You might think there’s not a lot to get moralistic about in the world of mapping. You would be wrong. For decades now, various critiques have been raised about cartography, its history, its current practice, its complicity in the evils of the world, and cartographers’ degree of responsibility. On the one hand, cartographic history in the West is bound up with institutions that created maps to prosecute war, subjugate colonies, extract wealth from the earth regardless of who was already living there, and manage mass social engineering including a large-scale oppression. Maps can also be tools that create individual agency by giving any map-reader a manager’s view of the world. That part tends to be noncontroversial. It’s who we work for and with that causes some people to raise concerns.
Last week Andrew Middleton (he of The Map Center) gave a presentation at the Dickinson Memorial Library in Northfield, Massachusetts. Titled “How Maps Lie,” it’s the kind of introductory talk that can never be done too much: about what maps actually do, and the distance that can exist between the map and the territory. The video is an archived livestream; the talk itself stars about 15 minutes in.
I think the Equal Earth projection is an excellent compromise. But as a cartography enthusiast, it pains me deeply every time someone talks about the “true” map, the “correct” map, or that the Mercator projection is “wrong.”
I will never stop loving this scene from the West Wing of the White House, but please don’t say that any map is right or wrong simply because of the projection it uses. We should just focus on saying that some projections are more or less suitable for different purposes, but we have to avoid sensationalism.
A new front has been opened in the never-ending war against the Mercator projection. The African Union endorsesCorrect the Map’s campaign to replace the Mercator projection (which diminishes the relative size of Africa) with the Equal Earth projection. I think it’s awfully interesting that they’re proposing Equal Earth instead of the Peters map: Equal Earth is a better choice for maps of the world than the Peters or the Mercator, but then so are dozens of other projections. That the campaign against the Mercator is no longer necessarily a campaign for the Peters is something to take note of. [Andrew Middleton]
Though I’m still wrapping my head around the idea that campaigning against the Mercator is still a thing. Really, still? After all, it’s been decades since the Mercator was the dominant projection on wall maps. A quick look at the catalogues of Stanfords and World of Maps suggests maybe one in ten wall maps of the world use the Mercator, and the ones that do seem to be second-tier publications at best (because it’s been known for a long time that the Mercator is shit at being a world map). I guess the Mercator is too good a metaphor for colonialism and foreign domination to let go of it.
But then I have no idea which maps are used in classrooms, in Africa or anywhere else. And I’m often surprised at how much Mercator I see in online maps and infographics, because the tools they use default to Web Mercator. Web Mercator is perfectly fine—at large scales. Most online map providers use Web Mercator at all zoom levels (Apple Maps zooms out to a globe on Apple Silicon but not on older Intel Macs, Google offers globe view as an option on desktop). Web Mercator shows up a lot where an alternative would’ve been better. So it’s not like there isn’t a point here.
World maps tend to be wide (horizontal, landscape), whereas mobile phone screens tend to be tall (vertical, portrait). This makes world maps small and hard to see on phones: a problem when you’re trying to present data via a thematic world map (e.g. a choropleth map) on a web page, especially if you’re trying to show data on smaller countries. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung recently did a user study to test the efficacy of two map designs—one that splits continents up and portrays them in different scales to make them more legible on vertical screens, the other a hemispheric bubble map. The results were published in The Cartographic Journal; lead author Jonas Oesch provides a summary in this blog post. [Ralph Straumann]
A champion of cartographic education, Ormeling co-authored with Menno-Jan Kraak the well-regarded textbook Cartography: Visualization of Spatial Data, now in its fourth edition, which remains a foundational reference for generations of mapmakers. Both during and after his career, he curated an impressive collection of atlases and historical maps. In 2003, his collection—enhanced by books and wall maps—was generously donated to Utrecht University, enriching its map room alongside his father’s legacy.
First off, it was fun and interesting for me to think about how projections can be glued together. This map is a Frankenstein’s Monster–like creation, but it doesn’t leave anything out, nor does it have mismatches at the joints. Landmasses fit together seamlessly at the boundaries of any given transition zone between projections, because with a little math and the right tools, you can make two projections (of the right variety) match each other at a given location.
The other goal is to educate, through entertainment. It looks funny, thus drawing attention; and in doing so I hope it will jar people into realizing how distorted all projections are. This projection is just as valid as any other, in terms of how faithfully it represents the earth. It’s equal-area, showing everything in proper size proportion. It has interruptions, sure, but so do many others. It is a composite, yes, but so are other projections.
I think it’s in the same vein as those “south-up” world maps that you can buy, or ones centered on the Pacific. Many audiences would find them unfamiliar, but the maps use their uniqueness to make people realize that there’s really no right way to portray the world, and that our conventions are frequently arbitrary.
It’s available for free download at pretty high resolution, or you can buy it as a print, and while Daniel doesn’t actually expect anyone to do it, honestly, why not?
