Academic parochialism

Last week I went to a schematic mapping workshop in Vienna, Austria. Schematic maps are some of my favourites and I'd used this opportunity to finally get round to developing my own ideas about a redesign of the London Tube Map. I'm by no means the first and won't be the last but after penning a discussion of what I characterised as the over-use, mis-use and abuse of Beck's original style from 1933 (The Cartographic Journal, 51, 4 pp343-359) it really was about time I put my money where my mouth was and had a go. The workshop provided a hard deadline and an impetus to make a map and throw it to the lions.

Me. And my map.

There were about 40 or so people attend the workshop. People came from a wide array of academic backgrounds - psychologists, computer scientists, graphic designers, cartographers and the transport industry itself. I'll be blunt. It was disappointing. While there were some interesting talks there was very little true sharing of ideas or development of collaborative opportunities. The cliques stayed within their own cliques and so the opportunity was lost. I displayed my maps and not one person wanted to actively engage in a discussion, or offer ideas for improvements. Having paid for the trip out of my own pocket that's disappointing. So what we ended up with was another example of academic parochialism at its worst. Niche groups striving headlong up their own small part of a much wider discourse and not really willing to engage beyond what they know or do. There were lots of words but not much else.

We had people focusing on usability, but not really appreciating practical implementation. We had people searching for efficient algorithms for label placement or line arrangement, not appreciating that many software packages already exist to do much of that heavy lifting. We had the idea that a fully automated map is difficult to create but never a real discussion about why you'd want that anyway. After all, maps are always made by humans to a greater or lesser extent. We had the idea that many who make schematic maps do so with design software. There was little from the GIS or data-driven cartographic community and no real appreciation of its existence or value. A lot of it was searching for a solution to a problem that isn't properly defined. It's low-level academic effort. The sort that keeps people busy but doesn't ever actually get anywhere purposeful. I know. I used to live in that world, and the further I get from it the more I recognise it for what it is and the more I am relieved to be out of it.

And the classic examples of 'research results' based on a survey of a group of students who are easy to cajole into research always has me raising my eyebrows. At best it's lazy, at worst, it undermines your work beyond it being useful. Of course students are likely to also be public transport users but they are not a diverse enough set of people if you want to capture the wide variety of people who have many and varied needs. I think we can do better. But there was also something else that made me think about the event in a way that I cannot ever recall feeling before.

I guess what I found most disconcerting is I felt like an outsider. This is a group founded and moulded by Maxwell Roberts who describes himself as "the world’s leading specialist in schematic map design". So, inevitably, there's going to be some disciples of his work in attendance and, as it turns out, all but 4 talks were 'invited'. Dr Roberts even took the floor twice for two 35 minute stints to bookend the event. Except I'm not one of his disciples. I like much of his work but ever since I wrote that journal article, Dr Roberts has made it known he took exception to my characterisation of some of his work as being unhelpful to wider debates about the value of Beck's work. To me, there's value in debate. Just because person A says something, person B does not have to agree. I used the opportunity to write a refereed paper that expressed my views based on the evidence I presented. In normal academic discourse, such views can and should be challenged. Different views expressed and published and so forth. But, it seems, this is not the case and it was unfortunate that Dr Roberts went out of his way to avoid me in Vienna. It's unfortunate but I can live with that. Should I have approached him? Possibly. But when you get bad vibes you tend not to bother in the interests of self-preservation.

Map Gallery at the Vienna Transport Museum.

There was a gallery of work on display at the Vienna transport museum on one evening. My maps were up there and earlier in the day I'd expressed my wish that people tackle them, rip them apart and let me know what they thought. I even wore my London Underground District Line Moquette shoes for some added interest. Maybe Dr Roberts would take the opportunity? Unfortunately not. Again, he went out of his way to avoid me (and my colleague Professor William Cartwright too).

Professor William Cartright and I at the map gallery.

