 It's a question about kind of what land developers think about spatial information and this is an interesting question in a sense because kind of everybody who has been kind of talking with the land developers and had some kind of a contact with contract archeology either directly or indirectly know something about that kind of what they think. But it hasn't been kind of really researched that much and kind of what kinds of different ideas they might have. So there isn't kind of that much discussing about that. This is a part of a project I have been involved in in Sweden about archeological information in the digital society by large. I'm not an archeologist, I'm an information scientist even if I've been kind of working with and in archeology quite a long time. So I kind of know something but I'm kind of desperate to be a little bit outsider to kind of be as a kind of a reliable researcher who can kind of say something kind of a little bit from a distance about archeology. I'm really bad at that but still I try. Then it's also kind of somehow affiliated to a newish course section about archeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment. And kind of even if land developers aren't really kind of archeologists or they are kind of not archeologists at all but they are still quite close and they are involved in archeological knowledge work. That's kind of knowledge work that's related to archeology. And they certainly have a stake on what archeologists are doing and what archeologists are discovering. But what I did, this sounds like a rather small sample. I did post the survey to a bunch of land developers who had been registered in Finland and Sweden for a few years ago during two years. And contacting the people wasn't kind of exactly very easy. But there is some anecdotal and some kind of other evidence from the national heritage authorities from the two countries that these results that are kind of, there is a little bit more substance than in a kind of a standard survey that did you like kind of how the contract archeological process went and so on. So here is a little bit more kind of like they could express what they really thought about the process. So even if it's not a kind of a huge sample so it's still kind of rather useful to say something about what land developers think. The survey wasn't only about spatial information but it was about archeological information in general about what archeologists do, what kind of land developers think about archeology and so on. But now here in this presentation I'm going to focus on the spatial information aspects. And just to give a little bit of background, so kind of over half of the people or the organizations that participated in the survey so they were somehow municipal, either municipalities planning departments but also municipal companies, public utilities and so on. And more generally there's a rather good spread of different branches, okay, some of them represented by only one organization but still you could get some sort of an idea about at least priorities from one actor in these contexts. And there has been some prior work on what kind of information is coming from archeological excavations and what types of things people might be interested in there. There was a study in Flanders published a year ago, not a couple of years ago. And the authors did kind of a categorization but you can say that there is kind of administrative information, there is spatial information and there is scientific information coming from the fieldwork and there were different groups of people who were interested in these different types of information so to say. And there is of course spatial information and that's interesting for us here in this room. And kind of the general thing from the earlier studies, there are also some other reports written on the topic where some sort of remarks on information were produced by archeologists as mentioned and the general content is also from the earlier literature and from the studies that kind of GIS data is kind of somehow it's important. But the question is of course kind of how it's important and what is important in GIS data and what land developers really kind of want. And there was kind of, I could kind of looking at the responses and the data so there were kind of some trends and some ideas that several of the respondents were expressing and it was possible to compile some sort of a wish list so to say. And the concern was rather unsurprisingly that they would kind of like to have a very streamlined process where kind of something would happen and then they suddenly would have the boundaries of all different things that are beyond their reach. They should be kind of things that should be preserved so that they would appear on their maps and they can kind of just plan everything so that nothing is going to happen on those areas or that they could at least minimize their interventions on the areas that should have some sort of an archeological interest. They would like to have detailed information. What the detail was so it seemed to be a little bit kind of a question of negotiation. Detailed enough but not too detailed. Detailed for their purposes, not detailed from an archeological perspective. Then a common thing that was repeated by several respondents was that it should be as exact as possible and it should be as reliable as possible. And they are pretty obvious things but then the question is that what is actually meant by these things and there was probably I would kind of my reading of the results or the kind of the statements was that the reliability was probably even more important than exactness in a certain sense so that if there was a kind of if you get a map you get certain coordinates of an area that should be excluded from different types of land development so that the thing was that it should be reliable that it's actually kind of there. Exactness in a sense that if the kind of the the borders marked on the map should be kind of exactly the borders of the site on one hand it was said that it's kind of good if they are kind of really exact so we can kind of use the land as as kind of much as possible so that we don't have to kind of exclude larger areas but then on the other hand the exactness kind of going a little bit outside of the real site much better to avoid the possibility that when things have been planned there are kind of how things would be constructed and so on and then the construction work has began so then suddenly something emerges okay no no we can't continue we have to plan again we have to do something we have to stop working and to plan the whole thing again and do the work again so in that sense exactness kind of it doesn't have to be too exact necessarily if it's reliable in the sense that that we can kind of exclude the possibility of ruining the whole project and then of course they were kind of demanding directly usable file formats and it was kind of the what is a directly usable file format so it's it's the file format I'm using on the software on my computer and that gets a little bit tricky of course kind of as some sort of a standardization would be it would be good on both ends but yeah this is what people want but it's it's not really some sorts of them kind of an all the things could be solved really then when there was a discussion or they were kind of asked about the problems relating to spatial information at the moment the people were complaining about bad or uneven quality of CAD drawings or map drawings both of them really and it appeared so that in some cases yeah the problem was really that that's not all the contractors were delivering very optimal quality drawings and they should be kind of more more kind of standardization and from the perspective they would be happy if there would be kind of some sorts of discussion about what's what's enough and what's what's kind of what's their perspective on the things there were problems to access GIS data especially in Finland people were very unhappy mostly because data was it was it could be found in many different places and there was kind of no central repository for the data that they could reliably see that the data would probably be there like a direct access to access to spatial data was a problem it was a little bit kind of an express in a way that kind of I'm sitting by my computer and I would like to press a button and get the data on my computer so it was more like this kind of a thing but if there would be a central repository where you could directly download data it would probably make band developers very happy and then related it to the access to a general problem of that the GIS data might have been might not have been accessible at all so the thing was that there was were problems that you have to contact very many different kinds of public authorities to to check and double check that whether all the data were actually the one that the developer got in the first place then there wasn't another thing that's kind of partly related to to the spatial information and it's the question about about interest and non-interest and it's kind of generally known that in most cases land developers aren't really that interested in in archaeology or spatial archaeological spatial information or archaeological aspects of spatial information and that was kind of really clear from the survey and it was also really I would say that it's also indicative that I didn't get too many responses so most of the people didn't care less to to kind of take part in my survey especially because I couldn't kind of punish them for not not doing that as probably some sort of an public authority could be doing at least indirectly but there were people were also interested and there was kind of there was a clear indication of the possibility to have some sort of a dialogue and to kind of that they were really kind of interested also in archaeology and to kind of not really commercially but somehow inspirationally and and somehow kind of culturally to exploit the presence of an archaeological site by the by the thing that they were developing so there is kind of this is something that to identify these kinds of land developers and then start a dialogue with them and then try to discuss what they would like to get out of the archaeological work so it would be probably a very good idea then kind of a final it's not really an yeah opportunity of threat yeah probably precisely that or opportunity or threat but it's probably a threat and there's an opportunity in the threat and it's a question about social contacts there's a central information source and it's of course kind of that they were complaining that you need to kind of know the right people to get the spatial information you need and to get check the quality and and check all kinds of things but then on the other hand kind of if social contacts are really that important so it kind of forces land developers to actually contact archaeologists and to kind of discuss with each other which might actually create some kind of a common understanding of things now you're probably kind of dead bored about about this talk about land developers but if you would like to read more about it so there's a article probably coming out tomorrow or kind of on Monday I just have had the final proof in my email today so you might take a look at it it's going to be open access and yeah that's about it thank you