Another day. Another hyperbolic map

Hyperbolic - of or relating to hyperbola, an adjective describing something that is overstated or exaggerated. And so to today's hyperbolic map.

The work is called Isoscope and is by students at Postdam University under the guidance of Till Nagel. The write-up is in The Atlantic by John Metcalfe entitled 'A striking new way to visualize mobility'. Well...'new' and 'striking'...what a fine way to start a Monday morning. I checked out the article hoping to be cartographically amazed. Only, once again I found myself exhaling a deep sigh. Metcalfe describes Isoscope as a 'beauteous, immersive experience'. He also litters his piece with other glowingly positive terms. It's also Infographic of the day over at FastCo Design. Good grief. Is this hype just the reporting?...

I went to the project web site itself to be told Isoscope is an approach to capture the rhythm and pulse of the city; to find the boundaries of reachability, organically. It reveals traffic infrastructure, connectivity and natural boundaries. It's all about mobility and urban morphology apparently. but wait...mobility is way more than how far you can drive in a given time. It's more than cars...it's public transport, it's bicycles, it's the provision of safe bicycle lanes, it's pavements for walking on, it's a reduction in barriers (physical or socio-economic), it's about levels of fitness, disability etc...

Now let's be clear here...this is a student project. It's fine. It's teaching people how to use APIs and to make online maps. It's a fairly neat effort but...leave it at that. But no...not only does the project web-site over-inflate the work but then it gets regurgitated by a news media site hunting for any copy it can find to 'amaze' its readers for the few seconds they pass by.

Why we have to read about it being the next most amazing thing we've ever seen baffles me. It's not new to people like me. In fact, it's not new to anyone because this sort of work has existed for decades. Now if you are unfamiliar with it, that's a different matter but just because you weren't aware of this type of map does not, in absolute terms make it new. If it's the first time you've seen this sort of map do you not wonder if anything like it has been done before? How do you know what you're seeing isn't a rip-off, or poorly executed? Do you not approach such work with a hint of skepticism or at least a semi-critical mind? If not then you're lost my friend, you will read every new piece of hyperbolic cartography placed before you and neither care of its quality or efficacy. Like anyone, I love to be amazed and to see new and interesting work in my field of expertise. It's what pushes us forward and keeps things interesting. But too much of what gets passed around at the moment is neither new or amazing.

In terms of this map, you probably won't care that it's just an isochrone map...a 'service area' that can be calculated from a given point to all other points that fall within a search distance based on some criteria - in this case drive times as specified in a database. The term isochrone was coined by Francis Galton in 1873 "[I] propose to employ the word isochrone (equality of time) in a special sense..." (hat-tip to Joshua Stevens for reminding me of this). In fact, the use of isolines (lines of equal value) in map-making can be traced back to the 18th century. The Halley isogonic map (below, of magnetic declination) is possibly the first use of contoured curves of equal value. It was published in 1701.

That's over 200 years of prior art...and we've been making isoline maps and isochronic maps ever since. Don't believe me? Check out Google Images using the search term 'isochrone map'.

So back to the Isoscope application. It's simply a way to show isochrones for certain temporal distances around a point the user adds to the map. It calculates drive times based on a model of traffic condition at different times of the day in relation to the maximum speed limit of the road segments. So it's really a time-slice isochrone map capable of showing us different views at different times. You can also add a 'pedestrian' isochrone to show how far you can walk in a given time. Except it's not very accurate.

Here's a 10 minute drive time isochrone around where I used to live in London at peak morning rush hour.

It's wrong. It's hideously wrong. I added the red squares highlighting a few key junctions where you may be backed up for 20 minutes or longer. These critical junctions in the network would dramatically reshape the isochrones. I know because I needed to get to the University from my house - so much so that I switched to a bicycle and also walked. It took 12 minutes on a bike and about 25 minutes to walk. So let's zoom in and check out the 10 minute pedestrian isochrone.

I added the red dashed line - it's a distance of about 1200 feet (360m). That segment of the journey used to take me about 4 minutes. And what happened in the area I marked with a red square? There is no barrier, no impediment to walking to there in about 1 minute from my house. It's just an irrelevant blue blob that does not in any way represent where you can reach within a 10 min walk from my house. However nice you think the map is...it just lied.