Hanbyul Jo looks at map labels written in Hangul, the Korean alphabet, with a deep dive into whether it’s better to display the characters vertically, as in top-to-bottom like traditional Chinese, in certain circumstances. “I grew up consuming Hangul in a dominantly horizontal way. The idea that the readability of Hangul can be improved when written vertically was so foreign to me, whether it’s actually true or not.” [Lat × Long]
A lack of time and energy have conspired to prevent me from serving up a gift guide this year, but I can point you to a few links related to books that have come out this year.
First up, I have in my hands a review copy of the seventh volume of the Atlas of Design. It is the usual collection of marvellous cartography from familiar and unfamiliar mapmakers, some of which quite unexpected, and I hope to have more to say about it shortly. It made its debut at the NACIS annual meeting in October and is available to purchase from this page. See my review of the sixth volume.
The first intimation I had that maps involved mathematics was when I looked up a map projection and came face to face with the equation that generated it. Math was never my strongest subject, so it’s probably for the best that I never went into cartography. Especially since it turns out that there’s a lot more math hidden behind the maps we use on a daily basis than you might think, a point demonstrated in detail by Paulina Rowińska’s book, Mapmatics, which came out in June from Picador in the U.K. and from Belknap in the U.S. in September.
Cartographic problems are often mathematical problems: Gauss’s Remarkable Theorem demonstrates that a flat projection of a round globe must necessarily add distortion. Surveying by triangulation is simple trigonometry. The coastline paradox, whereby the length of a coastline depends on the scale at which it’s measured, is because the coastline is fractal. Real-world navigational problems can be solved via topology and graph theory, algorithms and heuristics. The takeaway from this book is these things are math, and that math is at the heart of so much of this.
Rowińska is a mathematician and science writer, and she very much approaches her subject from the math side of things. Making the subject accessible to non-mathematicians is no small challenge, especially when moving to subjects that, while absolutely part of the discipline of mathematics, don’t obviously code as such to normies. Graph theory, number theory, probability density function and topology make their appearances. (I confess to being surprised at the omission of GPS, but now that I think about it, GPS is really about timekeeping and physics.) No less a challenge is finding the balance between explaining the mathematical concepts and explaining how they apply to mapping, and doing so in a way that doesn’t completely lose the plot and turn the whole thing into a math textbook with cartographic examples.
On balance I think Rowińska mostly succeeds: there were plenty of points where the math was still esoteric to me, but I still got that, yes, this was math, and here’s what it does in these cases. As the book progresses the math gets a bit more remote from popular understanding, and the map side of things is less about maps than the data being mapped, but even then the examples are absolutely real-world and relatable (gerrymandering, disease mapping), and there are plenty of a-ha moments coming from the math behind familiar puzzles like the travelling salesman problem and the four-colour theorem.
I received an electronic review copy from the publisher.
In the long history of mapmaking, computers are a relatively new development. In some ways, computers have fundamentally changed how cartographers create, interpret, and share spatial data; in others, they simply mark a new chapter in how people have always processed the world. This exhibition features objects from the Leventhal Center’s unique collections in the history of digital mapping to explore how computers and cartographers changed one another, particularly since the 1960s. By comparing maps made with computers to those made before and without them, the exhibition invites us to recognize the impacts of digital mapping for environmental management, law and policy, navigation, national defense, social change, and much more. Visitors will be encouraged to consider how their own understanding of geography might be translated into the encodings and digital representations that are essential to processing place with a computer.
There’s more than one way to depict data on a map. At the last Esri user conference, Sarah Bell, Kenneth Field and John Nelson demonstrated different ways to map the results of the last U.K. parliamentary election, and how they changed from the previous election. The video of their presentation is attendee-only, but Ken and John have posted about how they each went about their tasks: here’s Ken’s post and here’s John’s; plus, as is his wont, John has posted a video.
Null Island is an inside joke among cartographers: an imagined island situated at 0° latitude, 0° longitude, where maps suffering from data glitches point themselves. If your map is centred on Null Island, something has gone wrong. So of course mapmakers have been having some fun with it—after all, it’s not something you could stumble across by accident. In a blog post, Alan McConchie of Stamen Maps delves into the lore and history of Null Island and its status as an Easter egg on the Stamen Maps platform, where it takes the shape of the island from the Myst game.
(As an update to my 2016 post on Null Island: Alan reports that the buoy at 0°, 0° has ceased to be. Also, the Null Island website, complete with flag, has moved here.)
On the ArcGIS Blog, Heather White has a series of video-tutorial posts exploring how to choose colour1 when making maps, and what colours can signify on a map. From Color connotations and associations: “Colors are never neutral. They affect how people think and feel about your map. As a cartographer, you should be aware of the connotations and associations carried by the colors you use. They can be powerful tools to help you communicate more clearly. But if you ignore them, they can just as easily sabotage your map’s message.” See also Light and dark color schemes and Choose similar colors to map similar things (which you’d think would go without saying, but then things that ought to go without saying almost always need saying).