I was going to leave it. If that's how these people want to work and (not) foster collaborative opportunities or, even, have a good old-fashioned academic slanging match then that's up to them. I returned from Vienna glad to have reconnected with some good friends, met a few new people and, once again, to have visited such a beautiful city. Except this morning I woke, to this tweet by @TubeMapCentral (aka Maxwell Roberts)

Any designer can create an attractive schematic map if the lettering is small enough, but it takes a very special designer indeed to create such a questionable schematic map with tiny lettering. Dr. Field should actually read the usability research that he is so quick to dismiss. pic.twitter.com/k8tKfymTCD

— Tube Map Central (@TubeMapCentral) April 14, 2019

So let's get this straight. Dr Roberts had every opportunity to talk to me last week. He had every opportunity to discuss my previous paper as well as my effort at making a map of the London Underground. But no. Instead, he posts a bitchy tweet (without using my twitter handle). It's a shame he didn't say my font was too small to me in Vienna because I totally agree with him. In fact, the prints were the first time I'd seen the work printed and my first reaction was the same - fonts are way too small. WAY too small. And this is the point of critique - to put your work in the gaze of your peers and others and to take on board comments and criticisms. A future iteration will address this limitation.

I wasn't going to write about my experience in Vienna but his tweet has me annoyed simply because he could have spoken to me in person. I should have seen the signs. Last talk on day one. My colleague, Professor Cartwright given less time than the other speakers. It all added up to support the fact that we simply were not wanted at the workshop because 5 years ago we had the audacity, the sheer temerity to offer some critical thoughts on some of his work as part of a wider debate. Yet they took our registration fee quite happily to boost numbers. If you're going to marginalise people then do so with class. But it doesn't achieve much. It narrows your potential for considered debate, albeit some of which might be challenging, but which ultimately strengthens a discipline. I don't like some of his work so therefore he doesn't like me. Makes sense eh? Not to me it doesn't. Tweets are cheap. I know, I send enough of them! But having had the opportunity to tackle me about the 2014 paper, or even chide me for my amateurish effort at tackling a really tricky map he, instead, waited until there was no danger of discussion. Ahh well.

What I did find of immense value at the workshop was listening to a presentation by the train manufacturer Siemens along with those at Wiener Linien who are exploring their cartography in relation to real needs, namely to fashion maps for a new generation of trains. So they are getting on with the job. We weren't allowed to take photos and I should probably not say too much as the work is currently not public and remains confidential. Except to say, they are experimenting with some really innovative animated maps. These go well beyond having a simple animated symbol that shows where you are on the route. There's morphing of the map under particular circumstances, changes to content depending on location and conditions, focusing of detail to serve the needs along the route, and real-time information delivery that goes way beyond simply showing train times and connections. I've honestly not seen anything like it and had a wonderful chat with the people behind it. These are the conversations you enjoy and ones which take you forward. The small-mindedness of a few has not detracted from my experience of this particular work and the potential it offers.

This, to me, also shows where we are in terms of who is driving research these days. Industry has overtaken academia in many fields. Cartography is one such field. Small groups of people doing very niche academic research into aspects of map design are becoming unimportant. And I think that's why these sort of workshops become increasingly frustrating. They aren't really helping move things forward, certainly not with much pace. There's too much reinvention and no real cohesion. They seem to exist to further one or two people's aspirations for relevance, rather than a sustained research agenda that feeds into real implementation. And along comes a train operator who, along with their customers, defines a need, researches it, and develops a solution.

I expressed this view earlier in the day at an 'open mic' slot where I used 10 minutes to play devil's advocate. In 2005 Google both decimated and utterly reinvented cartography. Since then, most transport networks persist with their schematic maps yet I contend that people are more interested in travelling between places of interest, not station names. Of course, this goes against Harry Beck's principles that above-ground geography is unimportant to the traveller but I think times have changed. So, for instance, if I'm in London and I want to travel between the London Eye and Selfridges how do I work out my route? I open Google Maps and I type in directions. I would suggest most people will likely do the same. In fact, I cannot recall the last time I actually saw someone use a pocket London Underground map. And even if I did I have to know where the two points of interest are in the first place and relate them to the location of stations. That's often very difficult with a schematic map. And yet Google Maps returns the optimal route (walk to Westminster station and catch the Jubilee line to Bond street). It gives me real-time train arrivals, journey time, walking routes to bookend the tube journey, as well as bus alternatives, and it now even tells me that a Lime scooter is nearby and could be quicker. The map zooms to become hyper-local. We see the actual location of station entrances so we can relate our geographical surroundings to where we actually need to go. And the map has the geographical tube network overprinted. So, my assertion is that, in 2019 the schematic map as we know it and love it may be dead. People use their smartphones and Google Maps to do their journey planning. It may well be the case that the printed schematic map has been killed by Google. Maybe this is what upset Dr Roberts? I don't know. I don't particularly care.

