M1: Map Critique

For this module we began orienting ourselves by exploring cartographic styles and evaluating different existing maps to recognize well designed and poorly designed maps. Though basic elements were part of the process, so were the “6 Commandments of Cartography” all of which are based on the work of cartographer Edward Tufte:

6 Commandments:

▪ Commandment 1: Map Substantial Information (Tufteisms 1, 2, 3, 4, and 20).

▪ Commandment 2: Don’t Lie with Maps (Tufteisms 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13).

▪ Commandment 3: Effectively Label Maps (Tufteisms 7 & 8).

▪ Commandment 4: Minimize Map Crap (Tufteisms 11, 14, 15, 16, and 18).

▪ Commandment 5: Map Layout Matters (Tufteism 19).

▪ Commandment 6: Evaluate your Map (Tufteism 17).

I chose maps from the UWF student drive, and found this map of Easter Island I considered well-designed:

 

This Easter Island map appeals to my personal aesthetic with it’s use of natural colors for water and elevation, and all of the colors have about the same value, without jarring contrast. I appreciate the inset on this map that shows the area being mapped relative to parts of South America, and I really like the balance the author chose between highlighting roads and cities while keeping the numerous archaeological sites legible. Some of these things that appeal to me personally are also in line with the 6 Commandments. This map maps substantial information (Commandment 1), minimizes map crap while still be informative (Commandment 2) and is very well laid out to balance all of this information in a pleasing way (Commandment 5). There are some small things that perhaps should be changed on a technical level – the legend and inset boxes don’t line up, there is no clear north arrow, and the map uses italics a bit more often than we have been advised to. Overall this is a very well designed map.

This map of LiDAR survey coverage areas on the other hand was poorly designed:

This map does a poor job with effective labeling and layout (Commandments 3 & 5). As someone with LiDAR natural resource experience and a familiarity with the Pacific Northwest, I should be set right in the target audience for this map. However, the colors are densely packed with borders that are unclear, the legend relies on acronyms, and some of the colors aren’t even labeled. The map extent is a bit skewed because of the dataset way down in southern Oregon, leading almost to a violation of Commandment 1. This “lie” happens because the scale gives the impression that Puget Sound is not well covered by LiDAR, when in fact the Sound itself is the densest area of LiDAR coverage. Since this is a map of Puget Sound coverage, it’s not clear why that southern Oregon dataset or Canadian dataset is included, or why parts of the dataset on the coast is cut off. 

In order to fix this map, I would clip the LiDAR coverage areas to the extent of a Puget Sound shapefile. This would allow me to change the map extent and scale, and focus in on the area densely packed with LiDAR coverage. Additional labelling would be the next priority for this map, further explaining some items in the legend, perhaps removing the county separations, and adding basic map elements like a scale bar and north arrow. While the bright contrasting colors on gray do not agree with my personal aesthetic, they do make the coverage areas stand out, and could stay as long as they are all labeled in the legend.