Only Maps and Horses

I increasingly hear quite a lot of the latest buzz about this map and that map but where is this noise coming from?

We're seeing the maps we're seeing because of one thing...ubiquity and ease of construction has created an appetite for them. Where there is a demand, someone is always going to meet the demand. The demand at the moment however is for quantity, not quality and there are plenty of middle men anxious to provide a mechanism to push their wares. These are the Del 'Boy' Trotter of the cartographic world. Buy cheap, Buy quantity, Sell at a markup and without a care for the consumer or the quality of the product you're shifting. Think yellow peril...

Take, for example, 'Amazing Maps'. Their Facebook and Twitter pages have tens of thousands of followers and so on...the site exists simply to push maps that are found on the internet to their followers. I'm one of them but for every one that piques my interest and which I find genuinely intriguing, well made and purposeful, there are dozens more that fail on a very basic cartographic level.  Often the maps display disturbing mistakes.  I see them. So do other experts. But most do not...they are busy being experts in their own field and simply see the map, consume it and move on.  Take today for example...here's a map of the Winter Olympics medal count they pushed:

Anyone who knows anything about mapping will immediately spot two glaring issues...the data are not normalised and the colour scheme is truly unhelpful in allowing readers to rapidly see the patterns. Here's a version I made...it's not particularly attention-grabbing but it's constructed with basic principles in mind so we are better able to see the patterns.

Not only are the patterns modified when you normalize so they can be properly compared against one another against a constant baseline measure but light to dark means less to more. I'm afraid spectral colours aren't read like that by humans - we see 'difference', not 'quantity' so although in the first example I can tell Australia has a different count to China and Norway...I don't know in which order. Purple 'looks' more than light blue (because it's darker) but if you look at the legend China has more medals. But once normalized, actually they have no more per capita than Australia meaning that they are pretty much equally successful. Sure, China gets more medals overall but then have a massive population by comparison so you'd expect more medals. We normalize to allow us to visually compare like for like. And are the USA really as good as the top map suggests being in the next to top class? No...given their population, actually their winter medal haul is relatively poor and on a par with the UK per capita.

So, back to the point...is the daily consumption of bad maps bad for you? I would say yes because you're getting the wrong message. It's a waste of map calories.  I'm all for quick and dirty maps made well...but not ones that are constructed shambolically and peddled to us by people who know no difference.

I mentioned this myself on Twitter a while ago and someone said to me that while they agree, they like fine restaurants but also dive into Subway on occasion.  I've used the food analogy before but I think it needs to be more subtle here. Sure...go to a Heston Blumenthal restaurant and enjoy fine dining. Go to Subway and enjoy a sandwich too.  Both different 'qualities' of food in all likelihood. However...would you want to go into Subway and order a meatball sub that comes with the meatball on the outside, trying desperately to envelop some bread? At least Subway construct their sandwiches according to the basic rules.  Bread on the outside, filling in the middle so it works on a basic level as a sandwich even though it might taste like crap (taste, of course, is a different argument altogether).

That, for me, is the problem with a lot of maps...they suffer from basic constructional issues that really affects their performance as maps. Yet the appetite is there because the 124,000 Twitter followers that @Amazingmaps has dwarfs the combined Twitter following of at least 50 of my map expert friends combined by some margin. Tabloid newspapers have higher circulations than quality broadsheets. The reporting is dubious. Same with maps...it's just that maps have in the last 10 years suddenly entered this realm of ubiquity so now we have professional cartographers along with good map-makers and not-so-good map makers and who cares who makes the map, how it's made or if it's any good because it all sells.