Unfortunately, in retrospect, the workshop was simply about his self-promoting academic parochialism. I'm glad I'm out of it, and Max, if you're reading this, please be assured I'll not darken your door at the next workshop. But I will be buying your next book on airline schematic maps because I'll likely very much enjoy it.

Professor Georg Gartner and Dr David Fairbairn discuss the Vienna map.

Update:
Unfortunately, Dr Roberts has decided to double down on his twitter rant.

Dr. Field's opinions about schematic mapping are questionable because he does not have an intellectually defensible, coherent theory of effective design. You can see that from own creation. In fact, I am not even sure he understands what the issues are and why they are important. pic.twitter.com/jvTNTXeF82

— Tube Map Central (@TubeMapCentral) April 17, 2019

Seems a little unfounded to me but I made the point that the opportunity to discuss, debate, argue even, was last week. Why didn't he take the opportunity to have me on a panel discussion for instance? Or even have a quiet word with me during one of the breakout sessions? It's not unusual for people who are passionate and knowledgeable about a subject to sometimes disagree but the art of academic discourse is to attempt to appreciate other people's perspectives. If you are closed to that, and wrap it in unsubstantiated personal attacks then you are doing yourself a disservice. I am concerned for his students if this is how he fosters discussion and engages in debate. It also reflects poorly on the University of Essex if this sort of approach to academic discourse is in any way supported.

Three conferences and a cheeseboard

I recently had the privilege of attending a couple of geo conferences and thought I'd jot down some thoughts. There's also one I didn't attend...but it's relevant to the discussion and it'll get a few comments too.

FOSS4G, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 29-31 August
I've been to a few FOSS events. It's not my wheelhouse, so to speak, given I largely use Esri products due to the nature of my employment BUT, and it's a big BUT, it's crucial that all sectors of geo play a role in supporting the work of those in the FOSS community. We share values. We actually share an awful lot, and attending these sort of events allows exchange of ideas and an opportunity to perhaps foster relationships and contacts across communities. I've long held the belief that the tools you use to do your 'geo' make no difference to how you should be perceived. Proprietary or Free - it's just a different business model to get the tools in your hands. It's what you do with it that counts. Some of my closest friends in geo are FOSS advocates. We get along fine. Others should too.

 

FOSS stalwarts and good friends Steven Feldman and Mark Iliffe

There was the usual tribal minority who seem to revel in their almost religious hatred of others but I have to say this seems to be a dwindling faction. It was a really valuable few days discussing a multitude of projects and ideas, plotting the spark of a few new ideas and taking the opportunity to reconnect with people I rarely see at other geo events. There was considerable interest in my recently released book Cartography and, also, the MOOC on Cartography that I built along with my colleagues at Esri. Community focused projects, ultimately vendor neutral, that I helped bring to the fore to support the wider community.

This was only the second time FOSS4G had been to anywhere in Africa (2008 was in Cape Town). It attracted over 1,000 attendees, including over 150 young professionals and students who were able to take advantage of an innovative travel grant programme that supports them with a financial contribution to help them attend. But what amazed me more than anything was here we were, in a part of the world with many significant barriers to the successful organisation of a large, major, international conference and it appeared to go with out a hitch (I know it didn't, but that delegates were unaware is the success). This is no small feat by the organisers. The web site was populated early, the programme was put together professionally. There was a good mix of work on show, and people from all walks of geo: academic, professional, big business, NGOs, startups and pretty much all the major players such as OSGeo (obviously) but also Esri, Mapbox, Carto, and Google were on board as sponsors.

