GIS

[ajlynch91]

Sorry if there's already a topic here about it, but I'm interested in learning ArcGIS and just GIS in general I suppose, and am wondering if there's any good, ideally free, resources out there to learn it, or how you learned it I suppose. Thanks.

[vdeane]

ESRI has some free trainings on their site.  I'm currently working through this great book called Understanding GIS that covers much of ArcMap's functionality; it's only $50 on Amazon and comes with a 180 day trial of ArcGIS.

If you already know about MySQL/databases and/or geography, that helps.  ArcGIS is basically a database that also contains spatial information and can make maps/process the data for analysis (the latter being why it's so expensive).

[ajlynch91]

Geography of course I know but MySQL is a whole different ballgame. I took a course on it and managed to pass but it's something I'd need to continuously study.

[bandit957]

From time to time, Coursera offers a free course titled "Maps and the Geospatial Revolution." I don't know if this course is what you're looking for, but some of it's fairly simple stuff. I actually took this course.

[Scott5114]

Download QGIS. It's a free GIS package that, while not as powerful as ArcGIS, will give you a good idea of how GIS works.

[froggie]

There's the QGIS option as Scott mentioned.  ESRI also offers an "ArcGIS for Home Use".  It's $100 a year, but that's far less than a normal license and it gives you basically the full program plus several extensions to play/work with and create cool roadgeeky maps with.  All of the interchange/road maps I've posted on this forum were created in ArcGIS.

[Scott5114]

^While I generally avoid paying for software in general, I find software that charges annually for use particularly loathsome. While you do continue to get updates, which is important for things like server software, which needs to be kept secure (and thus I will grudgingly tolerate), for things like ArcGIS it is wholly a cash grab by ESRI. $100/year for "home use" software is entirely too steep; at least for commercial-use software one might be able to make a map that brings in more than $100/year in revenue to offset the cost.

Paying that much for GIS software as a home user is entirely unnecessary unless you are specifically wanting ArcGIS because you want to learn the software for a job that will be using it. For satisfying intellectual curiosity of how GIS works, or making maps for personal use, QGIS more than fills the need. Most of the route locator maps on Wikipedia are done in QGIS.

QGIS and ArcGIS are roughly equivalent to Gimp versus Photoshop or Inkscape versus Illustrator. The free version can do 90% of what the commercial version can do, and the missing 10% is generally specialist stuff that the home user would scarcely have any use for. However, because of that extra 10%, the commercial version is the industry standard, so if you want to work in the industry you need to know how to use it. If that's not your goal, one needn't bother.

[Zeffy]

I used ArcGIS thanks to methods I won't discuss here. It was a bitch to setup, and that's partially the reason I haven't reinstalled it yet. QGIS is a good alternative, the one thing however is ArcGIS has a way better symbol library, and I'm not sure if I can import the one I used on ArcGIS into QGIS without problems.

As for learning GIS, Alex taught me it one day and I sort of grasped the concept. I'm not spectacular at it, but I know what I'm trying to do most of the time, and I at least know how to find some shapefiles from whichever State I want.

[cpzilliacus]

It's $100 a year, but that's far less than a normal license and it gives you basically the full program plus several extensions to play/work with and create cool roadgeeky maps with.

Adam is correct about the cost above. That home use fee of U.S. $100 is vastly less than one seat of ArcGIS.

[froggie]

^While I generally avoid paying for software in general, I find software that charges annually for use particularly loathsome. While you do continue to get updates, which is important for things like server software, which needs to be kept secure (and thus I will grudgingly tolerate), for things like ArcGIS it is wholly a cash grab by ESRI. $100/year for "home use" software is entirely too steep; at least for commercial-use software one might be able to make a map that brings in more than $100/year in revenue to offset the cost.

I don't see it as that.  I see it as worth the cost, and there are plenty of hobby-related things that cost far more than $100/year...

[Pete from Boston]

If you're just making display maps, ArcGIS is probably not worth it.  If you're doing serious GIS data analysis, there's really not meaningful competition out there, hence the monopoly pricing.

I'd love to say that esri is losing ground, but they are really good at developing and nurturing the growth of the technology and the user community.  They're not lazily enjoying their market position. 

The user base also makes learning much easier.  I've asked for and received a lot of great solutions online that were pathways to understanding analysis processes better.

[NJRoadfan]

ArcGIS has basically the entire North American government market to itself. Outside of that market, I hear MapInfo is pretty popular. Don't expect it to cost any less though.

[Scott5114]

^While I generally avoid paying for software in general, I find software that charges annually for use particularly loathsome. While you do continue to get updates, which is important for things like server software, which needs to be kept secure (and thus I will grudgingly tolerate), for things like ArcGIS it is wholly a cash grab by ESRI. $100/year for "home use" software is entirely too steep; at least for commercial-use software one might be able to make a map that brings in more than $100/year in revenue to offset the cost.

I don't see it as that.  I see it as worth the cost, and there are plenty of hobby-related things that cost far more than $100/year...