So the map is, as with a lot of maps, only as good as the data you pour in. Maps made by people in one city, yet creating a map for the whole world because the data exists...except the data is really not very good at doing the one job it's supposed to be doing and no-one bothers to do any ground-truthing or checking. Why? Because we're more interested in creating a beauteous, immersive, new and striking map than being overly concerned about the content (that and it's not really feasible when you're trying to map the world). But wouldn't you check areas you know well? Does the data actually do what it says or not? perhaps some estimation of error might be stated so we can proceed in our own interpretation with caution?

In terms of design, the use of a dark basemap and bright, single colour polygon overlays, with a nice dose of transparency isn't particularly striking either. We've seen a lot of maps styled that way recently.  Don't get me wrong...I like the look (and have made maps with a similar aesthetic myself)...but it's not new or striking. As for the typography? It's a little clumsy.

So, I wonder about all the things I am unfamiliar with that may also be new, or not as the case may be. Open your eyes people...go beyond the rhetoric, the marketing, the tediously simple journalism and learn a little of what you're consuming. A very good student project yes, but not a new or striking map.

I wonder what hyperbolic map will drop across my desk tomorrow?

Fanscape map excitement

I was sent a link to the following map by Rob Story. I can't bring myself to thank him...it made my eyes bleed and I genuinely do not know where to begin in dissecting it. It goes straight to the top of 2014's worst map so far list...and that's something given we only recently saw the NBC Nightly News abomination. It's from Newsweek's Tumblr though tracing the true origin and figuring out who made it is probably a good thing.

What does it show? Who knows.
What do the colours mean? Impossible to tell, even on a well calibrated screen.
What exactly is being mapped? No idea. I don't even know what sport (probably a Brit ex-pat issue)
What data is being used? Nope...dunno. 61% of what? What 'fan votes'?
Why map two variables with virtually the same colour? Why? WHY?
Why use an unclassed choropleth? Sorry, I give in.
Why does 'more' seem to be shown in lighter colours in the two things but the inverse is true? Bad.
What is the actual point? Possibly to show how bad a bad map can be?
Is it a joke? I sincerely hope so.

It is that far from the normal cartofail scale it defines its own scale!

Congratulations whoever you are...my opthamologist will be in touch.

Update: Thanks to Martin Elmer for pointing out an inaccuracy in the original post. He also points out it could well be a screen grab of an interactive map. Possibly yes...though most of the problems still apply.

NYT Baseball Nation

I'm a Brit. I don't get baseball as a sport. I've been to two games but it's just not cricket. So I hope that makes me an impartial viewer of the New York Times map of Baseball Nation recently published. Unfortunately I know a thing or two about maps so although I inevitably bring some subjectivity to any assessment of a map I try and look at them objectively. So to the map.

I'm a huge fan of The New York Times graphics work. They sit at the pinnacle of quality journalistic map-making and information graphics. Their Baseball Nation map has at least gone one better than the somewhat tedious current trend of creating voronoi maps of various themes - including one of baseball territories recently produced by the Washington Post (below). It's like all of a sudden people have found out about Delaunay triangulation and Thiessen polygons. Whatever next? Hexagons again?

Anyway, I digress. Having said I'm a fan of NYT Graphics work, I'm just not so sure they haven't gone a little too far on this one...

Ignoring the clumsy use of Web Mercator, the obvious problems of Alaska being so remote and enlarged (as are the territories of the teams in the northern states), and the difficulty in seeing some of the overprinted text then let's look at the map which is a weird patchwork of 'territories' of support.

Data. It's made with data from Facebook, specifically Facebook fans by zipcode. The State with the highest penetration of Facebook use is Kansas at 61%. the lowest is new Mexico with 35%. 71% of online adults, more women than men and those younger rather than older use Facebook (Pew Factsheets). So as a data source it's perhaps more representative than Twitter but it's still seriously flawed. At best it reveals some interesting aspects of Facebook use but cannot be necessarily extrapolated to represent all baseball fans. Sure, there is perhaps no other way of getting data that can give us a sense of territories and this at least gives us a picture...but as with so many of these sorts of social media related maps I'd like a little less of the map being promoted as definitive. Any map is only as good as the data. Most social media based maps should come with an extremely prominent health warning about the potential flaws before people go off interpreting the map as irrefutable fact.

