Below is a blogged version of my latest Editorial from
The Cartographic Journal which I wrote mid-October. It's based on my very personal impressions from a busy period of geo-conference attendance during August-October this year. I'm not the only one who has been mulling over the issue of geo-tribes. I previously wrote about my thoughts on the
fallacy of new cartography and this Editorial represents a development of that thinking based on the way that different 'clubs' manage and deliver their events and meetings. I'm not alone.
Michael Gould (
@michael_d_gould) hosted and Alan McConchie (
@mappingmashups) organized a #geowebchat on 3rd December, a transcript of which can be accessed
here. Michael and Renee Sieber have also proposed a panel session at the 2014 meeting of the Association of American Geographers. It's entitled "Battle of the tribes: geoweb, GIS, GI Science, cyberGIS, neogography". I look forward to taking part from the geo-crowd at the panel session but for now here's my Editorial...it's long (it's an Editorial!):
Cartographic Tribalism
I survived Maptember 2013. What can we learn about the state
of Cartography from all the various geo-events? A hectic conference season
began in Dresden, Germany, with the International Cartographic Conference (ICC). I then moved immediately on to the UK to take
in some of the Society of Cartographer’s (SoC) Summer School before heading to
Leicestershire (actually, Northamptonshire but that will become clear) for the British Cartographic
Society’s (BCS) Symposium. A quick trip
back to Redlands to do some laundry and then it was back to the UK for the
co-hosted Association of Geographic Information’s (AGI) annual GeoCommunity
conference and then the Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial (FOSS4G)
conference in Nottingham; then finishing up with the North American
Cartographic information Society (NACIS) conference in Greenville, South
Carolina. I managed six conferences. That wasn’t even half of those I could
have attended but it was a decent effort. The main take-away for me is that
tribalism, badges and a ‘club’ mentality are still very much in evidence across
and within mapping related societies which are really not doing very much to
break down the barriers between different types of map-maker. Here, I’ll take a
look at some of my thoughts from each of the conferences and then see where
we’re headed because the way in which different communities function and see
themselves gives us plenty to think about.
The ICA’s biennial event was held in Germany and unlike an
organization with individual members this is a conference that brings together
academia, industry, map publishers and pretty much anyone with an interest in
mapping. The ICA is a global organization and with over 1000 people attending
there was a rich and diverse programme to satisfy pretty much every map-related
need. There was a strong pre-conference with many ICA Commissions hosting
workshops. Along with the ICA Commission on NeoCartography (led by Steve
Chilton and Andrew Turner), the Commission on Map Design (Chaired by myself
with Alex Kent, Bernhard Jenny and Anja Hopfstock) enjoyed a great day of
presentations and discussion on the future of mapping. The technical sessions in
the main programme were broad in appeal; the map gallery had some spectacular
work and the exhibition had most of the major players showing their wares. SwissTopo were even handing out neck ties
based on their stunning map designs. There was a nod to new map-makers in the
programme and some of those who would call themselves neo-cartographers
attended which is encouraging. It was,
however, quite a ‘traditional’ conference in the main and with an Executive
Committee largely led by academics the programme veers towards cartographic
research and development. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as this is where
ideas are sparked and where we often (certainly historically) see the cutting edge of what’s new. The map gallery was predominantly paper-based
and the vendors were mostly those with a traditional business model and outreach. There was
very little representation from the likes of Google, Apple, MapBox or any of a
similar focus who have disrupted cartography over the last few years and
although many of the presenters of papers were using a wide variety of software
the Open Source community were not well represented in any sort of formal sense. In some respects this, then, was a meeting of
people who have a longer history in cartography and that at least allowed a
sense of reflection on where the discipline and industry might be headed; what
the challenges are; and how we might tackle them in the coming years. No doubt, the sense of cartography being at
an evolutionary (possibly revolutionary) juncture was palpable and most are
keen to embrace change and ride the wave.
I couldn’t help reflecting on the fact that new players were not
inspired enough about the prospect of a global gathering to consider attending
a benefit. Was this due to the location (and
the cost of attendance) or perhaps the idea that cartography is not something
they consider valuable? It might define a business model that they are
attacking because they can (through code) make maps, but the practice of
cartography isn’t necessarily something they see as core to their work so
engagement in that community isn’t top of their agenda. Hopefully this might
change for the next ICC in Rio in 2015 and it’s certainly an aim of ICA to
strengthen links with emerging mapping communities.
