[GRASSLIST:1774] Re: Production GIS with Grass

[David D Gray]

Mitch Day wrote:
> 
> Good afternoon,
> 
> Are any members of this list aware of instances where Grass has been
> implemented as a "production" GIS, rather than in an academic or research
> setting?
> 
> I am trying to identify any such cases and engage someone involved with
> them in a brief conversation.  Perhaps the entire list would like to
> listen in?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any input.
> 
> Mitch Day
> 

Mitch

First as a general remark, I think production use of GRASS is not
uncommon. In GIS, we are in the position that full functionality in
commercial systems comes at a very high price, and the desktop systems
that are within the reach of the many small businesses and individuals
that provide geospatial analysis services do not provide complete or
robust solutions for what we need. Thus - as GRASS provides many of the
services otherwise available only on high-end systems, it would explain
why there are so many locations that use GRASS, including many that use
it in production use. Maybe other professions have the same dilemma in
relation to the software they use, but I get the impression that (in CAD
for example) they have a much lower barrier to entry into competent
commercial systems. The price of fully competent software is much lower,
and they usually work within institutional settings where the resource
availability is easier, or as consultants the market placement allows
them to charge higher fees, and they have a higher turnover. GIS is also
used by many voluntary organisations, which is not quite perhaps what
you are thinking of as `production use', but it is closer to that than
to an academic or educational definition of usage. I suppose (though I
don't know for sure) that organisations like Greenpeace use GIS.

For myself, I use GRASS for production of terrain maps and analysis, and
generation of vector linework. The latter is quite important. The vector
facilities at present, in spite of many flaws and feature limitations,
produce reliable linework, that is many orders more trustworthy than the
coverages generated by manual digitising in desktop systems. For some
years I have worked with others in large scale vector map production (eg
digitising surveys of up to 30,000 polygons), and I have found that the
easiest life is found through digitising with GRASS. As a result of my
carping and insistence, my associates rose to the challenge of trying to
find ways of generating good, clean linework in ArcView for example
(anything rather than that use that horrible linux - that is also _so_
unrespectable as it doesn't have Microsoft's approval). I take my hat
off to them, as they have succeeded to an extent I wouldn't have thought
possible, but to me this is still an unnecessary pantomime, and I prefer
the simplicity of a system that does the job once and does it properly.
That is why I want to see the GRASS vector capabilities maintained and
enhanced (which I am involved in).

Regards

David