LGA National Map of Shared Services cartojunk

This one from @StevenFeldman who is seemingly learning that pushpin maps are not actually that good.  It's taken me a while to persuade him that applying some design KnowHow (to add to his KnowWhere) is a really important part of the data dissemination and communication process and this example from the Local Government Authority web site is a perfect example.

I'm not going to go on and on but here's the thing...when you click on this map some really useful information appears but:

poor symbols that don't differentiate

poor reference backdrop that just adds visual clutter

overlapping symbols at small scales that just creates visual noise

The map needs far more nuanced design to enable it to operate as a multiscale information product.  Some form of aggregation at small scale that then proper symbol design to differentiate meaning between different classes. Maps like this are lazy.  Yes, good maps take time to create but this sort of map does a disservice to the information behind it. Who will stay to interrogate this map? Answer...very few...they're off to another web site.

The Economist ponders map types

The Economist recently asked for reader opinions on the types of map used to portray the data it uses. It focused on the choice between cartograms, choropleths and proportional symbol maps.  I added comments which are reprinted below but you should read the original article here first.


Poor mapping gives the wrong message. Most are unaware of map theory so mistakes go unnoticed; misinformation is propagated. That said, asking readers their opinion is like a doctor asking a patient what medicine they prefer. The doctor has the conferred expertise to make a sound judgment.  The same is true here so my comments are based on my professional experience to add to the mix.

Population equalized area cartograms are impactful but difficult to decipher because of massive distortions.  We’re atuned to see our world in a particular way (normally through the hideously distorted Mercator lens) so when familiar shapes are further modified we struggle.  Numerous alternatives use circles, squares, hexagons and non-contiguous areas which gives choice.  I like cartograms but am used to them, know how to construct them and don’t have difficulty in deciphering the content.  They work best for global datasets where continents can be seen.  For headline grabbing infographics then a cartogram is hard to beat but one way of giving readers visual comfort is to add a second, smaller map using a more conventional method for comparison.

Cartograms rescale geography to account for differences in size of areas used to report data values.  If a conventional map type is used that maintains geography, this difference often isn’t accounted for and the map is worthless. The classic example is the choropleth that maps totals. Consider the number of medals that Team GB won at London 2012.  Greater London has a population of 8278251 with 10 medal winners (0.12 medals per 100,000 people). Cardiff has 346100 people and 4 medal winners (1.16 medals per 100,000 people).  A map of totals shows Greater London as visually dominant and Cardiff much less so when the reverse is true. Normalized results allow proper per capita comparisons across the map that account for underlying populations.  The classification scheme used is also vital as it can dramatically alter appearance. There are many choices (natural breaks, equal interval, quantile, standard deviation etc.) and each dataset requires exploration to avoid imbuing false patterns.  Choropleths are bland but they do their job. Make good use of other design principles to combine functionality with a useful aesthetic.  Your colours are poor. Green for non-export markets confuses and neutral grey would be a better choice.  You use light peach, through orange/pink to a heavily saturated red last seen during the cold war on propagandist maps! It’s visual noise. Adding Catalonia in burgundy makes it seem part of the choropleth spectrum yet isn’t. Good colours go a long way to making the map work. Legends are important to see the classification scheme but the map should be able to tell the headline story without one. All choropleths suffer from dominant large areas so where possible use an equal area projection; and inset maps for those parts of the map that contain small geographic areas.

Your proportional symbols are too similar, leading to the impression that exports are similar.  Greater variation in symbol size would help.  Transparency deals with overlaps but won’t always work where large data values occur in smallest areas. Colours could be improved and a neutral background would help with contrast. Humans aren’t good at estimating differences between areas.  How many people can accurately tell if one circle is double the size of another? There are ways to adjust for our underestimation but which introduces further complexity.

You might consider dot density, dasymetric  or, for this subject a flow map would suit.  Flow lines from Catalonia to neighbouring countries could be scaled by width to indicate proportions.  My rudimentary reworking of Minard’s flow map of British Coal Exports shows how flow can be represented. If you’re presenting maps online then consider hover and click events to reveal data values or additional information. This pairs back the map to essential graphics while allowing people to delve into the content interactively.

