Google


That is what Google said about the 3D Warehouse and at this point, I believe them.

The 3D warehouse, as described in the post below, it Google/SketchUps new 3D data housing format and model search portal. As described by Google:

“Click here to download the 3D Warehouse network link. With this file Geo-referenced SketchUp models in the 3D Warehouse become available for viewing within Google Earth. Virtual world builders, start modeling!”

Virtual World Builders… Very cool.
In a days work, I was able to take CAD footprints, photos, and a hand drawn archaeology map and produce a georeferenced, downloadable, and sharable models of insitu archaeological structural components (walls) and detailed surrounding standing structures. I hope my boss does not find out how productive I can be when Google does cool things like this.

Okay, here is a rundown of the online end of the 3D Warehouse. By clicking the “Share Model” icon, a Google window pops up that ties into your own Google account. (What else did you think you were going to do with those 2 gigs for each of the 10 Gmail accounts you have?). Type in a bunch of info about your model, including the Tags, and the upload begins.

You model is loaded in to your “My Models” page. From here, you can search the tags and filename of others people models. For instance, this is the return from the search for “Building”.
When you find a model you like, you can download to either Sketchup or Google Earth. Simple as that.

It seems pretty obvious that Google wants a copy of Google Earth and SketchUp installed onto every able bodied computer. They want to see a legion of modelers “SketchIng” their favorite places, tagging them, and sharing them. Content of the world, built by the world, for the world. (or at least the 20% that have access to computers.)

Yup, you heard it correctly, the recently acquired @Last team has worked with Google to produce a free version of their very popular 3D architecture and landscape program, SketchUp. (FREE download Here) As of now, SketchUp is the most commonly used program to create 3D models to be placed in Google Earth.

The free Google SketchUp version is windows only. There is also a Pro version which can be purchased for $495. This is much more like the original and at the original SketchUp price.

SO what are the new features!? Well, the Free version appears to have a similar tool selection as the original without some features like realtime shadow modeling and, most noteably, the ability to export in formates other than the Google 3D warehouse. What? Did you say Google 3D warehouse?

Yes, there is a new Kml housing format called a 3D warehouse. Although my download has not completed yet, I have messed with it a little from a link on the ogle earth blog. Save your models to a 3D warehouse and when put on a server, you point people to a 3D warehouse network link, much like a KMZ. When the link is opened in Google Earth, the Places menu will display the locations of the 3D models. Also, on the virtual globe itself, a icon appears at the location of the model or a icon will appear for an “object collection”, a group of models.

The models are not directly downloaded with the 3D warehouse network link. By clicking on a model name/location in the Places menu or clicking on the icon, a popup window will give you details about the model and ask if you would like to download it.


On this popup, details such as model name, size, and complexity are given. Also TAGS!!! Yes, Google has employed tags into the models. Let the Metaverse begin!!!! From here, you may download the model to either Google Earth of Google Sketchup.

At this moment, textures are still not supported in Google Earth. I suspect, as well as many others, that this will change soon.

Here is a list of features the separate the Pro version from the Free version:

Print and export raster images at higher-than-screen resolution.
SketchUp Pencil Icon Access to the following 3D export formats: DWG, DXF, 3DS, OBJ, XSI, VRML and FBX.
SketchUp Pencil Icon Export animations and walkthroughs as MOV (Mac) or AVI (Windows) files.
SketchUp Pencil Icon Use the Sandbox Tools (for organic modeling of terrain, etc) and the Film & Stage Tools (for pre-viz work).
SketchUp Pencil Icon Have access to free email tech support for two years from purchase.

This story has been scooped this morning on a number of other blogs (Cartography, Google Earth Blog, All Points Blog, ogle Earth). Get out there and make some models!!!!


Covered this morning in the Google Earth Blog is the introduction of a series of geologic maps for Northern California in Google Earth KMZ format. Produced and distributed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), these maps depict the bedrock geology for 12 counties.


The network link from the USGS includes the geologic units and their abbreviated formation name as a label. Interestingly, the link also includes place markers for faults, in this case all 710 faults in Santa Cruz County, geologic contacts, and water contacts. If course the transparency can be adjusted to merge the geology with the underlying imagery or you can add your own imagery to start some analysis.

Digital bedrock geology maps can sometimes be a pain to find for a study area and unless yours is in North California, this may not help you. But the direction that the USGS is taking here is clear. Data in Google Earth format is very easy to use, free or cheap, readily available, and fun to explore. Given the abilities of Google Earth to add your own imagery and the number of converters that can put GIS and 3D data into Google Earth (KML Home Companion(ArcGIS), Arc2Earth, Maya2GoogleEarth, to name a few) archaeological, Heritage management, and conservation groups should be taking full advantage of this technology. Although the analysis capabilities are simple (ArcGIS Explorer may change this) the data exploration, display, and dissemination aspects are tremendous. With a little bit of conversion and rubber sheeting, specialized information can be deployed to nearly any audience. It seems pretty apparent that with so many people realizing that maps make a fantastic vehicle for all kinds of information, spatial thinking will prevail and the technology will follow.