The Cartographic Journal had a Special Issue for the Dresden
meeting but it was disappointing that at least one other affiliate journal
failed to meet their obligation. It is also interesting to note that the ICA
itself are moving ahead with plans for their own International Journal of
Cartography. I’m unsure of the value of launching a new journal, with a
traditional publishing model, in the current climate. More journals are moving
towards offering free content and with a number of cartography journals all
vying in a niche area does the world really need another? Many more people are using blogs and other
publishing mechanisms to be heard. Fewer people need a journal to publish and
there is some sense that another journal might not be necessary. ICA feel strongly that a new journal will
increase the body of work and help with improving citations but this will take
some time to roll out. We’ll have to wait and see how this initiative plays out
in the coming years but ICA want to focus on a strong scientific basis for the
discipline and see research and it’s dissemination as a key aspect of what the
organization offers. The ICA map gallery
was, as always, a feast of mapping from a wide range of countries; showcasing
both traditional topographic map production as well as innovative single
purpose thematic products. Somewhat
surprisingly, a map I had produced won the overall prize for best map but I
have to say if I’d been on the panel of judges that award would have gone
elsewhere. It’s humbling and also a privilege for work to be commended by your peers and a great
honour for a map submitted by the UK to have won; though the irony of the same
map being one of those not considered nearly good enough for a BCS award in
2012 wasn’t lost on a good number of people.
Mapping is subjective in so many ways and this proves the point magnificently!
ICC in Dresden was very well
organized and with such a packed schedule there was so much quality on show.
It’s always valuable to go outside of your close circle of carto-friends and
colleagues and meet others and the ICC events are a perfect opportunity to
stretch your own carto-horizons. Cartography is in good health on the face of
it but behind the scenes there are concerns that the new and the old are
drifting in different directions. This became more obvious for me as Maptember
continued.
Naturally the Society of Cartographer’s Summer School event
was on a much more modest scale though with perhaps only 30-40 people the event
is becoming more of a workshop style than a full conference. Attendees
represented a broad church but as you’d expect, many were of an academic
background and the programme reflected fairly niche research interests. There’s a much stronger link with ‘new
cartography’ in evidence at SoC events partly as a function of the tastes of
those that organize the events. The event is low-key and in a crowded
conference space how long it can sustain as a separate entity is questionable. Large
conference banquets are replaced by pub quizzes. Questions of sustainability
and relevance are naturally of concern as the Society and the event look to the
future. The economics of staging a conference are such that at some point
smaller events will have to look at different models. Membership is also an
issue with the 'club' mentality being quite strong in SoC. How does such an
organization attract new members?
Indeed, do people want to ‘belong’ to a club based on cartography any
more when it’s becoming such a part of general life, particularly one that is
stubbornly hanging on to an academic production support environment background. What defines someone with those interests now
that the map might be considered just as ubiquitous as a spreadsheet or word
processed document that the notion of a cartography club is not something
people feel a strong urge to join. What do they get out of it? I’d always
suggest that the opportunity to meet people, face to face, rather than in the
disembodied virtual world of our social networks is immensely valuable and
rewarding. Talking with people often sparks so much more…but with travel,
accommodation and time costs becoming more critical, can such meetings survive
among the plethora of others. Albeit the talks were fascinating, the event had
an air of it clinging onto its last breath and perhaps the most startling and
disappointing aspect was that there were no entries to the annual Wallis award
for cartography. As Benjamin Hennig
succinctly put it “dammit, I could have won!”; a missed opportunity for so many
and a sad reflection on the lack of support for a prestigious award.
In contrast to SoC, the BCS Annual Symposium had a
triumphant air to it as attendees were welcomed to the somewhat stately
Hothorpe Hall in Leicestershire for the 50th Anniversary
celebrations. Actually…when you look at the map, Hothorpe Hall is in fact about
50 metres inside Northamptonshire since the River Welland is to the north and
separates it from Leicestershire.
Really…you simply couldn’t make it up that having made a big play of
returning to Leicestershire, the location of the first Symposium in 1963, the
event had actually got it wrong on the map. It made a good number of us
chuckle. Regardless, BCS is always a little more formal, a little more focused
on corporate cartography and less academically inclined. One might compare SoC
to BCS by suggesting the former functions like a working men’s club and the
latter considers itself somewhat more refined.
To some that might come across as a little pompous and exclusive which
is not an attractive trait. The
programme of talks at BCS were geared more towards those from cartographic businesses
promoting their wares. There were relatively few talks concerned with
cartographic research which were certainly more in evidence in Dresden and to
an extent, at SoC. With over 120
attendees the event was well attended which, one suspects, had to do with it being
a landmark anniversary with a terrific set of talks and panel discussion by the
heads of Britain’s five mapping agencies. For my third conference in Maptember
though, similar themes of relevance and sustainability began to emerge. Attendees were all quite well known to one
another. The exhibition was similar to most other years. What’s new? Where are
the new people? How does the Society promote relevance amongst new map-makers?
