tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post2876742336452585465..comments2024-03-26T21:54:22.713-07:00Comments on Cartonerd: The fallacy of new cartographyKenneth Fieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16738467752479352030noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-70881078795785310892013-03-11T21:52:44.835-07:002013-03-11T21:52:44.835-07:00Andy, thanks for contributing. I don't find it...Andy, thanks for contributing. I don't find it obsolete because while there are some that "get it" there are far more that don't. What we need to do is encourage those that don't to feel that there might be value in understanding a little about cartography<br /><br />You're right to point to some great work in bringing more useful projections to the web. This is to be encouraged but I wonder how many general purpose map-makers will make good choices given a choice? They didn't always do so before the web so what will change things in this medium I wonder?<br /><br />My entire approach is to try and wave a flag of help and encourage us all to work together to develop the mapping tools of tomorrow. It has to be wanted to be received though. Knowing why something is right is the ultimate goal but maybe there's a middle ground. Wouldn't it be useful to populate tools with such good defaults that even beginner map-makers are likely to make better choices off the bat? That would be great.Kenneth Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16738467752479352030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-20368267757096629372013-03-11T20:13:19.498-07:002013-03-11T20:13:19.498-07:00Generally I think that worry over divides and demo...Generally I think that worry over divides and democratization and all that is kind of obsolete. On one hand I do think there is something to interactive web cartography being "new" but on the other hand I don't think we're really talking about that these days now that the initial wild phase has settled down.<br /><br />There was a time not so long ago when web cartography went in crazy and perhaps ill-advised directions trying to do something new, but in the past couple of years it has started to circle back to a reality where it knows that it fundamentally grows from all the cartography that came before. A simple example is how we're now breaking free of the Mercator projection in web maps. We may have taken two steps backward, but lately the steps are forward. The limitations are being overcome one by one. Sure, bad maps can still get a lot of play easily, but they don't set the cartographic course so much these days.<br /><br />The current charge for "old-skool" types with respect to the "new" cartographers is not to point out that the cartography isn't new but rather to help them actually understand the knowledge and history behind it. We don't want people doing things right based solely on precedent; we want them doing things right because they understand what's right. It's good if people know that Mercator isn't appropriate for choropleth maps, but it's better if they understand why. It's good if people use ColorBrewer color schemes, but it's better if they understand why one works better than another. And so on.<br /><br />This is all said as someone who is more or less old-skool but working entirely in the web medium—and on record as an occasional grouch about the modern cartography world. Thanks for all the thought provocation!Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338890726159102462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-39975586134341738872013-03-11T13:28:39.668-07:002013-03-11T13:28:39.668-07:00Thanks Andrew. I'm not trying to be profound; ...Thanks Andrew. I'm not trying to be profound; merely cutting through some of the spin to offer a realistic counterpoint.<br />I agree with you and I guess we’re just approaching this from two sides of the same coin. Technological change is inevitable; evolution is good. Developments in cartographic method and practice are to be welcomed...and I do. What I am saying boils down to a very simple thing...maps have been made for thousands of years. Web mapping has been around for maybe 10-15 years and the pace of change in the last 2-3 years has been enormous. It is, though, immature; there is much work to do and a lot of the current rhetoric seems to suggest web mapping is already capable of everything and more. <br /><br />Web maps certainly have a number of characteristics that mean they are different to other map types but it's the extent to which this actually defines a 'new cartography' that I think is sometimes overplayed and acts to create a perceived divide between old-skool approaches and new approaches. The web as a medium creates advantages and disadvantages for mapping and understanding how these are best utilized is vital. The web has been a hugely disruptive technology for many aspects of life but I would like to think of it as being transformative and of benefit to cartography; not as something that drives its own agenda forward at the cost of ignoring what has gone before. There will be ways in which web mapping might develop that we've not even thought of yet. This is exciting. I am not suggesting we become restricted by the past but I don't necessarily agree that starting from basic principles is the right approach. Re-imagining and evolving can move the technology forward but there is much to be learnt from cartographic history that, if implemented well, would short-cut to a web-based cartographic environment capable of supporting high-end mapping as well as the quick and dirty maps that we see a lot of.<br /><br />Here's a simple acid test...there are still many things I can do in making my map using other (more mature) technologies that I cannot similarly do in a web environment. For all the 'new stuff' I can do (which is in the main impressive) there are still basic cartographic needs that are not met...so I really have to compromise how I expect the finished product to look and function. That suggests to me that the development of the technology has been to make it work at a basic level and not necessarily work to support good quality map-making. It's a subtle difference of course.<br /><br />I’m not proposing a restricted view of the past...it's about moving with the times and bringing along what works; and seeing how we can improve it. Currently, a lot of what I see has taken 2 steps backwards to go 1 step forwards. Any time there is a major shift in the technology that underpins cartography the same is true so it's nothing new and I have no doubt whatsoever that in 5 years time I will be able to make the map look and function how I want as well as be able to properly implement all sorts of new features. I want my mapping to improve as new technology is developed...not to have to compromise by producing sub-par designs because the tech doesn't yet offer what I need. Of course, the counter to this is that many more people have access to tools to get them to where they want to be in making their maps. That's truly empowering. Whether they make 'good maps' is another debate. I'd like to see the tech develop in a way that supports both possibilities.<br /><br />I'm hugely positive about change...but also hugely frustrated that my mapping is currently restricted as cartography works its way through its latest reincarnation. As I said before though, this is a truly amazing time to be involved in mapping and there are some incredible opportunities ahead if we tackle them well.Kenneth Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16738467752479352030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-25866899474267181212013-03-11T07:56:18.783-07:002013-03-11T07:56:18.783-07:00Your premise is that technology does not necessari...Your premise is that technology does not necessarily create better maps is accurate but not profound. Giving someone a pen and compass did not make them a cartographer originally either. One could point out that technology may assist in better cartography and maps through user interfaces, feedback and good defaults. But users are still free to do good and bad things.<br /><br />I do completely disagree that these maps are not different. The interfaces we now have available require new thinking and methodology to design, interface, experience, and interactivity. Making a paper map slippy is not interesting or different. Making the map queryable, animated, multi-perspective, and bi-directional is much different than traditional cartographic techniques. <br /><br />These new maps should leverage cartographic techniques as well as it leverages general psychology, physiology, and cognition. We should not merely say "everything new is old" but instead realize there is an amazing opportunity to accomplish new and valuable capabilities if we can step out of our restricted past and reconsider from basic principles.<br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-68993497734309477452013-03-10T11:22:33.091-07:002013-03-10T11:22:33.091-07:00Thanks Daniel. You make a good point. Has cartogra...Thanks Daniel. You make a good point. Has cartography been democratized? What's actually happened is that the "new religion" has just found a means to engage with their flock on an industrial scale through the ministry of the web. Do people have an equal say in cartography? I'm not so sure. They are being fed the new cartography. It's one religion; one form of cartographic governance. I just would like to see its ideology be a little more representative.Kenneth Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16738467752479352030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123225361504762353.post-47524759238252163342013-03-10T10:03:14.115-07:002013-03-10T10:03:14.115-07:00That whole "we've democratized cartograph...That whole "we've democratized cartography" phrase always bugged me. As though people haven't *always* made maps until we came along to lift them into enlightenment. C.f. my rantings here in a seminar some years ago: http://geog970.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/a-limited-form-of-democracy/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com