These maps are in an effort to disseminate geologic information and awareness in light of the 100th anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco Earth Quake.


Okay, a little late, but here are my notes from CAA Day 4…

On the final day of presentations at the CAA, I drifted around to a variety of sessions and caught a bunch of great papers. Here is a brief summary of the topics I found interesting.

Google Earth for Archaeological Aerial Prospection

Dr. Scott Madry, of the University of North Carolina, was back with another paper demonstrating an applied and successful technique. Based on Madry’s extensive history in aerial survey, he decided to make a project out of Google Earth as a tool for remote sensing. Over the past year, there has been a number of stories of successfully using Google Earth to identify archaeology sites, particularly in Europe. Madry’s project is now added to this list.

Searching a study area in Burgundy France, which is represented with 1m resolution aerials, Madry set to work. From his office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Madry located 3 significant sites within the first thirty minutes. Completely elated, yet surprised with his initial success, he continued through the study area to find a total of 3 major road segments and 101 possible structures represented by circles and squares evident in agricultural fields.

Shortly after his initial remote success, Madry took a trip to the study area with a colleague to field check his results. The field verification proved that through Google Earth, Madry could successfully locate archaeological sites within his study area. The three major sites he initially found turn out to be prerecorded by the local authority, but this only serves as further verification. A large number of additional, unrecorded sites were also discovered. Shortly, I will try to get a few screen shots or KMLs from Dr. Madry to give more detail about his finds.

Quantitative Clustering Method for Pottery Vessel Lots

One of the afternoon sessions was full of a number of interesting papers discussing quantitative approaches to classification. As this holds true with any topic related to typology, this session was full of debate and perhaps a little contention.

One of the great papers in this group was on a project by Angela Labrador of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Angela is in the process of devising a technique to automate the extremely laborious task of ceramic attribution and assignment into vessel lots. At the heart of Labrador’’s new tool kit is knowledge discovery methodology that uses Mclust with the free statistics program R to perform a hierarchical clustering analysis on a database of ceramic attributes. This clustering technique also employs Bayesian statistics to help find the optimum clustering level and make the best assignment of the ceramic sherds into the appropriate number of vessel lots.

Labrador’’s intention is to fine-tune her methodology and then create a standalone, open-source application that incorporates a PostgreSQL backend with the Mclust and R routines, all designed in Ruby on Rails. Way cool!

According to Labrador, this application is a product of a larger research agenda to study the influence of typology on our discussion and nomenclature within the archaeology of the Eastern United States. The Lighthouse Cove Site, a Bushkill Phase site in the Hudson Valley of eastern New York, is the basis of her dataset.

Angela has created a site (down on April 23rd) where you can follow the progress of this project.

3D City Modeling from Archaeological Data

In another fantastic project by Tijl Vereenooghe of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, he seeks to bridge the gap from virtual 3D landscape/cityscape construction to archaeologically correct recreations.

Researching the lack of 3D models that accurately portray the less popular domestic areas of well-known archaeological sites, Tijl and his team have developed a way to produce 3D models of entire cities, such as Pompeii and the Mayan city of Xkipche (9km South of Uxmal), based on city plans and socioeconomic maps derived from archaeological excavation. The end result is a model, which can be recreated with adjusted parameters, which displays accurately placed structures built to mimic the interpreted function for that location.

Using a virtual cityscape engine called City Engine System (I do not think this is yet available from the author), Tijl developed a method for substituting archaeological base maps, building footprints, and functional interpretations as the engines inputs. Shape grammars are developed to address how the facades of buildings with different functions should look. The output data from the City Engine System can then be modeled in many of the high-end 3D packages. For this study, Tijl used Maya to produce his results.

Stills and an animated walk through of the Pompeii and Xkipche reconstructions show that Tijl’s methodology is in very good order. The reconstructions looked better than most virtual attempts and serve as a research tool since they are based on archaeological data and can be created in a series of permutations based on adjusting parameter inputs.

Future considerations are the modeling of building interiors, the application of scanned facade maps, avatar populations, and ultimately the ability to produce models from geophysical data.

The last day of the CAA did notdisappointt! The quality of papers was astounding. As with the past posts of the CAA, I apologize for any errors or misconceptions I have published about these papers. If the author of the paper or any other reader pick up on my mistakes, please let me know so that I can correct them. My intention is to reflect the author’s intent.


