Interactive 3D visualizations of geospatial data are currently available and popular through various applications such as Google Earth^TM and others. Several studies have focused on user performance with 3D maps, but static 3D maps were mostly used as stimuli. The main objective of this paper was to identify differences between interactive and static 3D maps. We also explored the role of different tasks and inter-individual differences of map users. In the experimental study, we analyzed effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences, when working with static and interactive 3D maps. The study included 76 participants and used a within-subjects design. Experimental testing was performed using our own testing tool 3DmoveR 2.0, which was based on a user logging method and open web technologies. We demonstrated statistically significant differences between interactive and static 3D maps in effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences. Interactivity influenced the results mainly in ‘spatial understanding’ and ‘combined’ tasks. From the identified differences, we concluded that the results of the user studies with static 3D maps as stimuli could not be transferred to interactive 3D visualizations or virtual reality.

The article presents a process of collecting unstandardized toponyms, in particular urbanonyms (place names denoting objects located in the cadastre of the city), within the territory of two municipalities in the Czech Republic. The collecting process was performed in two phases by crowdsourcing, using a web map application created especially for this purpose. In the first phase (October 2019–September 2020) it was collecting as many unstandardized toponyms as possible. In the second phase (October 2020–January 2021) we focused on the degree of the knowledge of these toponyms among the population living within the studied territory. The interest on the side of the general public was surprising in both phases. In the first phase, over five hundred respondents submitted more than two and a half thousand place names, most of them during the first two weeks. More than nine hundred respondents actively participated in the second phase, thanks to which we received an average of 200 responses for each place name. As regards the motivation of the public, it was most often altruism, patriotism, and curiosity that stimulated them; in the second phase, the element of gamification, embedded into the map application, also had a positive effect. The collected data can be used, for instance, in the activities of local authorities in the process of standardization of place names or as reference data for maps used within the integrated rescue system.

GI_Forum publishes high quality original research across the transdisciplinary field of Geographic Information Science (GIScience). The journal provides a platform for dialogue among GI-Scientists and educators, technologists and critical thinkers in an ongoing effort to advance the field and ultimately contribute to the creation of an informed GISociety. Submissions concentrate on innovation in education, science, methodology and technologies in the spatial domain and their role towards a more just, ethical and sustainable science and society. GI_Forum implements the policy of open access publication after a double-blind peer review process through a highly international team of seasoned scientists for quality assurance. Special emphasis is put on actively supporting young scientists through formative reviews of their submissions. Only English language contributions are published. Starting 2016, GI_Forum publishes two issues a Year. Joumal Information is available at: GI-Forum GI_Forum is listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

This article deals with the role of cartography, maps and geoinformatics in studying unofficial toponyms. The research is based on the crowdsourcing project Živá jména (Technical University of Liberec, 2019–2022, https://mapy.fp.tul.cz/zivajmena), which focused on unofficial urbanonyms in the cities of Liberec and Stráž nad Nisou (municipalities in the northern part of the Czech Republic). In this context, the map fulfils three key functions: it is a source of information on unofficial toponyms, a tool for their active collection, and a tool for their effective presentation. Each function is discussed in detail, identifying challenges related to the technical and user aspects of collecting and managing toponymic material and the appropriate cartographic visualisation of names on the map.

Festival tourism is an integral part of tourism with both positive and negative impacts. A separate section of so-called event tourism is festival tourism, which includes cultural, sporting, business, religious, and other events. Typical promotional materials to encourage visitors are information brochures, guides, catalogues and maps. Tourism brochures, guidebooks, and maps are crucial in shaping tourists' perceptions of a destination. These materials contribute to the overall experience of festival event tourism by providing detailed information about the festival, its surrounding attractions, and the host destination.

Online mapping could simplify the collection of adolescents’ school travel routes, but its spatial agreement with recorded travel needs to be established. We assessed the spatial agreement between usual school routes drawn by adolescents in INDARES (International Database for Research and Educational Support) and subsequently recorded Global Positioning System (GPS) routes. The study involved 112 adolescents aged 12–18 years from two schools in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Paired route data were available for analysis in 58 participants (40 girls). Adolescents drew their usual home-to-school route on a Google Maps background under researcher supervision before wearing a Holux RCV-3000 GPS logger for seven days. Spatial agreement was defined as the percentage of each drawn route within a 50 m buffer around the retained GPS linework of the same participant. Mean drawn route length was 7.80 km (standard deviation [SD] 6.44), and 39 routes (67.2%) involved both active and passive transport. Mean spatial agreement was 80.98% (SD 25.53%; 95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] 74.21–87.13%), with a median of 92.11% (interquartile range 75.69–97.74%). Agreement was at least 80% in 42 participants (72.4%) and below 50% in nine (15.5%). The high median agreement supports the potential of supervised online mapping for assessing usual school routes in adolescents. Individual discrepancies and uncertainty in the selected, processed GPS reference limit conclusions about interchangeability with GPS. Lower collection costs and workload are plausible advantages that require direct evaluation.