Hello everyone. Apologies for leaving my corner of the Internet fallow for a month — life has been rather busy as the new academic year starts, and I am going through a long bout of illness which has been sapping my energy. Things should start to pick up over the coming month, I expect. For now, a few bits and pieces of site news:
- I’m planning on making a few changes around here, in terms of content. While we learn well from critique of others (and ourselves), it’s also nice to have a detailed look at what others have done right, as well. In service of my larger mission of helping everyone (myself included) make better maps, I’ll be putting up some really nice maps up from time to time. This is not one of those FAIL blogs, where someone posts a funny picture and we make fun of people. This is about what we can learn to do better in the future, either from good or bad cartographic examples. The site name will remain the same for now, but feel free to also send me great maps as well as not-so-great ones.
- You may recall that last month I examined a map which showed seismic potential in the Pacific. A reader, Alistair, wrote to me recently to mention that he was familiar with the map and knew its provenance. It apparently comes from a 1979 article in Pure and Applied Geophysics, titled “Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: seismic potential for major boundaries,” by McCann, Nishenko, Sykes, and Krause. You’ll find their article on pages 1802-1147 of volume 117. There appear to be multiple versions of this map floating around, actually. Alistair sent me a link to a PowerPoint presentation which cites the article and reproduces their map, but the colors are a bit different, though the data appear the same. I’m quite pleased and amazed that someone out there was able to connect the map to a source.
- I’ve lately received the first ever email from a victim of this blog. Mike, an employee of Kerr Wood Leidal, writes to let me know some more information about their map of hydropower potential in British Columbia. First off, it was printed at 3′ by 4′, so my concerns about the small, crowded symbols are alleviated. It’s actually a version of an earlier map that they drafted, which they could not enter in the contest due to copyright reasons. The original has a better centered projection, improved hydrography, and better point symbols. It’s worth remembering that the maps on here have a story behind their creation, a set of reasons why they turned out as they did.
- Finally, since I’ve given some friends the benefit of a link here and there on the site, I thought I would do the same for myself. I recently put together a portfolio of my work, if you are curious to see. Feel free to subject me to the same treatment that I give others (speaking of which, one of my upcoming posts will do exactly that). While I’m at it, I’d like to plug my hosts at A Good Portfolio, which is an excellent (and free!) service. It allows you to quickly assemble an online gallery of work with an intuitive interface and minimal hassle. There are few bells and whistles, but I think it doesn’t really need them.
That’s all for now — I’ll be back with more cartographic content in the coming week.