I had some time this morning to walk around and check out the posters. Here is a quick recap of two interesting topics:

Google Earth, VRML, Native American Pit Houses


Secondly, A University of British Columbia team, composed of Michael Blake, Sue Formosa, Dana Lepofsky, and Dave Schaepe created a poster for a very cool and effective project along the Fraser River in BC. Working with the local native community, the Coast Salish, the UBC team used Surfer 8.0, Global Mapper, Google Earth, and a Cortona VRML viewer to efficiently and inexpensively disseminate archaeological data gathered from a Crast Salish pithouse village, to the interested parties.

The base data for this project is a high density laser transit survey of the site. Brought into Surfer and turned into a DEM, the depressions in the landscape that show the former location of Native American pit houses became very evident. From, Surfer, the DEM is exported to Global Mapper and saved as VRML for web viewing. Alternitvely, the data was also exported as a .jpg and imported into Google Earth, rectified, and exported as a KML. The end result is a highly detailed and realistic depiction of the pit house site which can be geogrpahically explored. This implementaion of geospatial technology is just the types of projects wich we should see more of in the neart future. The technology is cheap, if not free, the technical overhead is low, and the results are easily interpretable in a non-archaeoligcal context and accesible to anyone with a computer. (I realize the last requirement excludes 85% of the worlds population, but hopefully that will change one day.) The UBC team said they are working on a public site to share thier info.

Iowa Lithic Database

First, is a onteresting project run by the Office of State Archaeologist at the University of Iowa. They have created an electronic database of thier inhouse lithic samples which can be searched to help located the geologic source of your lithic artifacts. In the words of the authors:

“This assemblage is based on macroscopic identification elements including geological references, physical samples, mapped source locations, and a visual basic script program, all combined to form a GIS based system for comprehensive state-wide lithic identification and analysis.”

Check out thier site for more info and program download…

There should be some great papers presented today. I’ll provide an update this evening.

The first day of the CAA 2006 conference has concluded. Before I head down to the hotel bar to… uh… “network”, I would like to share a bit about two interesting papers I saw today.

The first paper is a topic that was briefly covered in a previous post concerning the Tijl Vereenooghe’s Google maps based Flanders Archaeology Project “OpGraven”. After reviewing this project for the audience, Tijl unveiled a new project he has begun. “Erfgoed In Vlaanderen” is a Flickrmap (Flickr photo database tied to a Flash map) based project mapping and providing photos of the standing historic structures of the Flanders region. Please note that Tijl is not ready to release this site just yet, so improvements will be made. By using Flickrmap, erf-goed is able to handle a larger volume of data points as compared to Googlemaps and has the social network aspect of Flickr that will allow users to include their own photos of the mapped structures. After discussing these two projects, Tijl noted that he has had to spend very little time completing these projects with a total cost of $5. That raised the eyebrows of those not familiar with the technologies. The presentation can be found here.

The second paper of interest, centering upon the Digital Earth concept, was presented by Karl Grossner of the University of California, Sante Barbara. As a student of Michael Goodchild, Grossner’s work is centered on the creation of a true “digital earth system” base on the “Geolibrary” concept. The geolibrary concept, as evolved by Goodchild, is a georeferenced, searchable, index-able, library that is served through an interface that has the ability to open and process these data with GIS tools. Gossner uses this concept and builds upon it, by defining a “digital earth system” as geolibrary that interfaces with a virtual globe model with GIS tools to create, ultimately, a massively distributed GIS. Grossner’s paper spent time differentiating the digital earth system from today’s virtual globes (Google Earth, World Wind, etc…) Whereas contemporary virtual globes are not technically GISs and are primarily concerned with information with a location, the digital earth system will be more geared towards providing knowledge about places through distributed GIS databases, Knowledge Organization Systems (authority lists, domain ontologies, review & editing capabilities), UIs, querying, and clearing houses.

Certainly this is a lofty goal, but perhaps an idea that just needs it’s time. With developments in GE, World Wind, and the new capabilities of ArcExplorer, hopefully the buildings blocks of technology will find their place in Grossner’s schema. The technology will develop in that direction, but it will require a user movement to lead to a massively distributed GIS and a few good brains to keep the course steady. As stated by James Boxall [PDF] (2002; 12) “The real issue, in relation to the development of digital earth, is where the librarians will come from in order to help shape the geolibrary component of DE [Digital Earth].”

My synopsis here is limited, so luckily, Grossner revealed that this topic will be soon published as a journal article, but I will have to track him down to find out which.

Each of these papers was presented at symposium devoted to the Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative (ECAI). The ECAI “uses time and space to enhance understating and preservation of human culture.” Project such as TimeMap and the Silk Road Project are derived from the ECAI. Check them out…

Tomorrow’s agenda includes modeling pathways, 3D data capture, simulation, DBs, and GIS applications.

« Previous Page