I have done this for a grant-funded historical map digitization project at a university library. We used a $40k large-format scanner (from Betterlight) which can scan the whole item laid out flat. Trying to stitch together camera images will result in distortion across the image—if you didn't need to distort it, you wouldn't need special software to do it; you could just line the pictures up.
But even once you have image files, there's about zero chance you can just replace Google Maps' tiles with your own and expect geotagged stuff to line up where it should. If you have a finite number of places of interest, you could manually locate them on each map and then try to distort each map to align, but if you expect arbitrary geolocations to need to be right, give up. Non-satellite/GPS-based maps are examples of practical cartography, not theoretical. They will be even less perfect than you think, no matter how professional they appear. Or do what we did: keep the geotag display on Google's maps, but show your historical map of the same general region side-by-side and allow the user to calculate the precise correlation in his own brain.
What kind of documents are they? If they're mostly text and you want versioning, the only drawback to subversion is getting people to learn the tools, but that might be too much.
If they're archival/static documents, an institutional repository could work. Something like DSpace isn't that hard to deploy and will provide basic archival and search features.
The middle ground between those two solutions is probably what you want, though. Everyone I work with uses SharePoint for that, and I hate recommending proprietary lock-in.
Introducing blood-eating yeast into a person's pacemaker? What's the worst that could happen?
Oh yeah. Gray goo. I hope they've engineered in a lysine deficiency.
As an American liberal democrat atheist gay, I should say that even most of the people who aren't as awesome as me aren't as dumb as you make them out to be.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to my Truckosaurus. Yeehaw. That guy with the mullet is hot.
>>>Each satellite massed well over 1,000 pounds."
That's only if you're using the less-common FPS sub-version of English units (where pounds are mass units and poundals are force units). According to the gravitational FPS system (where pounds are force units and slugs are mass units), which is what I learned in high school at least, each satellite's mass is at least 31 slugs.
(That's close to 32, which is the approximate scaling factor between mass-pounds and force-pounds due to Earth's gravity acceleration at sea level being about 32 ft/sec^2, but it's just a coincidence. 31 slugs * 32 ft/sec^2 =~ 1000 mass-pounds, which is the "weight" of the satellite. Any good geek ought to see that quickly, though, since 32 * 32 is the familiar 2^10.)
And this is why SI exists.
The only perfect science is hind-sight.