06 February 2012

Discussion of Readings 2

Let's talk:

7 comments:

taryn pittfield said...

I found Frank's paper difficult, personally I do not work well with linking concepts to numbers to show a relationship. However the chapter from Monmonier was basic, straight forward, and was very useful for ecologist such as myseklf who are new to GIS and mapping concepts.

David Hanrahan said...

The 'one-size-fits-all' argument vs. 'scales relevant to answering specific question' side of the discussion by Frank is relevant to our work in inventory and analysis during our studio work. Sometimes, we approach the task with a uniform scale or a map in order to answer all questions. I don't feel as if it is as effective in answering the questions. Many times the discussion becomes more about paper size and printer capabilities. That being said, figuring out the right scale based on the problem you are trying to solve is challenging. It is one we are dealing with right now--how do we scale a long narrow corridor in order to make several different design decisions which will ultimately represent our proposal visually? And, will choosing a scale that is too coarse, move our design in a direction that overlooks details which will ultimately be important to the design?

David Tulloch said...

But figuring out the "right scale" should include a discussion of how you think it will impact the work. COGNITIVE - Are you worried about the scale of the outputs being such that they mislead or misdirect you?
QUALITY - Is the scale at which the data was developed appropriate to your work?
Both can mislead you.

Žogs said...

Great article!

kevinp1782 said...

I like this idea that Frank presents of giving up the "general purpose" map. After all, what is a general purpose map? If you surveyed people on the street, my guess would be that you would receive responses like "Google Maps" or "the AAA map in my glove compartment from 1998". But these maps are not general purpose - they have been produced with intent and authorship.

For Google Maps, I would assume the most typical usage to be for driving directions. A massive layer of information within Google Maps is dedicated to that purpose. But the same system can give you the same directions for walking or public transportation. So are we now talking about one map, or three maps? Is any map in Google Maps a general purpose map? I would say no, because the the layers of information, and the ability to filter them, give even the most basic user the cartographic power to include or exclude something from a map or, in other words, to suit each map to his or hew own specific purpose - quite not "general" in any way.

As for the AAA map in my glove compartment from 1998, well, it wasn't general either. It was composed for a certain type of navigation. I remember this type of map as regional in nature, with an emphasis on the more heavily trafficked roadways and highways. I could not, for instance, use one of thee maps to find a McDonald's in Somerset County. I could, however, verify that Route 22 West would take me to Easton, PA. So what do you consider general information? Burger joints? County jurisdictions? State highways? Your answer may be yes to all three, but that doesn't mean it would make sense to have them all on the same "general purpose" map.

David Hanrahan said...

Monmonier's "Elements of the Map" was helpful in reinforcing the reading on projections from the main text. I also appreciated the clear and simple descriptions of size, shape, graytone, texture, etc. on p. 20. Simple to understand; but, probably much more difficult to implement consistently in maps.

--also, I like the title of Ch.3- looking forward to reading it.

David Hanrahan said...

I know that this comment isn't related to the assigned readings, but I wanted to share. Apologies if this is already on the blog. But I thought that this article in Metropolis Magazine presents an interesting use of GIS mapping.

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20120125/game-changes-laura-kurgan-sarah-williams