The conference was run professionally. It was dynamic, interesting, vibrant. The social programme was carefully designed to facilitate delegate interaction. There were all manner of meetups. Water, tea, coffee and food was copious and always on tap. There were film crews and a professional team doing the AV. There was professional signage everywhere from booth graphics to directions and room information. The organisers sweated over the small stuff. If you pay attention to the detail you bring together a coherent whole.

But here's the thing. It's a serious undertaking trying to organise a conference, any conference, and in this part of the world the challenges are numerous. I was privy to some of the behind-the-scenes issues and to say that some were huge is an understatement. Kudos to the entire LOC for overcoming often very acute problems and delivering a superb event. People left with smiles and I only heard positive comments.

UK Mapping Festival, London, England 2-7 September
After FOSS4G I hopped to the UK for the inaugural UK Mapping Festival.  In past years I've been critical of the model used by the British Cartographic Society whose preference for their conference to be a one day event at a hotel (often in a remote area, often undergoing refurbishment), a single track of presentations (often including product pitches from sponsors), and very little more than an old boys reunion.  Now don't get me wrong, the opportunity to reconnect with people you possibly only see once a year at such an event is important (particularly for an ex-pat like me), but it shouldn't be the raison d'être.

So I was delighted that the organisers of the annual BCS conference were changing things and going for a week long celebration of UK mapping. Brilliant! Flights and travel booked. Looking forward to it. Unfortunately, after the wonders of FOSS4G I have to say that it was one of the biggest letdowns I've experienced on my 25yrs on the conference circuit.

There were signs well ahead of the event. The web site was late being populated with way too much placeholder text and I was hearing murmurings on various backchannels. The booking system was unclear and unwieldy. Speakers and, crucially, keynotes, were being added right up to the event itself.

There were supposed to be three main conference days run by various UK geo societies and bodies co-located yet, strangely, with separate registration fees. The Association of Geographic Information went on the 4th, BCS, in conjunction with the Society of Cartographers, on the 5th and the British Association of Remote Sensing Companies (BARSC) on the 6th. OK, so there's no way I'm paying for three separate days so the 5th was it for me. This was a real opportunity missed to support cross-pollination of communities. I'd certainly have been interested in some of the stuff from the other days but not for separate registration fees. I went to the exhibition on the 4th and 6th and numbers were not healthy. This strategy must have hurt attendance.

And on the 5th, there were workshops that delegates may very well have gone to but the one-track presentation session was on all day. Why weren't workshops on another day to encourage people to attend for longer? I'm sure there's arguments for all of this by the organisers but it's a baffling approach for delegates shoe-horned into making a choice when there would appear to have been alternatives to avoid that problem. It's not like the conference had parallel tracks so you effectively had to choose between a bit of hands-on training or listening to the talks which, on the whole, were very interesting it must be said.

The exhibition was odd - a so-called London street scene which comprised some wooden huts, a London bus and a huge British Army truck. The latter got some interest. The bus got no use at all from what I can make out and the exhibitors...hardly any traffic because it's the same companies that exhibit year on year to the same small group of attendees. I tried to get a coffee on the 4th when I only had an exhibitor pass and was charged £2. If the exhibition was free, where was everyone? Is this an apathetic British population? Is it poor advertising? Is it poor location? Timing? Well, possibly all of these. Holding the conference the week that children went back to school after the summer holidays wasn't smart. Charging a lot for exhibition space didn't help. Locating in London (8 million people) should have yielded a large population of potential visitors but where were they? I've heard a few people say that the accommodation and travel costs to London are too expensive to make it worthwhile but I do wonder whether they are assessing it against the value of the event itself. Make it worth every penny to attend and people WILL attend. I was bemused about the idea of creating a so-called London street scene. I mean, honestly, there was a London street right outside the front door. The conference was actually in London!!! Everyone knows what a London bus looks like!

