Nowadays, this may too much to ask. And I don’t think any of us can criticize the maker of this map. How the heck else was he supposed to make this map in Google’s MyMaps? Perhaps he could have used different POI symbols from the the Google Maps Icons Library (http://code.google.com/p/google-maps-icons/)? Hmm . . . I’m not sure that would be any better. Some of the icons being offered up there are even more offensive than a cartoon pushpin (notably, this one: http://google-maps-icons.googlecode.com/files/rape.png).

I think that my approach to cartography, especially over the last three months, has become very oriented toward emotion. I would agree with you that maps can’t be neutral, and I think that people who want to get as close as possible have a fair point, but right now my interests are occupied by works that take the lack of neutrality and run with it. I’m leaning in a Bunge-esque direction (though, hopefully without the Stalinism). Though, I suppose that’s not possible to really be emotional with every data set, since some are kind of boring. I’m in a sort of…humanist phase, perhaps you might call it? Most of what I’ve been focusing on lately is how maps affect people, how they produce a connection between the reader and the topic, and how they make people feel. This is tied probably to my feelings about digital cartography, and my fear of its dehumanizing influences. But that is all another subject, which I would be interested to take up with you.

I don’t necessarily want a death map…I think if this were mapped with simple points and were more neutral feeling, I would have perhaps been fine about that. The clash between the sort of whimsical presentation and the subject matter is just very jarring to me. Though that can be used to good effect in a sort of ironic fashion, if you have the right audience to pull it off.

Anyway, you make a fair point, and I would probably have backed off the strength of this some if I had been less…in the moment. But I would keep the sentiment.

Apart from pushpins being stupid symbols on pretty much any map, whether or not they are inappropriate here on some emotional level is certainly debatable, you’ll probably agree. I’m with David above in not taking issue with them in that regard; and what’s appropriate for this map depends on its purpose and intended audience. You want a death map, but you’re just one guy.

But what’s more interesting is that you seem to advocate as a general rule deliberately and consciously seeking to evoke some particular reaction from the map reader. I know that some time ago we all quit believing that any map can be neutral and objective. And granted, you did comment that simple circles would be sufficient here. But it seems you prefer that we embrace the emotional power of maps and run with it. Am I reading too much into your post?

I’m down with recognizing that power and avoiding unintended messages, but (to extrapolate your arguments a bit too far) the notion of the all-powerful cartographer swaying minds with his every map sort of rubs me the wrong way and just like certain mapping “rules” sounds like the kind of talk that cartographers make as they struggle to justify their own worth and existence these days. Sometimes a map really is meant just to show where things are, and it should be judged on how effectively it does that. Maybe a map can’t be neutral, but it can be worth getting as close as possible.

Anyway, the short version is that I don’t think we can usually castigate someone for failing to send a certain message with a map.

This is something I am actually playing around with re-making, myself, though I’ve not had the time to really start at it. My own preference is to go with something austere and dark, which I think moves away from whimsical connotations and puts readers in a mood more receptive to unpleasant data. Dark outline human figures might be effective, but I have yet to put them there and see if it plays as well on the page as in my mind.

I should probably have put these ideas in the post as a more constructive suggestion next to the critique.