The document compares several mobile GIS applications including both proprietary and open source options. It discusses platforms, features, and performance based on tests of common tasks. While open source applications have potential and are comparable to ArcPad in many ways, they still need more documentation, customization options, and support for professional sensors to be as full featured. New devices, interactions, and technologies also provide opportunities for mobile GIS applications.

1. A comparison of GIS Mobile Applications Miguel Montesinos & Javier Carrasco m m o n t e s i n o s / j c a r r a s c o @ p r o d e v e l o p . e s

2. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

3. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

4. Introduction In the beginning it was ArcPad + MS PocketPC + Old PDAs

6. MS leading the path

7. PDAs evolving to smartphones

8. No Open-Source projects

10. gvSIG Mobile

11. Enebro

13. gvSIG Mobile

14. Enebro

16. Newcomers

17. Introduction Article with details available at OSGeo wiki http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GIS_Mobile_Comparison

18. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

20. Enebro

22. gvSIG Mini

23. Layar

24. Products. gvSIG Mobile Member of gvSIG family Funded by Reg. Gov Valencia, Spain GPL Community Alive & kicking

25. Products. Enebro Funded by Reg. Gov Andalucía, Spain Open Source No Community / Open Development

26. Products. ArcPad ESRI product Privative Software Active Development

27. Products. Tango GPS GPS-flavoured product Open Source Linux platforms Forked by Foxtrot GPS

28. Products. Foxtrot GPS GPS-flavoured product Open Source Linux platforms Active OSGeo list: foss-gps

29. Products. gvSIG Mini GPS-flavoured product Open Source Android / Java ME CLDC

30. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

31. Platform Execution

32. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

33. “ Open-Source-ness”

34. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

35. Basic and symbology

36. Offline formats support

37. Online formats support

38. GPS

39. Editing

40. Other features

41. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

43. Enebro 2.0

44. ArcPad 10 Only for common data formats

45. Perfomance Tests. Datasets Vectorial Datasets FOSS4G 2010 Dataset (ShapeFile) Raster Datasets ECW from CNIG (Spanish Nat. Mapping Agency)

46. Perfomance Tests. Methodology Manual measurement. Stopwatch. Averaging Minimal threshold = 0,2 s. Operations tested: Add a layer. Zoom to a small area. Pan. Fit all (Zoom to Extent)

47. Perfomance Tests. Methodology Used device. PDA: - Acer S200 - Processor: Qualcomm 1 Ghz - Memory: 256 KB SDRAM. - ROM: 512 KB. - Screen: 480 x 800 px. - O.S.: Windows Mobile 6.5

48. Perfomance Tests. Results Vectorial Datasets. Small/Medium

49. Perfomance Tests. Results Vectorial Datasets. Large

50. Perfomance Tests. Results Raster Datasets For small zooms, no response in Enebro within 5 mins.

51. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Products 3. Platforms 4. Open source analysis 5. Feature comparison 6. Perfomance tests 7. Conclussions

53. Not open development, no public repositories

54. No developer documentation

55. Confusing license

56. Very few spread

58. This kind of applications are growing in number

59. With a few more work is possible to add custom forms and POI creation to do asset inventory and maintenance and incidence reporting

61. The new boom of tablets provides bigger screens with small weights and good battery consumption

62. Multitouch screens require new interfaces

63. The number of users is astonishing

65. The spread of Layar is *15 the spread of ArcPad

66. ¿Could it be interesting for the GIS community to use mobile AR professionally?

68. Openlayers

70. We will keep an eye on those projects

72. Is built on top of Jgrass, so it has a lot of functionality

73. It works on tablet-PCs

75. GPS tool

77. Did we missed any important software?

78. What are the reasons for such a few results?

80. inventory and mantainment of assets

81. incidence reporting

83. Performance is perfectly comparable and in some cases gvSIG Mobile is even faster

85. gvSIG Mobile (the most complete OS App) does not support rangefinder or dgps or camera and geometry editing is poor compared to ArcPad at this moment

87. Making the software easier to install and use

88. Expand the user and developer community

90. A comparison of GIS Mobile Applications Miguel Montesinos & Javier Carrasco m m o n t e s i n o s / j c a r r a s c o @ p r o d e v e l o p . e s