So the answer isn’t straightforward.  Consider each dataset independently of preconceived ideas about map type.  Think about the story you want to tell to inform your choice.  Once chosen, the next trick is to design it to work effectively and marry form and function meaningfully.  This isn’t easy and is the main reason why so many poor maps are made. Sometimes a table or a graph is much more useful.  Sometimes you might combine graphs with the map or combine map types. The map should be informed by a decisions that bring together useful graphic components in a well-thought out composition. There’s no substitute for looking at how others tackle thematic cartography. Learn what works, understand what doesn’t and your maps will evolve into purposeful products regardless of map type.

Choropleth copyrighted

Proving that it's not only Apple and Samsung that have the monopoly on patenting (and counter-patenting), Microsoft just bagged a beauty they are calling the variable formatting of cells.  This covers the "variable formatting for cells in computer spreadsheets, tables, and other documents, such as using the spectrum from a first color to a second color to represent the values in or associated with each cell". Now you can call it what you want but to me and many others this sounds remarkably like a technique that map-makers have been using for decades. We call it a choropleth (not to be confused with a chloropleth). Baron Pierre Charles Dupin is widely recognised as creating the first of its type and the term itself was introduced by geographer John Wright in 1938. Slashdot has some fun comments on the topic.

Let's not forget it wasn't long ago that Apple themselves filed for a patent for "schematic maps". Soon all map types will be taken and there will be nothing left for us mere mortals to draw.

Before anyone bothers, please note I have filed for the concepts and practical creation of "crap maps", "shit maps", "sub-par maps" and "chloropleths" (preferably those made with totals and using random colours). That means you're not allowed to make one unless you ask me or pay me...that seems the best way to improve mapping don't you think? :-)

Cartomyopia II: Second sight

My blog post last week entitled Cartomyopia got quite an interesting reaction from a wide range of people.  Generally, I received very positive feedback with a good number of people relating well to the general argument I was trying to articulate.  I did manage to irk Tom MacWright (@tmcw) of MapBox though. We had a brief Twitter exchange and Tom then wrote up some of his own thoughts over at github.

Blogs are consumed by all sorts of different people for whatever reasons they might be vaguely interested.  I do not know Tom either personally or professionally.  I know a little of his work and those of his colleagues and they are making a really valuable contribution to the world of mapping.  Likewise, Tom doesn't know me (made clear in his comments).  Here's where it gets potentially sticky...Tom clearly disagreed with a number of points I made but based on false presumptions in many instances. That's fine...it's his prerogative....though the point of this sequel is to just throw a little light on my background and try and offer some additional context based on the points he rasied.

Academic vs hacking

If I understand, I'm badged as an academic. Tom has a hacking mindset.  The former is perceived to think of cartography via books and papers and then apply theory to make a map. The latter has a go, iterates and makes a map that way.  It's too simplistic a view.  I first hacked a map together using GIMMS in the late 1980s. I've coded my fair share of maps using a range of different languages (GIMMS, AML, Avenue, ArcObjects, Processing). I have run a successful cartographic consultancy as well as worked for a number of non-profit organisations. I've also used just about every commercial and open source GIS, cartographic and illustrative software that's been around since the early 90s.  So yes, I understand the academic mindset...but the assumption I don't understand or appreciate the hacking mindset is a little wide of the mark. I agree, it is not how I have spent the majority of my career to date but there seems to be some sort of impression about what an academic is and does...it's so often wide of the mark.

To my mind the world is big enough to accommodate all sorts of map-makers.  I am not prejudiced about the approach people take and certainly not based on their technology of choice. Cartomyopia can afflict anyone of whatever technical persuasion/cultural mindset, job, career or educational background.  Many map-makers now come from a computer science background.  Great! Actually, we need to ensure that cartography thrives as new technologies emerge.  I actually find that by working together the best of both approaches serves to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.  One of my former University colleagues (James O'Brien) and I put together a project in 2007 that took a couple of years to iterate.  I brought the cartographic know-how, James brought Javascript skills.  We worked well and the project wouldn't have come to fruition without the combination of our skill-sets. I've worked successfully with many others in this way to create collaborative products.

