tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post5501067214765347763..comments2024-03-26T21:54:22.713-07:00Comments on Cartonerd: Needless lines in the sandKenneth Fieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16738467752479352030noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-31087839455718338242015-04-07T16:49:03.192-07:002015-04-07T16:49:03.192-07:00Thanks for posting.
My team at Stickyworld have b...Thanks for posting.<br /><br />My team at Stickyworld have been researching, developing and testing a different kind of Twitter map which I guess is less about data, less about cartography and more about conversation. The project creates the opportunity to map a participant's perspective about a place, tweeted with a photo and location, and place this into the context of a long form forum.<br /><br />It was designed to be useful for participatory local planning and place-making practices (the original aim) but there are possibly many other mapping and educational uses? You can read about it here:<br />www.stickyworld.com/walkabouts<br />Interested in people's thoughts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10254333016660256555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-44163999856503720052015-03-31T20:44:40.686-07:002015-03-31T20:44:40.686-07:00It seems to me that you're the one drawing lin...It seems to me that you're the one drawing lines in the sand. My sense from Andrew Hill's post and similar FOSS4G-NA talk was not that the fundamentals of cartography don't matter, but that the pervasiveness of maps, coupled with new ways to create and consume them, is causing major shifts that have implications for anyone involved in the mapping world.<br /><br />Would it be great if every hobbyist map maker understood why normalized data is typically preferable for accurately depicting geographic data? Sure. I highly doubt you'd get much argument from Andrew either.<br /><br />You assert that cartographic conventions are not laws written in stone, but you also appear to set yourself up as the judge for when it's OK to flout the conventions. "Those meddling kids can't possibly have considered normalization and then decided against it for some reason! Poor uneducated fools." "No one in their right mind would use rainbow colors on this map, they must be mental!" What if it was a conscious decision? What if the map maker felt that their choice did a better job of depicting the message than the established standard?<br /><br />I wouldn't argue that this thinking always produces great maps, but it can also lead to new insights and discoveries. And I think that's Andrew's point: holding too closely to dogma (or best practices, or whatever you want to call it) can hush important truths and can ultimately hold back progress. When I read your blog I try to focus on the message you're trying to communicate. This means I look past poor word choice and grammatical errors. We should all approach cartography in the same spirit.<br /><br />And for what it's worth, you playing the lecturer card fits right into this narrative - of course the guy who has spent years studying and lecturing about cartography hates all these new weak-minded fools engaging in thoughtless map making!<br /><br />One final thought: It's true that some of this "new" territory isn't necessarily new. But some of it IS new. And in any case, the rapid pace with which tools and data are developing and improving is certainly unprecedented.<br /><br />It is laughable to pretend that Atlas Mapmaker is basically the same thing as Mapbox Studio (or whatever else the kids are using these days). Are there similarities among mapping software? Yes - they create maps! But don't pretend that you could use Mapmaker to serve a user-specific map over the internet based on a worldwide dataset that draws varying levels of detail based on the zoom level, all while showing a popup form for gathering yet more data.<br /><br />Thanks for the thought-provoking post.cowlickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877721497485356514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-22726773461086844762015-03-30T08:42:40.592-07:002015-03-30T08:42:40.592-07:00I'm of the opinion that no map was ever made t...I'm of the opinion that no map was ever made that wasn't intended to communicate some message from human to human. Many maps have a message that answers a question, or asks a question, or summarizes some data, or exposes an insight previously hidden in the data. But some maps simply strive to convey the message, "Look at me!" Is that wrong? I don't think so,.... as long as that is the intended message.<br /><br />The problem, I think, is that with so many new mapmakers making maps we are seeing more and more maps whose message is "Look at me!" (LAM!). However, I'm not convinced that this was actually the intended message of those mapmakers. Instead, I think many of these maps are likely cartofails, not because the resulting map isn't eye-catching, but because the resulting map fails to communicate the mapmaker's intended message.<br /><br />So, why is that? Is it because the mapmakers didn't understand enough about the cartographic process to understand or appreciate that the message, purpose, audience, medium and venue are all critical to the success of the map? Is it because they didn't understand or appreciate the map's nature as a human communication tool? Is it because the concepts of purpose and message never crossed their minds at all? Or, maybe, it's just because they're young and making maps is still new to them. Maybe they, like many before them, are simply still at the LAM! stage of their mapmaking lives. We all go through those stages as we learn new things. We try and try and then we succeed (to a point), shout "Look at me!", and then we try to learn or add the next thing. I wonder if the increasingly large number of LAM! maps we see are simply reflective of the increasingly large number of people who are gaining new access to mapmaking passing through that early LAM! stage.<br /><br />Of course, while this might help to explain the large number of LAM! maps, and also the large percentage of those that were probably not intended to actually be LAM! maps, it doesn't explain the mindset that automatically rejects critique, interpreting it as a personal attack, and compelling the mapmaker to presume that all that went before is of little use. That, I'm afraid, is sadly symptomatic of human behavior, and, at least by my observation, is a trait increasingly prevalent across the internet (and, unfortunately, across wider society). To me, this is the real threat, not just to cartography or cartographic education, but to our general ability to communicate and cooperate. These abilities are built on our willingness to share and exchange ideas, and to value that exchange. Increasingly, this ability seems to be lacking in public discourse of all types. And that is not a happy turn. So I, for one, applaud your attempt to engage in the exchange, to encourage critique, and to further the idea that well-informed and thoughtful practitioners (whether they be mapmakers or in any other field of endeavor) are likely to be more effective in their chosen field. Nicely done.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17608682415876053551noreply@blogger.com