12 replies to this topic

[David Medeiros]

As part of my graduate thesis I'm looking at the shift in cartography training away from dedicated courses and geography departments into GIS training and education.

My general research will be a comparative literature study between current textbooks on GIS map making and older texts on 'traditional' cartography. Aside from Elements of Cartography, what texts most represent what you might consider pre GIS education on cartography?

Thanks,
David

[razornole]

I learned with Borden Dent's Cartography; Thematic Map Design. Makes sense considering he was my mentor's adviser.

I feel that book is more about visualization/communication, and the best ways to achieve that with your maps.

kru

[I make legends.]

I can't remember the title or author of the one I used in cart class. It was back in '94, and I doubt it would even be available anymore, at least without serious upgrades to the content.

[Hans van der Maarel]

Our teacher relied heavily on Bertin, and to a lesser degree on Ormeling and Kraak, but provided us with his own excerpts from various textbooks.

[Charles Syrett]

I can think of a few:

Cartographic Design and Production, by J.S. Keates

Thematic Maps: Their Design and Production, by David J. Cuff and Mark T. Mattson

And, of course there's Imhof's Cartographic Relief Presentation, which actually covers a whole lot more than just relief.

I'm looking forward to your thesis; I've long had a morbid curiosity as to how cartography came to be viewed as a subset of GIS, instead of the other way around (which it obviously is).

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

[David Medeiros]

I've long had a morbid curiosity as to how cartography came to be viewed as a subset of GIS, instead of the other way around (which it obviously is).

Don't tell the GIS set but they are actually making maps! Of course the need for cartographic design hinges on the purpose of the work, if and how it's to be shared. But the central (and foundational) role maps play in GIS suggests cartographic training should be much stronger than it currently is.

[Charles Syrett]

Don't tell the GIS set but they are actually making maps! Of course the need for cartographic design hinges on the purpose of the work, if and how it's to be shared. But the central (and foundational) role maps play in GIS suggests cartographic training should be much stronger than it currently is.

I wouldn't tell them that, because they're not. They're managing data. That's the whole point! GIS is only part of the whole process.

OK, maybe it would be more accurate to say that GIS overlaps Cartography, the way graphic design does. But all this stuff about Cartography being only "making pretty maps" out of data is just malarkey.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

[David Medeiros]

Don't tell the GIS set but they are actually making maps! Of course the need for cartographic design hinges on the purpose of the work, if and how it's to be shared. But the central (and foundational) role maps play in GIS suggests cartographic training should be much stronger than it currently is.

I wouldn't tell them that, because they're not. They're managing data. That's the whole point! GIS is only part of the whole process.

OK, maybe it would be more accurate to say that GIS overlaps Cartography, the way graphic design does. But all this stuff about Cartography being only "making pretty maps" out of data is just malarkey.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

Naturally I mean making maps as part of the process, not the entire process. I disagree about managing data though. That's the prevalent view in many circles but really only accounts for a portion of what GIS does. Exploring and analyzing data are an equal or greater portion of GIS work and to me distinct from just managing data with a GIS. In the end, regardless of the work you do in GIS most of it ends up as a map for someones consumption and the quality of the map has a tremendous effect of how well that map communicates.

And I don't think cartography just overlaps GIS, there is a stronger connection between analysis and cartography than just clear communication and good looking maps. Understanding certain aspects of cartography like projections, color implications, visual variables, data classification, aggregation, generalization, data and map scales etc. can have a big impact on not just the look of a map but in many cases your results in both accuracy and perceived validity.

It's a touchy subject and there a lot of places where cartography is totally irrelevant to GIS work, but I believe the connection is stronger than most GIS users like to admit.

[David Medeiros]

I can think of a few:

Cartographic Design and Production, by J.S. Keates

Thematic Maps: Their Design and Production, by David J. Cuff and Mark T. Mattson

And, of course there's Imhof's Cartographic Relief Presentation, which actually covers a whole lot more than just relief.

I'm looking forward to your thesis; I've long had a morbid curiosity as to how cartography came to be viewed as a subset of GIS, instead of the other way around (which it obviously is).

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

Thanks Charles, I hadn't considered Imhof even though I own two copies of that book. But I agree, it would be a good source to include.

[Terra]

How does Erwin J. Raisz's "Principles of Cartography" stack up in terms of learning traditional cartography?

[Judith T]

I don't know if this is too late for your research, but you might check out "Elements of Cartography:  Tracing Fifty Years of Academic Cartography" in Cartographic Perspectives #51, Spring 2005.  Raisz's two textbooks are also mentioned.  Also in CP (#38, winter 2001) is an opinion piece "Whither Cartography?" that talks about the decline in cartography. 

[David Medeiros]

I only just submitted my research design last week, so no, it's definitely not too late And thank you!

 

I don't know if this is too late for your research, but you might check out "Elements of Cartography:  Tracing Fifty Years of Academic Cartography" in Cartographic Perspectives #51, Spring 2005.  Raisz's two textbooks are also mentioned.  Also in CP (#38, winter 2001) is an opinion piece "Whither Cartography?" that talks about the decline in cartography. 

[Derek Tonn]

Don't tell the GIS set but they are actually making maps! Of course the need for cartographic design hinges on the purpose of the work, if and how it's to be shared. But the central (and foundational) role maps play in GIS suggests cartographic training should be much stronger than it currently is.

I wouldn't tell them that, because they're not. They're managing data. That's the whole point! GIS is only part of the whole process.

OK, maybe it would be more accurate to say that GIS overlaps Cartography, the way graphic design does. But all this stuff about Cartography being only "making pretty maps" out of data is just malarkey.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

 

Absolutely fantastic post, Charles!

 

We talk about that on our team all the time:  the FUNCTION and the FASHION of maps.  Your Average Joe doesn't know how to make a map function well, tell its story, convey information effectively without excessive noise/clutter, etc.  Nor do they know how to make it look good.  Batting 0-for-2.  That's why they're supposed to hire each of us, right?

 

It seems that in the vast majority of cases, students currently being taught cartography in the classroom have function pounded into their brains.  But fashion?  Here's a color/type brewer you can use to take "fashion" (uniqueness, visual creativity, taking risks/chances) completely out of the equation.  Since why on Earth should "art" have anything to do with modern cartography?  [/sarcasm]    Illustrators and graphic designers?  Will often excel at fashion, as they've been trained to do!  But the message/point of their creations can often be difficult to discern, and/or it takes them 5-10 times longer to produce the same effective "base map."

 

Obviously, the answer isn't Function vs. Fashion.  Either/or.  The answer is AND.  Function, and fashion.  Why cartographers would expect to be good at "fashion" when they haven't had so much as a typography 101 or graphic design 101 course is beyond me.  Just like no illustrator or graphic designer should pretend to have a clue about which projection might be the optimal choice to use for different types of map applications, as one example.

 

Cartography needs art, and art needs cartography.  To make maps and have any opinion to the contrary?  The end user suffers.  And/or our world is absolutely littered with millions of boring, sterile images that accelerates the downward spiral toward cartography being considered a mere commodity.  Something that should be obtained for dirt-cheap or free.  Just like many here will rail against what the Googles and Microsofts of the world have been doing.