You are here: > ESRI Forums > cartography discussion conference > Thread Replies

Cartography Discussion Conference

Cartography: Data Modeling forum

Location Map name alternatives   Scott Corwin Aug 27, 2007
Re: Location Map name alternatives   Eok Ngo Aug 28, 2007
Re: Location Map name alternatives   Aileen Buckley Sep 04, 2007
Re: Location Map name alternatives   Shawn Sumpter Sep 24, 2007
Re: Location Map name alternatives   Scott Corwin Sep 25, 2007
Report Inappropriate Content • Top • Print • This Forum is closed for replies.    
Subject Location Map name alternatives 
Author Scott Corwin 
Date Aug 27, 2007 
Message Ok, this is a ridiculous topic, but one I'm curious to see how others address this if at all. I dislike using the term, "map" with in a map title, since it's reasonably obvious (I know completely objective term here) it's a map your looking at. 
   
Report Inappropriate Content • Top • Print • This Forum is closed for replies.    
Subject Re: Location Map name alternatives 
Author Eok Ngo 
Date Aug 28, 2007 
Message Don't think I've ever had to use the word "map" on a map. Usually a solid title describing the info being shown is sufficient.

"Mountains of California"
"Los Angeles Area Stadiums"

Things like that...

Though I too am intrigued if there is a solid alternative to the term. 
  Eok Ngo
Integrated Spatial Solutions Inc.
www.issi-gis.com 
   
Report Inappropriate Content • Top • Print • This Forum is closed for replies.    
Subject Re: Location Map name alternatives 
Author Aileen Buckley 
Date Sep 04, 2007 
Message Hi, Scott:

Slocum, et al, in their 2005 2nd Edition of "Thematic Mapping and Geographic Visualization", state, "Use of the word map in a title is a statement of the obvious and should be avoided.” To me, the use of the words "map" or “distribution” in the title indicates that the map maker did not take quite enough time to think of a title that is clear and succinct. Edward Tufte, in his 1983 classis, “The Visual Display of Quantitative data”, advises designers of graphics (including maps) to consider every bit of ink they put on a page (or, similarly, every pixel that is assigned a non-background color on the screen). If it does not add something, then it takes away – this “non-data-ink” or “redundant-data-ink” is what he calls “chart junk”. In the case of titles that say “Map of” or “Distribution of” are great examples of chartjunk. In fact, one should consider whether a title is needed at all. Robinson et al in the 1995 6th Edition of “Elements of Cartography” state, “But sometimes a map’s subject or area is obvious, and no title is really needed.” Slocum et al, state, “A well-crafted title can draw attention to a map, however, thus we recommend usual a title in virtually all situations…”

So you can see, far from being a ridiculous topic, it is one that cartographers pay serious attention to, as they should every aspect of and element on their map!

Aileen 
   
Report Inappropriate Content • Top • Print • This Forum is closed for replies.    
Subject Re: Location Map name alternatives 
Author Shawn Sumpter 
Date Sep 24, 2007 
Message I would rather not be redundant by using the word "Map" in a title. However, the exception occurs (often out of the map maker's control) where the title of the map must match legal documentation or adopted ordinance. 
   
Report Inappropriate Content • Top • Print • This Forum is closed for replies.    
Subject Re: Location Map name alternatives 
Author Scott Corwin 
Date Sep 25, 2007 
Message Out of your control is certainly correct and I think it is the one place as a Cartographers really don't have a say (title that is). I do disagree with the "non-data-ink", It seems that maps often are pulled out passed along and at times become separate from the reports, in which case I like them to be as close to a stand alone document as possible. But I do agree redundancy in maps is confusing an will muddle the point.