No-one seems particularly bothered who made the map and what their cartographic qualifications are when they peddle maps they find on the internet yet I would strongly argue that being authoritative in your domain is crucial in distinguishing quality work from the masses. It's therefore not the fault of the makers of map-making tools or the map-makers themselves that we see so many poor maps. Just like any service based on mass consumption, if the demand is there, there will be someone keen to feed it regardless of the quality. The demand is for maps, good, bad, big, small, whatever. There are plenty of people and organisations that have set themselves up in the last few years to satiate the demand purely to serve their own agenda of being purveyors of content. How many of these have any real cartographic credibility? Take a look...you won't find many publicly visible examples that have a strong cartographic background. Such sites are not curated by people who know anything about maps. That much is obvious.

Over at the International Cartographic Association blog we're trying to arrest this by providing a quality broadsheet version of Amazing Maps, set up as an antidote to tabloid cartography. I'd love you to go take a look and share the links if you care. We're running a daily series called 'MapCarte' where we're showcasing a curated map that evidences high quality classic and contemporary cartography. Beautiful maps, made well and described to explain something of why the map is regarded highly.

Maybe the Twitter handle @AmazinglyBadMaps was taken? In truth what they're peddling is potentially interesting data mapped poorly. It's like Del Boy's paint...perfectly decent paint but painting a Chinese restaurant in British Rail luminous yellow just doesn't work. If you prefer eating at a decent restaurant rather than Del Boy's painted Golden Lotus then head over to MapCarte and gorge yourself.

Modifying a taxonomy of map types

Maps can be described in many ways as I explored briefly in a previous blog. Historically, they can be categorized into three general types based on their function, scale or type. In terms of function, a map might be termed reference if their function is to provide information about the character of a place, its general topography and the way in which the landscape is modified through human use. The detail was carefully managed to ensure a consistent design at a particular scale which resulted in often difficult choices for what to include or omit. Similarly, the term thematic often describes the function of a map in communicating something about a specific, often narrow theme. Alternatively, scale itself may be used as a taxonomy since small scale maps tend to share similar characteristics (highly generalized, country level) as do large scale maps that show detail of localities. The third main way of classifying maps considers their unique type such as choropleth, topographic map, aeronautical chart or cadastral plan.

Of course, there is overlap and there are outliers to this approach such as mental maps that exist in our minds to support knowledge of a place, navigation or wayfinding and so on. But the traditional three-way classification is now challenged as technology changes the way maps are designed and produced. Maps are now more fluid in their purpose and more flexible in the way we consume them so the overlaps have become more profound.

If we consider how the web has changed the way we consume maps we can see how the map itself has adapted and no longer fits into the traditional classification. Maps are now available as a mass consumption service through our web browsers and mobile devices. We no longer need to go to authoritative national mapping agencies for our mapping needs; instead we use maps supplied by search engine providers, news agencies and a plethora of organisations. Maps are made by everyone and consumed in many more ways.

A reference map may now be comprised of multiple layers that, viewed in a web browser can be selected or deselected. The map may rely on a basemap built and designed by someone else and consumed as part of a suite of layers of information. As such, that clear cartographic approach to ensuring different types of information sit neatly together is not necessarily the primary objective. If users of the map can switch between layers to highlight the reference layer of particular interest then, functionally, the map retains its core purpose yet it achieves it in a different way. The user experience of map consumption has changed and that requires a change in mindset concerning how we think of the map as a type.

We now also use reference maps as base layers for other information. More commonly called the ‘mashup’, the use of third party basemaps atop of which we add thematic content is becoming a common approach in contemporary mapping. the purist may suggest the basemap might be unsuitable but with more options available (such as neutral, decluttered basemaps) and the ability to modify the content and colour of map services to support your intended design, increasingly the ability is there to mashup thematic content on suitably modified basemaps. Here then, is a hybrid approach to making a map as we eschew basic outlines commonly used for thematic mapping in favour of a basemap that incorporates some geographical context (which itself may be modified to select/deselect certain features or modify the symbology to be sympathetic to a particular thematic overlay. This, of course, benefits thematic mapping by providing a language-based way of helping us describe and interpret the patterns that our thematics show us since we can more easily relate them to places we are familiar with.