 

Chair of the Society of Cartographers, Steve Chilton, who taught me

everything I know about guerilla t-shirt marketing

And herein lies the problem - the UK Mapping Festival ended up being a BCS conference in disguise. Same organisation behind the scenes. Same structure. Same exhibition. Same faces. Sure, there were a few variations around the edges but not much. It was stale, unimaginative and, frankly, rather dull. And let me be clear - this is not just me saying this. Many others voiced similar concerns during the day. It cannot continue like this because UK cartographic societies are dying, fast. The Society of Cartographers AGM resulted in a formal winding up process because the Society cannot continue on a shoestring. This is dreadfully sad. SOC has at least tried to move with the pace of change in modern cartography over the last few years where BCS has stood rather still. I sincerely hope some of the smart people involved in the running of SOC are given positions on the BCS Council as SOC members are encouraged to move their membership fees over.

The UK Mapping Festival web site was difficult to navigate. Ideas that I know were proposed to the programme committee (and even by those on the programme committee) were either ignored or never followed up. A series of potential high profile cartographic experts as keynotes was replaced by a minor celebrity whose talk was poorly targeted. Ken Hames (who?) was not a motivational speaker. Anything but. Anecdotes from army days and friendships with the late Princess of Wales really aren't what people want from a modern mapping conference. Oh - and it was an additional tenner to attend if you hadn't got a pass for that day. Even the choice of beer at the nearest hotel bar came down to Corona, Budweiser or Becks. And there wasn't even a single complementary beverage. The so-called comedy night was also poorly thought-through as well. Much of the material may have worked in a dimly lit comedy club with a tanked up crowd but only a couple of the acts even bothered weaving in some map-related material. I understand they were cheap to hire. That probably says it all. It's simply not good enough! There is far better out there. People expect far more.

Advertised as part of the UK Mapping Festival, the #geomob event on the evening of the 6th was, at least, a little more forward thinking. It was held at the geovation hub. It was free to attend and that garnered nearly as many people as had attended the BCS/SOC conference on the 4th. Event space is given for free. Sponsors help buy beer, nibbles and wine. The atmosphere is one of mutual interest and genuinely, people had a good time and, en masse, decamped to the bar where conversations continued. Organising events is not rocket science and the stuffiness of the days evaporated with the freshness of this particular evening. But why...WHY were only a handful (maybe 3 or 4) people who had attended any of the day's events also at the #geomob event? It's simple. Events that are put on in the UK, unlike the way FOSS4G was organised are targeted to a very very niche group. This is why they fail. There's no real attempt to foster integration. As I said earlier, this attitude has to change.

 

Some cheese at #geomob

I was also due to present at a Better Mapping seminar on the 4th but it was cancelled with a few days notice due to lack of interest. Only a few people had signed up and the event space (the Royal Geographic Society) needed 12 attendees to make it viable. Now I do not know the finances and the fees structure for the event but it strikes me as astonishing that we cannibalize our own group of core societies by charging for space in this way (if, indeed, that's the case, I only assume it is) and holding it on a day when another competing activity was taking place.  The organiser, Chris Wesson, had done a great job putting the event together but it was advertised late, it was a paid-for event (£75 sounds steep to me, though it was free to BCS members) AND put on against a day's event at the main conference site (all sadly out of his control). You can get so much training for free these days that these events have to look at alternative models if they are going to succeed. Cut out venue costs and speaker expenses (they should offer their services and costs for free to contribute...they get exposure for their ideas and companies for a start) and then look at ways to get people interested. This is valuable outreach for BCS and it's another failed opportunity to place some of the UK's prominent cartographic experts at the fore, sharing ideas and espousing the value of a wider community.

There were events for children to get involved with at the exhibition. I didn't see a single child involved with any of the mapping activities. I felt sorry for all the hard work that the organiser of that component (Alice Gadney) put in to make a fantastic event space but it was ultimately poorly used.


Even the BCS awards dinner descended into minor farce with none of the awards certificates being signed and one award (the Henry Johns award) not even judged by the time of the evening ceremony. This may seem a terribly minor issue and it is, in many ways. But it's not the first time it's happened and it's just symptomatic of the issues that bubbled to the surface once more.

And what of the attendees - yes, many of the usual faces but perhaps surprisingly, some very notable absentees who you'd ordinarily see at these events. Again, it's unclear why but I'd have thought the Chair of the UK Cartographic Committee, also on the Executive Committee of the International Cartographic Association, might have attended. UKCC represents UK cartography on the international stage. Some sort of report, review, or statement would be useful. In that person's absence, surely some sort of acknowledgement of how the UK is shaping up for the International Cartographic Conference in Tokyo in 2019 might have been forthcoming? Nope.

