Spatial vs. Geo Theory

Most practitioners and the general public do not distinguish between the spatial and the geographical. Also, GIS has become synonymous with spatial concerns. But should this be the case? Are we missing features when we “see” space as geography and geography as space?

Technology such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), that allows us to see our office space or shopping mall as mapped space, suggest that we are handling outside space as geography and in-door space as something else. The fact that moving from the geo-space, to ‘inside space” calls for system augmentation, clearly shows a distinction. Not to mention, “outer space” has its own space management as evidenced by NOAA’s TraCSS system for outer space debris. The fact is that geography, inner-space, and outer space, currently occupy different types of spaces, both mentally and in utility. Variation in contextualization is appropriate, but the systems of information should not be disparate.

So, which one should we think in, and which one should we base future system designs on - Spatial or Geographic Theory? The answer is - “Spatial”.

I can hear my fellow GIS comrades chanting for unspeakable means of punishment to be heaped upon me. But consider 3 reasons why space gives us more space to work with - simplicity, flexibility, and universality.

1. Space is the superset, and the superset brings simplicity.
Thinking spatially includes thinking geographically, but thinking geographically excludes some spatial concerns. To illustrate, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are designed around geographic information seeking and so, require adjustment/alteration/adaptation when moving from geography to another spatial paradigm, such as in-doors, where we invoke and translate to a BIM. However, if we constructed a Spatial Information System (SIS) based on spatial information seeking, it would be space agnostic and hence seamless across different spatial paradigms. So, use of an SIS will be simpler than a GIS. This also implies point #3 below.

2. Space is treated contextually as each person finds consistency in flexibility.
Treating all space spatially allows culture, personal and occasional context to drive the view and re-view of space or the same space. This flexibility allows individual “counter mapping”. For example, today a building and its surroundings is a conference center, tomorrow it is a hurricane drill center. To participants, it is what it is on the day they use it, to the conference center manager and staff, it is different things on different days. The space transforms in meaning, and the representations/maps, can allow each user a flexible view of their reality from outside to inside and intermingled with structures.

3. Space beyond earth space should be mappable beyond math and physics.
Trying to map outer space, starting with our space debris is the mystery of mathematicians and physicists. But, as space edges toward more consumerism and shared governmental interactions, we will start needing terms, concepts, and explanations that relate more to general understandings of space. So, a “universal” take on space will have to match outer space with geo-space and with inner space. For that, we need universality, beyond the limits of geography.

Implications
1. A coordinate system that is more spatially agnostic. Possibly earth-center or solar-center OUT rather than geosynchronous orbit in. A Spatial Positioning System (SPS) rather than GPS.
2. Spatia-location replacement for geo-location.
3. Ground up AI mapping that embeds location and place semantics. Likely based on Large Language Modeling.