Colours. The map shows the predominant support using colours broadly associated with the teams. There's an attempt to show the edge effects of dwindling/overlapped and mixed support the farther away from a team by using lighter values of colour. This works quite well but can be confusing. Reds bordering reds? Greys across the map where bordering teams are different colours? Closer inspection reveals that this represents national patterns of support for teams that are quite remote (for Yankees, read Manchester United). Some of the colours create extremely hard boundaries that perhaps are more mixed than they at first appear. When you look at the data there is often more of an even mix than any use of a single hue can represent.

Interaction. The map is simple to navigate. What works well is the hover-over tooltip that gives us some percentages of support. At least that clarifies the mix of support but the county level summary often doesn't seem to reflect the zipcode level patterns the map shows - particularly when the pattern shows a range of colours/shades. I was sometimes left scratching my head trying to figure out the relationship between percentages of support and colours on the map as they don't always seem to correspond.

I like the boundaries being named in honour of players and historic rivalries and grudges....that gives us a sense of meaning and why there are boundaries at all. A nice discussion of these is in the accompanying report. However, there are areas where current likes seem to overcome historical patterns of support. I picked up a discussion between Craig Williams and Brian Timoney on the apparent cleansing of Mets support from New Jersey. Of course, Craig pointed out that they may, of course, use MySpace and hence the data problem, though this example is tongue-in-cheek, is perfectly illustrated.

Finally...like I said, I'm no baseball fan and I don't really follow it but I was under the impression that the Toronto Blue Jays played in the league. Toronto are a Canadian team and while I wouldn't expect to see much (if any) support on the US side of the north eastern border...why is the team and Canadian data excluded altogether? Maybe on Web Mercator that would have just looked too much?

Changing Face of America. Bravo!

No one wants to see bad maps...or maybe they do, because they keep those that can make good maps in business and they give educators some great material. Without cartocrap, what would we have to keep us entertained? How would we be able to discern good from bad? What would I have to write about? OK - that's maybe a question too far.

So today social media was lit up like almost never before at the sheer horror of the following effort from NBC Nightly News. Go on, drink it up, then rub your eyes and take another look.

What were they thinking? It's an area graph...showing three different time periods but they've gone and clipped the rectangular graph using the shape of the US to create what I am sure they thought of as an uber-information graphic.

Clipping to a shape destroys the visual impression of relative areas across the chart since we have no baseline or simple geometry to anchor our understanding of the pattern. Without reapportioning the areas of the graph to the new shape it leaves some of the categories completely dissected and reduced in area relative to the rest. That's those at the top if you were wondering.

We can't even make any sensible vertical interpretations because that wretched coastline gets in the way. But worse...has the space-time continuum gone awry? Do we progressively travel back in time if we go east to west? Argh...but the east coast is in the future and the present is roughly down the Mississippi. Great Scott!!!! Perhaps Emmet Brown threw the original graph in a flux capacitor and this is what was churned out the other end. Or given the rainbow colours, maybe Marty McFly threw in some ideas?

Back to what the graph shows...OK, it's on a map, so it's a fair assumption that we're seeing a spatial relationship because it's on a map...so all the white population live below a very specific curvy line - they get a lot of the west coast and southern states but poor souls are banished from the north east.  There's a few thin strips across the rest of the northern latitudes for asian, hispanic and black populations but seriously, I was under the impression that segregation ended decades ago. There's a small promontory for 'other' (whoever they are)? and it looks like Alaska and the Hawaiian islands have undergone some sort of ethnic cleansing. Hilariously, if Alaska and Hawaii had been positioned elsewhere they may have had a completely different ethnic composition.

Overlay this detailed map with a weather map and we could probably infer that 90% of the white population will experience a sunny day and the rest won't (thanks to Craig Williams for that observation). But not in Colorado... the 100% white population will likely find it colder on the front range in 2010. Another way to look at this map is that California, Oregon and Washington only existed in the 1960s and have been progressively been replaced over time with the eastern states. I guess for some that might be closer to reality than the map intended to suggest.

Really, it's almost impossible to stop finding fault - it's a piece of cartojunk of the very, very highest order and will be used for years to come as one of the most purile, ill-conceived pieces of cartographic arse-gravy that anyone ever invented. Bravo!