographic information science: emerging research on the social implications of the geospatial web”. Progress in Human Geography34: 349–357.
22.
ElwoodS (2010b) “Geographic information science: visualization, visual methods, and the geoweb”. Progress in Human Geography35: 401–408.
23.
ElwoodSGoodchildM FSuiD Z (2012) “Researching volunteered geographic information: spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102: 571–590.
24.
ElwoodSLeszczynskiA (2012) “New spatial media, new knowledge politics”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series38: 544–559.
Gundotra V, 2008, “Client, connectivity and the cloud” keynote address at Google I/O conference, Google Inc, 28 May, San Francisco, CA, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1HvP7NO5w.
36.
HaklayM (2013) “Neogeography and delusion of democratization”. Environment and Planning A45: 55–69.
37.
HallS (1997) “Introduction”. In: HallS (ed.) in Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage, pp. 1–11.
38.
HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York: Routledge.
39.
HarleyJ B (2001) In: LaxtonP (ed.) The New Nature of Maps, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
HillisK (1994) “The power of disembodied imagination: perspective's role in cartography”. Cartographica31(3): 1–17.
JohnsonP ASieberR E (2012) “Motivations driving government adoption of the geoweb”. GeoJournal77: 667–680.
43.
KingsburyPJonesJ PIII (2009) “Walter Benjamin's Dionysian adventures on Google Earth”. Geoforum40: 502–513.
44.
KitchinRDodgeM (2011) Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Leclerc Y, Reddy M, Iverson L, Eriksen M, 2001, “The Geo Web—a new paradigm for finding data on the web”, paper presented at ICC 2001, Bejing, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
46.
LeszczynskiA (2011) “Situating the geoweb in political economy”. Progress in Human Geography35(3): 1–18.
47.
LeszczynskiA (2014) “On the neo in neogeography”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers104: 60–79.
48.
LevyS (2011) In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes our Lives, New York: Simon and Schuster.
49.
LinW (2012) “When Web 2.0 meets public participation GIS: volunteered geographic information and spaces of participatory mapping in China”. In: SuiD ElwoodSGoodchildM (eds) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice, New York: Springer, pp. 83–103.
50.
LinW (2013) “Situating performative neogeography: tracing, mapping, and performing ‘Everyone's East Lake’“. Environment and Planning A45: 37–54.
51.
ParksL (2009) “Digging into Google Earth: an analysis of ‘Crisis in Darfur’“. Geoforum40: 535–545.
52.
PavlovskayaM (2006) “Theorizing with GIS: a tool for critical geographies”. Environment and Planning A38: 2003–2020.
53.
PicklesJ (2003) A History of Spaces, New York: Routledge.
54.
Rademacher P, 2005, “Mash-ups 2.0: where's the business model?”, panel at Web 2.0 Conference, O'Reilly Media, 5 October, San Francisco, CA, http://web2con.com/cs/web2005/view/e_sess/7613.
55.
RoseG (2007) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, 2nd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
ScharlATochtermannK (2007) The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society, London: Springer.
SieberR (2006) “Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers96: 491–507.
59.
StefanidisACrooksARadzikowskiJ (2013) “Harvesting ambient geospatial information from social media feeds”. GeoJournal78: 319–338.
60.
SuiD (2008) “The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie's new tattoo and the future of GIS”. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems32(1): 1–5.
61.
Thatcher J, 2013, “Living on fumes: digital footprints, data fumes, and the limitations of spatial big data”, paper presented at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, 9-13 April; copy from the author, Department of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA.
62.
TurnerA (2006) Introduction to Neogeography, Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
ZookMGrahamM (2007a) “Mapping DigiPlace: geocoded Internet data and the representation of place”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design34: 466–482.
69.
ZookMGrahamM (2007b) “The creative reconstruction of the Internet: Google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace”. Geoforum38: 1322–1343.