Scale is no longer a universally suitable way to classify a map’s character. If we consider mapping series produced by national mapping agencies and the like then of course, each scale will undoubtedly have a common design across the various sheets. More often than not, similar approaches are often taken in designing different scale map series by the same organization, but not always. Now, though, the development of the multiscale map has reduced the scope of our ability to characterize a map based on scale. Maps now exist across a range of scales. This may simply be a version of the same information made visible through the process of pan and zoom but when designed effectively, the detail itself is modified to take advantage of different scales. More detail and finer resolutions at larger zoom scales and less so at smaller zoom scales. In a simple way, this may refer to changes in the ground size represented by pixels in satellite imagery, or it may refer to progressive generalization of vectors as scale changes. Of course, this brings with it a challenge since multiscale web maps now no longer have the constraint of scale as a guide for the mapping process. The map-maker now has to consider, say, sixteen separate scale each of which must have a map designed to take advantage of that scale. Additionally, the design at each scale must flow between scales. this is no easy task since we’ve gone from making one map at one scale to making multiple maps at multiple scales each of which has to work individually and also in series...and intuitively in terms of user navigation.

Individual map types now no longer characterize maps as well as they once did. Where once we saw a single choropleth map and the map type was obvious, we now see layers of different map types presented in interesting and interactive ways with the potential addition of multimedia and other information graphics. I like to call these info-maps, though in truth maps have always been a conduit for imparting information but most seem to have forgotten that and prefer, instead, to make up ever more intriguing terms to replace the otherwise perfect description - map.

Perhaps due to the increasing ease of production and the ability to pour data, pictures, video, text etc into a template, the map is now not the central focus of the work but merely a mechanism and a pipeline to the real crux of what map-making is all about - telling a story. Telling stories (actually, communicating information) is the focus. Again it always has been for cartographers. The story is the focus and the map is a component of the story, albeit one that deserves a central part and which is designed in sympathy to the message. Here then, thematic maps and discrete map types are being used inventively and interchangeably by people as they search for compelling ways to present their work. The clear distinction of a map based on type (because of its character) is no longer adequate as a way of differentiating.

In terms of map type, then, it’s possibly even more difficult to create a neat taxonomy by which we can describe and identify maps. The process of technological change, the mechanism for design and production and the explosion of people now making maps means the distinctions have become further blurred. Where once maps used to be made by standard photo-mechanical processes we then saw a move to desktop based design and production. This remains but has also been augmented by coded solutions, web-based approaches, maps as services and APIs. Map consumption has changed too, driving the demand for maps available on the web and mobile devices. This in turn drives development of mapping technologies and the further proliferation of map making. These have changed both the process and result of mapping endeavor yet they exist in parallel and in many ways are complimentary rather than being replacements of former technologies.

Based on these changes, I've attempted to modify the traditional broad categories. They cannot be considered mutually exclusive and it's up for debate whether they represent a new way of classifying maps or simply an updated description. Rather than differentiating on function, scale and type, I've attempted to tease out the salient characteristics of each category:

Reference maps: characterized predominantly by their function. These support general tasks of locating oneself, navigating, finding where things are and understanding the natural world and patterns of human use. These maps include those produced by national mapping agencies and the multitude of digital basemaps provided online. They might exist in paper form or digital form and can combine imagery with vector graphics and, additionally, commercially provided, paid for or personalised content. These will most often be produced by large organisations (though not necessarily mapping organisations) and require significant investment in time and development as well as comprehensive data.

e.g. Esri National Geographic basemap

Multiscale maps: characterized  predominantly by an online delivery. These maps may have varying functions yet in common they offer the user a way to explore a theme at different scales, each one working in harmony with the next zoom level. Such maps may be entirely reference-based or thematic but will commonly integrate the two and reveal more detail at larger scales. Such maps will likely use a reference map provided as a service and pay most attention to the overlayed detail. In many ways this category has replaced that which uses scale as a differentiating characteristic though, of course, scale remains a key factor in cartographic design.

e.g. Multiscale dasymetric map of the 2012 US Presidential Election 

View the map full screen here.