The cost of events such as the BCS Symposium is certainly one major issue to
overcome if it is to encourage wider participation; particularly from emerging
and, dare I say, younger map-makers. Could co-locating with other conferences
be an answer or again...are these sort of people really not interested in belonging to
any sort of traditionally styled ‘club’? I don’t have the answer but I have a
feeling that BCS, SoC and all those of a similar size and approach need to
really tackle the issue head on over the next few years or participation will
dwindle. The map gallery and awards at
BCS perhaps, again, provide a barometer of where the society is situated. The maps that won awards were traditional in
the main and while there’s no suggestion that they weren’t worthy of
recognition, there was very little that was innovative or that demonstrably
pushed cartographic boundaries. None of
them particularly inspired and, for some, they were just unremarkable. The BCS awards have
always been held up as prestigious and they should shine a light on the very
best of mapping. This year, they didn’t but you have to be in it to win it and
many great maps weren’t entered…why? Is it apathy? Is the process of entering
too much effort? Do people not care about awards any more and do they get their recognition and satisfaction in other ways? In some ways, the
maps that won reflect the society and its membership more generally. There is
more interesting work out there but to showcase it, you first need to attract
those people to your club. So until new and different people are encouraged to enter their work then the
same sort of maps will continue to win awards.
Of course, BCS isn’t the most corporate of geo-events on the UK calendar. For that, attention turns to the AGI’s GeoCommunity event, this year
held at the University of Nottingham’s conference centre. Suits abound! Here
then is the annual show of corporate geo with slick exhibition space and people
all too willing to sell you something. You get what you pay for with this
conference and it’s designed specifically to bring together geo-business for a
mutual bit of back-slapping (and geobeer consumption). In some respects it’s really just a trade
show for geo and an opportunity for people to get together and while it offers
an opportunity for businesses to get together the geo-world is actually so
small most of these people probably meet every few months or so anyway. Long
gone are the days when there were workshops and other practical tracks and
although many of the talks are little more than advertisements, there are a few
gems hidden away if you care to hunt them down. No map gallery. No maps. It’s
hard to see where AGI fits into the scheme of things this year because if we’re
honest, most people (me included) were really only in Nottingham to attend the
co-located Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial (FOSS4G) conference
which had pre-conference workshops on the same days and then the main programme
immediately afterwards. Of course, what this demonstrates is that co-locating
events does bring economies of scale and I am convinced GeoCommunity was well
attended because people could justify one trip and expense for two events.
For the first time, FOSS4G was being held in the UK and
organized by possibly the most enthusiastic and ebullient group of people you
could ever meet. These people are passionate about geo and some, even,
passionate about maps. This is an
entirely different crowd and the fact that there were possibly only one or two
people I saw here who were at ICC, SoC or BCS tells its own story. Yet here we
had a far more diverse group of people. The average age of attendees was much
younger. They were generally focused on practical issues; developing code to
support geo and mapping…yes, mapping. These are people who would never call
themselves cartographers yet they are all making maps and there were hundreds
of them. Why don’t these people go to cartographic conferences? Simple: they do
not find them to be relevant. The making of a map is simply the result of a
different process for them; they are interested in the technical challenge and
construction but the work they are producing is innovative, disruptive and,
crucially, is beginning to yield some impressive results. I have to add a
disclaimer here that I was asked by the Local Organizing Committee to organize
and curate a map gallery for the FOSS4G conference. Given my experience as a
participant and organizer of such events in other places over the years I
wanted to see what we could do differently.
The original plans were for a traditional gallery of maps printed out
but I wanted to make this cutting edge, different. I persuaded my fellow organisers we should go
entirely digital. Maps were to be either web apps or if they were designed for
print, submitted as a PDF. This approach was either going to go well or fail
miserably. In the weeks leading up to the event we eventually received over 70
entries. I’ve been vocal in the past that web mapping has taken us a step back
in cartographic terms, and that modern map-makers are eschewing the practice of
cartography in favour of coded solutions but…I was impressed. We’ve reached a
cusp where quality is now in evidence. Sure, there’s still a dearth of poor web
maps we can point to daily but there are those who are harnessing the power of new technology and
tools and really beginning to shape the next generation of mapping. Here, then, we saw some of the very best mapping currently being generated by (mostly) non-cartographers. The
contrast with the BCS map gallery and awards (and the ICA to an extent) was
remarkable though BCS was a supporter of the FOSS4G map gallery and it was good
to be able to make the link between BCS and modern mapping in this way. We set
up a web site to view the maps, we had a group of cartographic expert judges
vote for category winners and we held a public vote via the web site for the
best map. This was global. You did not
need to attend the conference to either submit or vote. We built a video to
promote the entries and CASA at University College London loaned us their iPad
wall which acted as a focal point alongside three large plasma screens located
around the event. The gallery was promoted via Social Media, including being
featured by Wired magazine and we got a huge number of hits to the site. It remains live and I strongly encourage you
to visit and be impressed (
http://2013.foss4g.org/conf/gallery/)
and also see the winners (
http://2013.foss4g.org/conf/gallery/winners).