Anyone can make a map

Yes...they can; but this doesn't make me angry.  I see it as a challenge and an opportunity which was the whole thrust of the blog.  My comment "I don't know what it is about maps but for some reason everyone thinks they can make one." in the original blog is not meant to be taken out of context.  I was referring to the idea that many (most?) people think their maps work when actually, they might not. Yes, they can make one but do they have the understanding to know if it actually works or is fit for purpose? I own a nice set of cooking pans. I can throw together a meal but I'm not a chef. If I want to make something a little more nuanced then I'll consult someone who knows the recipe, a book, a web site, my mum(!) to inform my cooking.  In my experience cartography is often eschewed by amateur map-makers probably because they don't even know it exists.  When they find out (or are shown)...they generally find it useful and the light gets switched on.  Their map-making becomes all the more informed because of it.  This doesn't have to be academically driven...many of the great cartographic works were made by non-cartographers which is both hugely ironic but also serves as a reminder that cartographers don't own map-making.  All they can claim is they have had a form of training that gives them insight and a knowledge base on which to call upon to inform their work. Most of my favorite maps are by non-cartographers. So are the majority of maps made these days.  I just advocate that those with a little cartographic knowledge might be able to both offer help and also do so without being condescending to improve maps in general terms.

Software cost and accessibility
I've seen this debate on both sides.  In University we had an embarrassment of riches and access to all sorts of software and data at reduced cost. Students often found themselves at a loss on graduation when they realised they no longer had access to the 'expensive' software and 'free' data.  But there are alternatives and a ridiculous amount of choice.  Cost is no longer a barrier to making a good map.  We're not so much seeing a democratisation of mapping but a democratisation of both the tools and data to allow people to make the maps...these drivers have supported one another.  Commercial software has a place. So does free.  People will (mostly) make their own choices as to what they need, want, can afford etc to support their own endeavors.  Technology comes in all shapes and sizes.  I've used most of it to a greater or lesser extent over the last 20 odd years. I have my preferences...and even those preferences come with irritating limitations but hey, we each choose our sword of choice and make the best of it.  My choice might not be to everyone's taste but there are plenty of alternatives to suit every taste and pocket.

Form and function are unconnected
No, they are intrinsically connected but my impression over the last couple of years has been that form is overtaking function. Too few are imbuing their maps with good data preparation and analysis and choosing a suitable mapping technique to communicate effectively.  I'm not being a grouche...merely observing a trend.  Do we want a world of picto-bite mapping or a world of well constructed maps? I don't have a problem with popular or short-lived maps (I did a load for the Olympics...all worthless now but they went well for a couple of weeks) but I would like to see the search for the next cool 'looking' map at least matched by the next cool 'constructed' map. NYT are doing a great job of getting the balance right...and that's all I'm advocating...finding a balance between form and function so that one supports the other.  If you check out some of my previous work and look at the back-story to some maps I've made they are deliberately playful in how they balance form with function...particularly one whose function was to win a competition and whose form was designed with that (and the viewers in that arena) in mind. Sod the map...it was a blatant attempt to fool the viewing public and get votes (it worked). Form and function ARE connected.  Evidence suggests that some map-makers need to work harder to get the balance right because too many maps overplay form. Carl Steinitz offered a memorable quote at a seminar I attended a couple of years ago: "too many data visualisations these days go round and round and up and down without saying very much and, worse, they're often accompanied by music". He states very eloquently where I stand on this. Form is great (and I like aesthetics and beauty in cartography as much as anyone)...but when it's matched by a well conceived and connected function that's when a map really works.

No lasting purpose
Maybe Tom and I do disagree fundamentally here.  So many maps these days are made without longevity in mind.  Maybe that's a function of the fact they can be more easily made using a computer than a scribing pen (yes, I did used to make maps that way).  I don't see this as bad per se, but I think it lulls people into a false sense of the map's value.  The investment of time it used to take to make a map was far longer in most cases so my feeling is that people spent longer thinking about detail and finessing the map.  Even MapBox's tagline includes the phrase 'publish in minutes' (and so do most other suppliers of map-making software or solutions I agree). Speed is vital but so is taking the time to think and work out the map.  Even in my own degree course I recall spending an 11 week programming class building a single choropleth map. There were something like 800 lines of code that defined every single mark on the map. I had to think about every single mark, line, piece of text and so on. Now, I could make that same map in minutes (and probably make it go round and round and up and down accompanied by music) but would I be able to make a good map if I hadn't had a background that forced me to think carefully about each mark on the map? I'm not so sure. The map-making process is now compressed and made easy by many different map-making products and tools and yes, to some extent maps are being churned out at such a rate I feel that the overall quality is being diluted.  Tom makes a great analogy to music and here's another...I see a lot of maps made by the latest kid who just won a reality tv show and think they're suddenly the next John Lennon.  3 minute wonders, over-hyped and without any sort of lasting career. The Beatles? Elvis? etc etc...lasting careers built on hard graft. There are always some terrific one-hit wonders (musically and in map-form) but do we want the map version of Billboard to be full of one-hit derivative numbers by talent contest winners? Again...balance is the key else culturally our mapping will become as sterile as reality tv and all those look-a-like contestants.