Thematic Info-maps: characterized predominantly by the integration of a range of media to present a rich, information product. The map will play a central role but will be augmented by graphs, graphics, pictures, animation, interaction etc. These maps may make fundamental use of new web technologies as a way of augmenting the map experience or may be the sort of high quality work associated with good journalistic cartography. They will often integrate a range of technologies using desktop, services and coded solutions to create bespoke products, often animated. Interaction is a key priority for such maps be it physically through a User Interface or through exploration of detailed information.

e.g. History of US motor vehicle deaths in the US

View the map full screen (with interaction and animation) here.

Ephemeral maps: characterized predominantly by simple, often linear, maps that offer an insight into a single topic with very clear boundaries, for instance the delivery of a set of images of a theme using map markers to show their location. Such maps will often be easily produced and delivered in pre-configured templates and be capable of being produced by many more people than the above categories due to the lower threshold of user knowledge/skill required. Here, the map-making process is as much a consumption service as users are encouraged to make use of pre-configured off-the-shelf mapping solutions. Such maps are inevitably short-lived.

e.g. Jeff Friesen's 50 States of Lego

View the map full screen here.

Map making and the map product have changed dramatically. Technologies now support a rich variety of possibilities, bringing the process of map-making to more people. The entry level to making a map now has a lower threshold. Quick, dirty and often transient maps are rapidly produced and quickly forgotten yet these add to the cartographic canon of work and possibilities and potentially create a new and developing class in our taxonomy. The traditional way of describing maps by function, scale or type has been fundamentally blurred as the milieu of mapping becomes increasingly varied affording more opportunities, more capabilities and more flexibility in almost every aspect of the design and production process. Are these new categories I propose different...or possibly just an updated description to take account of the changing map-making landscape?

Disclaimer: with the exception of the National Geographic basemap the maps illustrated herein are mine. I don't propose them as exemplar products, merely an illustration of type. Clearly the fact this blog is delivered digitally means the delivery mechanism is fixed. This illustrates the overlap between categories, whether old or as I've modified.

Old atlas, new projection

Charles O. Paullin and John K. Wright's Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States, first published in 1932, is an award winning work of art. A magnificent historical atlas published ahead of its time and including innovative thematic representations. Each one of the nearly 700 maps makes it a truly fantastic cartographic work deserving of a new audience.

The Digital Scholarship lab of University of Richmond have gone to great lengths (and no doubt great expense) to bring this atlas into the 21st century by creating a digital version. It's described as an enhanced edition, a composite work of the combined efforts of students and staff with support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Please do go take a look because if you've never seen the original the new version opens it up to new eyes and a significantly wider audience. That's a huge positive.

The digital version effectively takes the scanned content from the atlas and places it atop a digital map so the atlas is reincarnated in an online form. Text panels are included, legends are thoughtfully added as insets on the page and there are some really sensible, intuitive and simple controls to help navigate the work, include textual context panes and provide interactivity.

In addition to general enhancements, there are three main improvements over the original that the new online edition claims in terms of functionality. Firstly, the maps are now clickable. Great! Now we can access the data to go with the maps and mine the information for specific places. This is one of the main benefits of any online map of course. Second, many of the maps in the original formed a series which were represented using side-by-side small(ish) multiples but now they are animated (effectively flicking between the overlayed small multiples). Again, web mapping supports animation very well and it's been used to good effect here. Rollovers are also used well, for instance to hover over the isochrones on the rates of travel maps and reveal location specific details. 

Third...the new edition contains "Georectified maps...warped so they can be placed consistently on top of a digital map".

<rubs eyes in disbelief> Come again?

While placing the maps into a consistent projection to support some of the other objectives (like animation) is cited as a reason for the georectification I'm completely bemused.