Anyway, to many of the people I spoke to at the event, it was simply a letdown and the promise of something fresh and different simply did not materialise. Back to the drawing board for next year but I feel there's more than simply a change of city and venue and tinkering with the model that needs to change.

GeoCart 2018, Wellington, New Zealand 5-7 September
I didn't go, but I know someone who did. I had to make a choice earlier in the year whether to go to the UK Mapping Festival or GeoCart. I've been to the last four events (they're every other year rather than annual events). They attract a similarly sized crowd to UK events (around 100 people). I plumped for the UK but regret my decision. By all accounts GeoCart was vibrant and fascinating.

With a similar amount of people (from a population of around 4 million - half that of London!!!) they manage to encourage not only attendance but participation. Instead of a single track with 12 presentations there were well advertised pre-con workshops and two tracks offering over 100 presentations. There's ice breakers with free wine. There's a relaxed gala dinner where you don't have to decide your menu choice months in advance. All in all - a similar conference yet the difference with the UK Mapping Festival could not be more profound. And my simple question is this...if a society like the New Zealand Cartographic Society can develop something really rather magnificent, why do we continually fail to do so in the UK?

Wither UK cartographic events?
As people who know me appreciate, I make these sort of observations and comments out of a love for the societies that I have grown up belonging to. I hate to see them, and the events they stage, wasting away. While some (like the New Zealand conference and, also, the hugely enjoyable NACIS conference in North America) seem to have moved with the times, adapted, and worked hard to develop a model that works, the UK efforts are sorely flagging. They are tired, generally expensive to attend, and disappointing.

There are so many geo events that people are making hard decisions on what to attend and, currently, events staged by the British Cartographic Society, their preferred organsing company and the like are suffering. they're actually making decisions much easier to make! Heck, I even sent an email and get a private visit to Bellerby Globemakers arranged with no effort at all. It can't be that difficult to arrange events that actually interest people, take advantage of a locality and make them WANT to visit. Everyone knows what a London bus looks like so having one parked in an exhibition hall isn't going to be much of a draw. But what an opportunity missed - London. There are so many fascinating map-related places and people in and around the capital and none were harnessed.

 

A visit to Bellerby Globemakers - not a UK Mapping Festival event

And I have left the biggest issue of them all until last. The UK Mapping Festival was scheduled for 2-7th September. It still says that on the web site. Some (me, and a few others at least) booked flights and London-based accommodation on that basis. It turns out that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, on the 2nd, 3rd, or 7th at all. I was told that the intent had been for other events to take place but they didn't emerge. Why? And when it became clear that the 6 days was fast shrinking to 3, and just a single day if the other two conference days weren't of particular interest to you, the organisers should probably should have been a little more honest with your potential delegates. I made the best of my time by arranging meetings, visits to places like Bellerby, the Imperial War Museum and the Design Museum to explore their cartographic collections but I wanted to enjoy a week's festival, as advertised...not have to build my own festival.

 

Two UK Mapping Festival delegates (me and Bill Cartwright) who, between them

traveled  nearly 45,000 miles and stayed 16 hotel nights in London.

So what now? Will the BCS conference revert to type? Will anyone actually review what happened and put in place mechanisms for change? Does anyone have the will? I fear there's a long way to go. There's a number of good, young people who have tried to get involved to affect change. My understanding is it's a challenging environment in a volunteer society that has many longstanding officers. But I wonder what their experience is beyond that of their own conference? I don't see them anywhere else so it makes you wonder. They cannot simply live in a bubble forever. Others have to pop it and force change to reinvigorate UK events. I hope for better, I really do. But let's be honest, this is not simply an accusation I'm leveling at the UK and its various geo societies. Many societies and many conferences are stale. They have relied on the same approach for far too long, often underpinned by the same team of people who just rinse and repeat. People aren't stupid and they are getting wiser when deciding where to spend their shrinking conference budgets.

