A comment from a geologist who I asked about this (he said I could share on his behalf):
> Faults of the world that effect mankind are mostly known and well mapped at the surface and below the surface through assorted geophysical means. We can't see there otherwise. Google Earth has made a tremendous contribution to mankind and there are many efforts to make Google geo-earth at least in small chunks. Universities are the best homes for this type of effort.
Quality of data is a huge factor. The location of the San Andreas Fault is very well understood. Yet 20 years ago, there were NO geologic maps of even rudimentary quality for the San Francisco Bay area. Maps yes. Useful, printed or digital No. I doubt that has changed. Reason? Politics, funding, right people to do the job, etc BART and bridge routes are well studied for engineering purposes and should be public information, but try find a geology map derived from that suitable for public use.
When I work in foreign countries and even in the US, there are regional maps, say 1:1,000,000. But that offers very little value. Now I am writing the book on the geology where I am working. I am the first one there to figure out what I am looking at and the potential value for any mineral commodity. You can't do what I do from a computer or satellite. You HAVE to be boots on the ground.
The way forward for advancing geologic understanding is quality mappers on the ground knowing what they are looking at, translating that to useful information that conveys both facts and interpretations and then that to digital.
We are a looooong loooong way from having geology Google Earth, but if we did, it would be great for mankind. Raise taxes?
> Faults of the world that effect mankind are mostly known and well mapped at the surface and below the surface through assorted geophysical means. We can't see there otherwise. Google Earth has made a tremendous contribution to mankind and there are many efforts to make Google geo-earth at least in small chunks. Universities are the best homes for this type of effort. Quality of data is a huge factor. The location of the San Andreas Fault is very well understood. Yet 20 years ago, there were NO geologic maps of even rudimentary quality for the San Francisco Bay area. Maps yes. Useful, printed or digital No. I doubt that has changed. Reason? Politics, funding, right people to do the job, etc BART and bridge routes are well studied for engineering purposes and should be public information, but try find a geology map derived from that suitable for public use. When I work in foreign countries and even in the US, there are regional maps, say 1:1,000,000. But that offers very little value. Now I am writing the book on the geology where I am working. I am the first one there to figure out what I am looking at and the potential value for any mineral commodity. You can't do what I do from a computer or satellite. You HAVE to be boots on the ground. The way forward for advancing geologic understanding is quality mappers on the ground knowing what they are looking at, translating that to useful information that conveys both facts and interpretations and then that to digital. We are a looooong loooong way from having geology Google Earth, but if we did, it would be great for mankind. Raise taxes?