Paullin and Wright chose their projection perfectly. Albers is an equal area projection. It is absolutely the right choice to represent thematic information because it maintains area across the map meaning that no one part has its visual importance in our perception exaggerated.  This is crucial if we're to accurately compare the values on the thematic maps and not have those impressions modified by a projection before they even hit our eyes. Yet here, they've taken the original plates and manipulated them into Web Mercator. In so doing, not only have they changed the originals in terms of their dimensions, they've warped the message the maps communicate because they've distorted area. The unnecessarily curved text is really just an inconvenience of the process...there are bigger implications though it does show clearly the impact of changing projections on a map. Northern latitudes suffer most from the warping so they now appear larger in relation to southern latitudes.

Take the following as comparison. There is more yellow on the georectified top map than the original shown beneath. Your first impression is slightly different depending on which map you look at. The way your brain assimilates the image is based entirely on the area that each colour fills. This impact is subtle on some maps, profound on others.

And what of the impact on those nice round proportional symbols?

Not round any more so our ability to assess relative size is impeded.

At least you can toggle between the georectified maps and the original plates but here's my very simple beef with this work...why not use an Albers digital basemap? Why go to all that effort of making the old maps fit a completely inappropriate projection when the original authors had already chosen the right projection? Why let the tail of the default web map projection dictate the needs of the new digital version? There was nothing about the digital version that demanded Web Mercator. Just reconfigure your map app to use Albers and you not only save a considerable amount of work processing all those maps to nicely fit Web Mercator, you actually preserve the use of the correct projection.

What a shame...a terrific project with so many good elements but one utterly incomprehensible cartographic howler. They're not the first to fall into this trap though. Plenty of other large, highly lauded projects have also taken the Web Mercator route rather than tackle the issue of projections properly.

Cartolove

Via my geopal Ed Parsons I read an article in today's New York Times entitled 'A makeover for maps'. It's effectively an interview with Eric Rodenback of Stamen Design that frames an argument for how he is trying to rethink how data is presented...graphs, maps, animation etc. Time was when we called a graph a graph, a map a map and the art and science of making them... cartography. Not any more.

Ed pointed out that, unsurprisingly, the term 'cartography' is not mentioned once in the article (though it subsequently is in the many comments). This isn't the first time we've seen this apparent glossing over of 'cartography' and I've mentioned this issue before in a previous blog.. Is this a problem? Do maps need a makeover? Does everything new have to be described as 'rethinking' as if in some way that elevates it to some new, more profound level of importance for which we should be eternally grateful for the insight?

Maps have changed. The people making them have also...and so have the tools of production. Data is now seen as different (but possibly it's just because there's so much more of it and it's more complex to sift it into something meaningful). All of the components of cartographic practice have evolved immensely. Consumption has also changed. We demand immediacy in our information so waiting for weeks to publish a map or to see a map is no longer acceptable to most. It has to be done rapidly and with maximum visual impact to resonate and satiate the appetite of our fleeting interest. So we end up with people creating new 'visualizations'...and there we have another term to throw into the mix to avoid using the term 'cartography'.

Cartography undoubtedly has an image problem otherwise there wouldn't be so many people re-thinking it. It has for years been seen as old-skool, stuffy, populated as a disipline with people who yearn for the long lost age of the scribing tool. Even the modern ones are seen as archaic if they dare to suggest their tool of choice is Adobe Illustrator...heck, even GIS is now considered as 'paleo' if that's how you make your maps. But as much as some of this is true, people 'new' to making maps are also fundamentally responsible for perpetuating the myth that what they are doing is something new. They don't want to be seen as belonging to something that pre-existed because that dilutes their relevance. They want to be modern, clean and avant-garde...just like the 'visualizations' they create. They claim there is a gulf between what went before and what they are doing and it demarcates something fresh and different. It suits them to be different because different is good and it sets them apart as new and important players in the landscape. They need to be seen to be doing something 'new' to fulfill that destiny.

Bullshit.