The vast majority of hobby-related things you would want to do can be easily done by QGIS for $0/year. It's doubtful a hobbyist is going to need any of the more advanced features ArcGIS offers; most hobbyists probably want a basic understanding of GIS and to hop in and make some maps. If you are shooting for a career where you will be using ArcGIS, or you will otherwise be paid for your work, then the $100/year makes more sense.

As for the annual fee, I don't pay $20/year for my toaster...

[Pete from Boston]

^While I generally avoid paying for software in general, I find software that charges annually for use particularly loathsome. While you do continue to get updates, which is important for things like server software, which needs to be kept secure (and thus I will grudgingly tolerate), for things like ArcGIS it is wholly a cash grab by ESRI. $100/year for "home use" software is entirely too steep; at least for commercial-use software one might be able to make a map that brings in more than $100/year in revenue to offset the cost.

I don't see it as that.  I see it as worth the cost, and there are plenty of hobby-related things that cost far more than $100/year...

The vast majority of hobby-related things you would want to do can be easily done by QGIS for $0/year. It's doubtful a hobbyist is going to need any of the more advanced features ArcGIS offers; most hobbyists probably want a basic understanding of GIS and to hop in and make some maps. If you are shooting for a career where you will be using ArcGIS, or you will otherwise be paid for your work, then the $100/year makes more sense.

As for the annual fee, I don't pay $20/year for my toaster...

How well does your toaster compute spatial data?

[Scott5114]

If that's where you want to go with that, I don't pay $79/year for my Doppler radar processing program either. It was a flat one time fee.

[Pete from Boston]

If that's where you want to go with that, I don't pay $79/year for my Doppler radar processing program either. It was a flat one time fee.

My point is the toaster is not a great comparison.  There is not a lucrative market monopoly on toasters, and they don't do something powerful that has no equal. 

Theirs is a commercial/research market, and ArcGIS is priced accordingly.  The $100/year license is almost a favor to home users, who probably won't even live long enough to pay off one seat license at that rate.

In any case, esri is not alone in its high license price for technical software.  What bugs me much more is the (again, commercial/research organization-targeted) ridiculous price to attend the esri user conference. 

[NJRoadfan]

If the esri conference targets any agency in the federal government, its going to be overpriced. The feds will pay to send people to them no matter how high the price is so it distorts any logical economic sense.

[froggie]

If that's where you want to go with that, I don't pay $79/year for my Doppler radar processing program either. It was a flat one time fee.

GRLevel3, by chance?

[ET21]

ESRI usually has a couple free trails of the program, along with an extensive database of articles. Used that site often to get my certification

[Pete from Boston]

ESRI has some free trainings on their site.  I'm currently working through this great book called Understanding GIS that covers much of ArcMap's functionality; it's only $50 on Amazon and comes with a 180 day trial of ArcGIS.

If you already know about MySQL/databases and/or geography, that helps.  ArcGIS is basically a database that also contains spatial information and can make maps/process the data for analysis (the latter being why it's so expensive).

I think I used that book in a class.  I didn't realize it came with a trial license.

Your second point is the major one–the visual maps are the end result, but this is a big spatial database program with a visual component.  I can't get my head around quite a lot of the calculations offered.  Everything I've done in ArcGIS has felt like it was scratching the surface of what it could really do.

[Scott5114]

If that's where you want to go with that, I don't pay $79/year for my Doppler radar processing program either. It was a flat one time fee.

GRLevel3, by chance?

Yep. Proved invaluable in this year's storms. Much better than relying on the TV meteorologists alone (who will often get tunnel vision and focus on a particular cell and fail to mention other storms coming down the line).

[skaguy]

GRLevel3 is the best out there and I've used it for nearly 10 years now, which is hard to believe.  Some people say it's archaic, but I prefer it to RadarScope or any of these other apps out there now.  Fancy graphics and displays don't always mean it's better and you lose some functionality on RadarScope as well.  I also use a free program called BUFKIT, which displays forecasted upper air soundings and a host of other products.  It's even more archaic than GRLevel3.

Getting back to the original topic of ArcGIS, it is the best out there.  With the way Adobe products have gone, I believe it's $10 a month for Photoshop now.  There are more alternatives for photo editing software, but I think $100 is actually very reasonable for ArcGIS.  I'm about to drop $200 on a photo editing program and if you want the best, you have to pay for it.  I have seen such a drastic increase in the quality of my photos during the trial period and it is well worth it.

[Scott5114]

GRLevel3 is the best out there and I've used it for nearly 10 years now, which is hard to believe.  Some people say it's archaic, but I prefer it to RadarScope or any of these other apps out there now.  Fancy graphics and displays don't always mean it's better and you lose some functionality on RadarScope as well.  I also use a free program called BUFKIT, which displays forecasted upper air soundings and a host of other products.  It's even more archaic than GRLevel3.

GRLevel4 looks really cool (it has 3D visualization features that I think take the different height scans and produce an image of the entire storm from top to bottom, which would be amazing) but for my purposes I can't really justify the $200+ price.