Students from other disciplines who see GIS a “neat” skill to pick-up (or take a GIS course to satisfy a ge requirement) are typically more interested in playing around with the symbols and pushing out a semester project than understanding concepts of graphical hierarchy, MAUP, or how to properly display quantitative data. These students are more likely the culprit than the poorly trained instructor or an instructor failing to critique student work.

While the proliferation of desktop GIS and other mapping application certainly contributes under-trained users using bad techniques, the fact is the general public has no appreciation or respect for art and science that is cartography. When newbies see advertising which claim they can make a map in 15 minutes it essentially says map-making is low-level skill, no intelligence needed.

As for Daniel’s crusade to banish unnecessary north arrows and scale bars, while I agree some elements are not needed all the time (mostly dependent on scale), I really don’t see how they hurt as long as they are placed in the lowest level of the graphical hierarchy – that is to say the elements are blended into the background, small, and unobtrusive to the main elements.

1. Need to fill up “empty” space
2. Make the map look more “authoritative”
3. Unsure of the map’s lifespan… will this map be used once in a meeting (and then thrown in the recycling bin), or will you end up seeing someone using it in the field 5 years from now? If so, perhaps you can anticipate those potential uses?

Keep up the great work… I look forward to more posts!

The call to simplify cartographic output is usually aimed at clarifying the maps message to make it a more effective communication tool. Somewhat paradoxically “simplification” in this context takes more effort and time than just piling it all on. Map refinement (the real art & science of cartography IMO), takes time and a certain understanding of visual communication. Overly detailed, complex and cluttered maps are more likely to be the result of rushed production than purposeful crafting of a complex message.

For standards, although we don’t want to create sets of rules that can not be broken it is important to understand that we should be able to defend our design choices against arbitrary taste preferences (paraphrasing Tufte here). Standards guide our application of design and when creating maps that deal with strong scientific or analytical messages it’s important that our work is not haphazardly (or impulsively) created. We need to think about why we are making certain design choices and standards give us a base to work from as well as support the choices we make. Again, as with simplification, its often the maps that don’t adhere to any standards that look the worst. Its important to note that I’m not simply talking about universal cartographic standards (not that there are many) but even personal standards that may have been developed for only one map. Having no foundation for your approach to mapping means that even within a single map, a lack of standards will show up in mismatched style choices, unintelligible styles or classifications etc.

So, from my perspective, its not really the attempt to create standards that’s an issue but the portrayal of these standards as rigid instead of instructive. We need design standards, but more importantly map makers need to be taught how (and when) to use those standards and to think critically about map production rather than treat it as the application of a series of rules and preformed graphics applied to their data.

1) As a GIS user and student, I have often been immersed in this world of poorly designed and ineffective maps. I have even often been a culprit of producing poorly organized and ignorant maps. This comment is not meant as an indictment of the entire GIS world, but my select experiences have contributed to this opinion. During my time as both an undergraduate and graduate student, every GIS course I have taken has included map production. But, a minute number of these courses has included PROPER map production. Instructions like: “You also need to include the basic cartographic elements in the map: legend, title, your name and date, north arrow, scale bar, and neatline” and similar statements have often been included in teaching lab assignments. This one series of instructions largely supports my opinion. The third word in this statement is extremely striking to me, the word “need.” This almost repeats the GIS Lounge’s statement verbatim. In cartography, like you state in your posting, saying that you need to have certain elements is simply reckless. The ultimate goal of any map is to convey a message to a certain audience. If a north arrow or a scale bar makes a significant contribution to conveying the mapper’s message, then yes, by all means they should be included. But just because you can add a north arrow or scale bar, doesn’t mean you should. This is largely an issue with GIS software. For example, ArcMap and Idrisi allow you to easily choose a scale bar or north arrow from a series, oftentimes without even considering their usefulness, and too many maps are produced solely within these environments. I think that addressing this issue in the students’ initial GIS training would do wonders for curtailing some of these issues.

2) In today’s computer-based world, anyone can produce a map and many can produce a lousy map. Just simply Google searching for “United States map” will produce a large range of Easter-egg, pastel colored states, common use of the “geographic” projection, and haphazard layouts. This largely selects a significant lack of knowledge pertaining to proper map communication techniques. This consistent barrage of less than adequate maps is subconsciously and negatively impacting the way people think about maps. Just as Brooks Hatlen experienced in The Shawshank Redemption, as people become consistently exposed to inadequacies, they can often become dependent on and comfortable with these weaknesses. Addressing these issues is a much more complex issue than education because the freedom and anonymity of the internet will likely make it impossible to address this portion of the problem.

3) Finally, the constant attempt to create standards, classify things, and simplify complex issues is also an important issue that should be addressed. With computer-processing speed and analytical capabilities significantly improving, more information is produced at greater rates than ever seen before. With this proliferation of data, we see some oversight with the final presented product. This has led some organizations to attempt to over-simplify their map production in order to save priceless time. Maps are not simple creations, they take tremendous time, effort, and contemplation to become effective. In order to be an effective cartographer, creative license is essential. Without creativity, there is no cartography.

>________________________________

I’ve long been a proponent of the worthy causes you espouse here. Needless and inaccurate north arrows and scale bars, redundant and misleading legends, inaccurate (often wildly so, depending on where you are on a map) verbal scales, and the like, should be left off of maps whenever possible. Of course, sometimes client/audience expectations require them, but sometimes part of our job is to educate our map-readers and map-users. Even when a legend is correct and understandable it isn’t always needed. It’s better to label features on the map if you can. Especially when there are only a small number of features, like the Cairanne example.

Keep up the good work!

My blog if you want to browse a little:
http://cartografic.wordpress.com

jordi francesch