I challenge you to look at any modern map or data visualization or whatever you want to call it and not be able to see clear lineage to cartographic theory or practice.  The challenge of how to present data meaningfully has been what cartography has been concerned with for centuries. The number of times I see something that purports to be a 'new way of seeing this or that' when I can probably pick out an example from 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago is becoming laughable. There is prior art for most of what we see today. Just because some people are unwilling to acknowledge it or aren't aware of it doesn't mean it never happened. Yes, people are experimenting and pushing boundaries. Yes, they are doing exciting things in the cartographic space. This has always been the case in any generation of cartographic evolution. Occasionally some seriously great work emerges to add to the canon that is truly a progression of note...but by and large I can see the use of Bertin's visual variables, cognitive theory or a particular projection, or the development of some experimental time-space animations from 15 years ago or a range of almost all other cartographic stuff.  Computing and technology are making it easier to implement. Graphics engines are making it possible to do things that are more polished, faster and more visually arresting...but the lineage is still there. It's cartography by whatever other name you want to call it....except most call it anything but cartography.

Making maps is now considered part of what designers do...but also what data scientists, journalists and artists also do. The pool of map-makers has expanded and people are now finding out about cartography in their own ways but if the output is a map-like object you are doing cartography to some extent even if you hate to think of it that way. You might do it well, you might do it poorly (depending who you show your work to), you might do it having read up on a technique or you might have stumbled across a way of representing stuff that makes sense to you and which you never knew had been done before. Whatever the process, you're doing some cartography. Cartography, though, is probably the last term you would use to describe your work.  It continues to have an image problem. It's just not a sexy term and old stuff doesn't sell well unless you invent a new way of selling it.

Digging a little deeper, most cartographers would probably concur that a lot of what they see isn't very 'cartographic' because use of that label implies a professional touch...a professional cartographer's touch. That doesn't necessarily make the work amateurish. Far from it...but that view does tend to support the philosophy that there is cartography...and then there is the new way. That distinction is crucial because it feeds the divide. Cartographers have a skill set learnt and practiced. It's their professional area of expertise yet as a discrete profession it's been on the slide for years. Unfortunately, when the rest of the world decided to get busy mapping, cartography was still slumbering and failed to pick up the pace. It got overtaken so the high ground of modern map-making is no longer ruled by people from that profession. Consequently their voice is diminished and their ability to influence is weakened. That's not to say others cannot become proficient or, indeed, far better at making maps. Many great maps are made by non-cartographers. But as long as that distinction of 'us and them' and the notion of what skill-sets new and old map-makers can bring to the table remains, the divide will grow...the term cartography will become even less attractive and it will slowly die. More people will seek their advice on making maps from designers, coders, data scientists and anyone else who has stumbled across cartography...rather than getting a cartographer involved. That would be sad to see because so much of what is being re-thought already exists. You've just got to talk to the right people, read the right books/blogs and engage with the past as a way of informing your desire to shape (not reinvent) the future.

Cartography is a great term and it's entirely appropriate for most of what we see today. Rather than being seen as elitist or defining a small group of like-minded old-skoolers its use should be expanded to encompass modern thinking and practice. As the President of ICA, Georg Gartner, said at the International Cartographic Conference in 2013 "It's OK to be a cartographer". Well yes, it is...but only if you want to be frowned at, ignored, derided  and so on...until some of the newer crowd get over their hang ups about the term and accept what they are doing is not profoundly new (as in not a new paradigm) but is, in fact, simply a development of what went before supported by changes in technology. It also requires those with a longer cartographic history to get with it...change has happened and fast but you might need to modify your view of what you do to be seen as relevant until people come round to using the term cartography in a positive way again. This is more profound than just semantics. This is about us potentially consigning a great term to history simply because different tribal tendencies have seen it fade out of fashion. We need to encourage some carto love (as another of my geo pals Gary Gale said) and once again see cartography as something more than just worthy...it needs to become fashionable once again. It needs a good re-branding job. Then we genuinely can begin to think of a new golden age of cartography.