Complaining vs doing
The blog was a call to 'doing' and a call to taking a constructive rather than destructive approach to offering opinion and advice.  I've been 'doing' pretty much most of my career.  My personal blog is not the place I 'do'. For that you want to see my other work, my editorial stuff, my maps, my ICA Commission stuff, my seminars, my papers, my professional blogs my...everything else that I contribute to the community that provokes thought and comment and shares advice, expertise and such like. Interesting that Tom raised Colorbrewer as something that Axis maps have done for humanity.  The irony here is that it was an academic project initially (Cindy Brewer and Mark Harrower). And in a beautiful twist, it was first published in the Journal I edit...The Cartographic Journal in 2003 for which it won a prestigious award as the best paper in that year. Sure, Mark re-programmed it and Axis now develop and host it (via his initial involvement) but it was an academic project that provided a great practical tool for map-makers.  Here then...academia underpinning practical cartography and sharing precisely the sort of work that helps people make better maps.  Commenting on someone's mindset and skillset on the back of reading a blog or two without reading their cv is not a good basis on which to characterise their wider contribution.

Free help
And here's the crunch...Tom seemed to work up to the punchline that he feels there is no help and that cartographers are not willing to avail themselves of time or assistance.  I said in the original blog that many that I knew are only too pleased to be asked advice and to offer help.  It's often not asked for or wanted which is where the disconnect might stem from but...I've been offering free help for years. I'd be more than happy to look over people's work and offer what advice I might have. I've done that personally and in various capacities, professionally.  I Chair an ICA Commission on Map Design and our un-paid remit is to support better mapping in the wider community. The same goes for all of the other ICA Commissions and I am quite sure if you have a question, anyone on the committees of these Commissions would be delighted to help. I am a member of a range of professional societies, most of which offer free (or nearly free!) advice.  The British Cartographic Society has a range of seminars and school workshops for instance as well as a small book which retails at less than $10. NACIS has it's own very successful online forum in CartoTalk and its journal Cartographic Perspectives is open access (read: free!). The Society of Cartographers also hosts a free discussion list (CARTO-SoC) for both members and non-members. I wrote a brief blog entry not so long ago with a few ideas for assessing the quality of your own map (or at least avoiding major goofs) and in my day job I put together a sort of QC/QA checklist to evaluate your maps. These are just a few of the independent ones...there are vendor specific places to seek advice. My employer has a range of web-based help for those that choose to make their maps that way.  There are plenty of repositories of examples and comment from other vendors as well...many of which are free to access.  Ultimately, help is often available if only people ask.  I'm quite sure those that base their livelihood on their advice will charge but there are many many others who won't charge. Want some advice? Here's my number...(kf.mapman@gmail.com). Call me maybe?

And finally...
This so-called division between old-skool cartographers and the new breed of map-makers has simply got to stop. This isn't the first time I've said so. Each has a really important role in the future of map-making and each needs to appreciate the approach and the value that the other brings. Building bridges and bringing people together is needed. Collaboration is the key. I don't care whether someone uses the latest open source package or some hideously expensive piece of proprietary software or whether they're creating a web map or a paper map, it's the final map product that interests me.  It should be well formed, functional and designed to communicate. Technology moves rapidly and changes all the time...and maps can be built with a clear focus at the outset or as an organic process of experimental iteration.  I'm one of those who is not afraid of technological change.  I've had to deal with it throughout my career as one mapping platform has overtaken another.  I've lost count of the number of different ways I've employed to make a simple map and the number of different platforms I've used to teach cartography...some easier than others, each with their infuriating compromises. Change is good. New map-makers are good. Holding on to out-moded views and not rolling with the punches is no good for anyone...but it doesn't mean we should disregard that vast body of cartographic work that can be used to make better maps. Academic cartography or hacking? Two worthwhile components in the wider world of cartography (there are, of course others as well!).