I tried my best to help this year by bringing my Lego globe (no-one really commented about it), by making sure we had book giveaways, and by proposing my edible map exhibit...an idea that became too difficult to arrange anywhere in space and time on the 5th that I switched it to the #geomob event where it was devoured. Conferences these days have t-shirts, stickers and badges. I made some of my own as giveaways. Tote bags full of corporate brochures is so 1980 and they only go to landfill.

If a small organising committee of volunteers can make a large international conference work in Dar es Salaam, and a similarly sized conference can work with a much smaller population in New Zealand to put on a stimulating event, why can't we get it right in the UK? Hopefully 2019 will see some progress. I live in hope at least.

Old is new again (and again)

Cartography has always reinvented itself. This is partly as new technology matures and we're able to do things faster, better and more easily than before. We tend to experiment on tried and tested techniques to replicate them as a means of testing. Technology catches up and a map is released on the world who mostly won't have seen it before... but which can have the unintended consequence of appearing to reinvent or, worse, plagiarising to those that have. Is this a problem?

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the 2014 FOSS4G conference in Portland this year. I thoroughly enjoyed being part of the 2013 event in Nottingham, UK where I helped organise and curate the Map Gallery. I was therefore very interested in seeing how the maps have developed for the 2014 event though I had to sadly decline an invitation to help out with the judging! The entries and results can be seen here.

There were the usual mix of mashups and people simply entering re-styled Openstreetmap data. The former seems to be continuing to mature as we're moving beyond push-pinology. The latter, for me at least, is getting rather tedious. It's great that there are many tools out there that allow people to re-style basic topographic map data but that only sustains cartography for a limited time. It's painting by numbers, literally...and cartography is far more than that. It's what you do with your map and how you integrate the base mapping meaningfuly with your own or other data where something interesting happens. That leads to a third class of map...the ones that don't pour themselves into a template or use too much third party data or tools. It's in this space that we're seeing quite a bit of invention (and reinvention) as people make use of new browser capabilities or their ability to customise through code.

I was therefore delighted to see my good friend and colleague Bernie Jenny collect a couple of awards for the Plan Oblique Relief Shading work he's been doing with Jonas Buddeberg and Johannes Liem. Bernie's been doing fantastic things in cartography for a number of years. His relief shading web site and his many software tools show off some of the products of his research into the cartographic representation of terrain. I particularly like his Terrain Bender tools and his Adaptive Composite Map Projections work.

The Plan Oblique Relief web app is terrific. He and his colleagues have built a new, interactive app that allows you to play with the variables to see how the technique gets modified for European relief. Inclination, hypsometrical tints, hill-shading zenith and azimuth as well as map rotation are all supported. I'm going to assume the awards were for this innovation though there's a part of me who wonders how many of the FOSS4G attendees had seen plan oblique before? We'll never know that...but Bernie's new work, with new technology brings to life a technique that can be traced back to Xaver Imfeld's work in 1887.

Here's Bernie's map (click it to go to the app itself):

And here's Imfeld's work:

The technique has also been used extensively by Roger Smith in his fantastic maps of New Zealand:

Both Bernie and Roger have been totally open about the lineage of their work. They don't claim the technique but they've taken it and developed something new and interesting because new technology allows them to do so. This is great for cartography but...

I would like to see more people do their due diligence and both reflect on the lineage of their own work and be clear about their inspirations. I see far too many map-makers try and pass off their work as 'new' when in fact you don't have to dig too far to see that someone else has gone before. Imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery and I have no issue whatsoever with people building on the work of others...but that's the point. Your work should build upon something and be clear about its heritage.

Old is always new again in cartography. Perhaps we just need to be a little more honest in appreciating that fact rather than trying to leapfrog the past and hoping our map-readers know no better. I've been caught out by this before and I claim to know a little about maps. It is incumbent on us all to not try and dupe our map readers because they will have less reason to question authenticity and lineage. Bernie and his like are excellent role models for how we should portray and communicate our work.

As a postscript I've been trying to engineer a plan oblique technique in my day job with ArcGIS. No luck yet but I'll crack on.

Cartographic tribalism

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 50^th 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