The gallery was a huge success and a stand-out feature of the conference. We managed to encourage participation from a
wide range of people but there wasn’t a single map submitted to the FOSS4G
gallery that had been submitted to any of the other club’s awards. This simply
has to change if the traditional cartography clubs want to remain relevant.
Finding ways to encourage these new map-makers that they can benefit from
networking with cartographers and that showcasing their work in those arenas is
important for the health of cartography. That said there was a strong
undercurrent of tribalism at the event.
You’re either seen as being pro-open source or you’re badged as being
from the proprietary world. In terms of
cartography, there’s still the age-old dichotomy of the paleo vs neo and far
too many people seem to have incredible difficulty with the idea that you can
have an interest in cartography but use and promote modern tools. I increasingly get the feeling that it’s
actually the new map-makers that enjoy this distinction. They are approaching map-making using their
unique skill-set and they seem to use this as a stick to beat anyone who may
use proprietary GIS software or, heaven forbid, Adobe Illustrator.
I keep making noises that cartography evolves
and changes based on technology and that with each new technological epoch,
mapping tends to suffer for a while as the tools catch up and then we get
launched into a new phase where we move forward once more. Some people inevitably get left behind but
those that are willing to evolve and grasp new challenges are well placed. But
increasingly the new kids on the block seem to like to be seen as different,
avant-garde almost; a new breed who simply aren’t interested in what theory or
practice might have gone before. They usually align behind a new label to distinguish themselves from what has gone before (geoweb, neo, cyber...whatever). These are the very people who ICA, SoC and BCS
want to encourage to their clubs but with such entrenched attitudes I’m
unconvinced it’s a good idea if they harbor such attitudes. Maybe the fact there are two worlds is
something we just have to manage and learn to stop being so disparaging about
others’ and their use of tools that might differ to our own preferences? I also
felt very uncomfortable being badged as someone who works at a company that
produces proprietary GIS software. In
much the same way that these new players tend to ignore much of the discipline
of mapping pre-Google, it was quite interesting being effectively an unknown
person. My 20+ years in academia went unknown and I was simply seen as someone who
worked at a large American GIS firm…or ‘the enemy’ of open source if you want
it in stark terms. It’s a funny world
when your employer is seen as what defines you. I wasn’t attending as a
spokesperson of my company. I was actually attending as an individual…yet many
preferred to overlook that I might have my own views, thoughts and comments
untainted by my employer. I tend to find that most people whose company I enjoy
in the geo-world are individuals that share a passion for geo, for maps and
suchlike. I couldn’t care who they work
for particularly or how they do their mapping.
We share something far more profound than the mechanism we each choose
to pay the mortgage. I am constantly
reminded by The classic quote from The Prisoner of “I am not a number, I’m a
free man”. Most level-headed people in geo are not defined by their employer;
and that’s what makes it so fascinating. Those that choose to apply labels (and perpetuate tribalism) don’t help themselves or the community in general. There were some very
inappropriate comments made by presenters who should know better. What do those
with a predilection for open (as in freedom of choice, not as in beer) source hope
to gain by promoting their altruistic efforts by bashing those that have a
different business model? It’s geo-tribalism at its worst and just not
necessary. So in much the same way as
cartography itself is seen as divisive…you’re either in the old club or the new
club, now the new club are trying to ostracize themselves further by insisting
that open is vastly superior morally, commercially and functionally than
proprietary. Can’t we all just accept
difference, see it as a good thing and work alongside or, even, with each
other?
And so to the final Maptember event I attended (which,
technically, was in October but let’s not split hairs): the North American
Cartographic Information Society (NACIS) conference in Greenville, South
Carolina. NACIS has done a good job of moving with the times and the mix of old
and new, open and proprietary, paleo and neo is probably the most diverse of
all the events I’ve attended and it’s a dynamic and passionate crowd. In simple, terms there’s a good mix amongst
the 150 or so people who attended. Don’t be fooled though, the divisions are
still there. Many of the newer crowd are caught presenting material that,
frankly, is old hat to someone who’s been around the discipline a while. Reinventing the wheel or, worse, ignoring the vast body of previous work, is a common theme in new mapping and amongst many new mappers. That’s not to say new ways of doing things
aren’t valuable; they very much are, but trying to assert they are revolutionary
when it’s simply not is just not good enough. It’s akin to a student saying
they couldn’t find any references and, by inference, that there isn’t any prior
work. Prior art exists for so much in
cartography and many of the new map-makers do themselves a disservice by not
acknowledging and honouring the legacy. Worse, becoming indignant if someone
points this out just rams a huge attitudinal wedge into the mix that is
precisely what needs to be broken down to build bridges between the tribes.
NACIS was the only conference I attended that had a strong MapBox presence, alongside
the likes of Esri (Google have also attended this event in the past). Now this is likely to be partly due to the fact it was held
in North America and not Europe but at least they are engaging with the
community in an active way. The map gallery is a student-led affair and the
work the winning students put together was quite frankly, of an incredibly high
standard. They had print and web
cartography on display which put much of what I saw at the other Maptember
conferences to shame.
How, then, have NACIS been successful in encouraging new
map-makers and younger map-makers to their conferences when the same cannot be
said for many UK events? I think the
answer is simple…the spirit of entrepreneurship and the idea that you can do
what you want and be who you want is strongly encouraged in the US from an
early age. People who make maps are
confident in going to events where other map-makers go. Age is no barrier.
Startups want to showcase their wares too and do not feel belittled by the
bigger companies...they actually enjoy and gorge themselves on the challenge. Crucially, there is still such a thing as cartography taught
in colleges and Universities in the US. There’s also a strong GIS presence
across the curricula so there’s a steady stream of people happy to call
themselves ‘cartographers’ entering the job market every year. This isn’t the case in the UK. If you’re in
geo you’re a minority. You are in an even smaller minority if you’re a
geo-academic with GIS or cartography as a specialism. They are not seen as core
or key skills or even as a serious discipline.
Consequently, there is very little in the way of new people coming
through in the UK. Conferences and societies are populated by the same people
who are getting older. New people are finding alternative avenues to be
recognized. NACIS has not had such a hard job to persuade young or new
map-makers to be involved because cartography is still a recognized ‘thing’ in
the US. They also actively encourage new delegates to get involved. They are encouraged to present. There’s a
dedicated Practical Cartography Day. Social events focus on inclusivity and
there’s even a ‘Lunch bunch’ event where groups of people are led by a ‘well
known cartographer’ to an informal lunch in town somewhere. I was one such ‘well-known cartographer’ (in my own lunch-time literally!!!) this
year which was an honour but it was a great way to encourage new people to hang
out with those who have been to a number of events. Even the equivalent of the
pub quiz only allowed teams to enter if they contained a team member attending their
first conference. These are small things
that make belonging to the club a much more pleasant experience for new people
and also keep the more experienced on their toes! That’s not to say NACIS is
not looking to the future, but they’re concerned that their membership is only
35% females and how can they redress that balance. It’s a different problem.
So I come back to the original question of what can be
learnt from Maptember? There’s no doubt that cartography is evolving rapidly.
There’s also no doubt that people seem convinced that their own particular
tribe is a safe haven and they are nervous (sometimes critical) of fellow
map-makers who choose (or are paid) to do things differently. The map galleries provided a good barometer
of the health of each society and the type of people that are attracted to the
events. The use of social media possibly provides another barometer. Non-existent
at BCS, some use at SoC, lively at ICC (in relation to certain topic areas) and
prevalent at NACIS. The challenge then,
is to continue to build bridges between the tribes. Can we sustain all these
separate clubs? My sense is that the answer is no and that the role of a club
of cartographers is perhaps in need of change. In just the same way that
cartography as a discipline and practice has evolved then so too do the
organisations that represent them. Stubbornly holding onto the past does no
good; though there has to be give and take on both sides and if clubs are to
change to meet the needs of new and emerging map-makers then they also have to
recognize that others have gone before them in so many ways. I’m fortunate to
have been able to attend all these events but I’m left with one lasting
impression…it’s just too damn much! 21 days of conference in a 6 week period is
unsustainable. That said, I truly value the friendships I’ve made through going
to the various clubs I’m involved with. I was able to catch up with some
remarkable people on my travels and meet new colleagues. My work will be richer
for the experience. That’s what clubs are ultimately all about…sharing,
debating and exploring the joy of mapping with like-minded people.
Kenneth Field
October 2013
Redlands, CA
