[HN Gopher] New Theoretical Research Trends in Cartography (2001)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New Theoretical Research Trends in Cartography (2001)
        
       Author : bryanrasmussen
       Score  : 42 points
       Date   : 2025-04-04 18:23 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.researchgate.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.researchgate.net)
        
       | chippadoodle wrote:
       | What is the interest in this article from 2001? There is a rich
       | GIS and visualization history that has happened since then ... if
       | you really want to see something radical look at Wild Bill
       | Bunge's work
        
       | oersted wrote:
       | > Until the middle of the 20th Century, cartography was more an
       | art than a science.
       | 
       | Strange perspective, accurate nautical charts were critical
       | infrastructure in the age of sail, making them and using them was
       | a very technical endeavor backed by significant financing. The
       | brightest scientists of the period spent a lot energy on the
       | longitude problem and similar navigation bottlenecks. Accurate
       | land maps were also important for military and state finance
       | purposes. Much of early mathematics and astronomy were focused on
       | measuring the Earth and pinpointing your location.
       | 
       | I'm not sure if map-making was a science explicitly, there was no
       | UX academia like there is now, but it was certainly a serious
       | engineering field rather than an "art", and dismissing that rich
       | history of know-how seems like a poor foundation for a review of
       | map-making theory.
        
         | godelski wrote:
         | I'm guessing the authors here are referring to the fact that
         | many places were really poorly drawn. There was high detail in
         | regions where the map makers were local to but this got fuzzy
         | real fast. Some would even do things like plant fake cities on
         | their map as a means of fraud detection. A secret signature if
         | you will. Someone who copied their map was likely to copy the
         | fake place.
         | 
         | You're definitely right that this has a lot to do with early
         | mathematics but remember that that is a small part of map
         | making. How do you define coast lines? Rivers? Borders? The
         | devil is in the details. With older maps the general shapes
         | would be (usually) accurate but it could get fuzzy around the
         | edges. Literally. It's not like they could get a picture from
         | space, or even from the sky. It would take years to measure
         | many things that would take us minutes now
        
           | gsf_emergency wrote:
           | Those of us who hunt for connections between cartography &
           | cryptography are sometimes confronted with direct
           | identifications of the 2:
           | 
           | https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2025/02/24/money.
           | ..
           | 
           | (Only half-serious; dont dvote me!)
        
         | jandrewrogers wrote:
         | Cartography is strongly opinionated. The dirty secret, which I
         | don't think most people realize, is that there is no correct,
         | reproducible source upon which to base the creation of a map.
         | Every frame of reference is known to be wrong in material ways,
         | so maps are a bit of a polite fiction that work well if you
         | don't look at them too closely. Maps are more suggestions than
         | truth even in the best of cases.
         | 
         | Maps are still useful but as the old saying goes, maps are not
         | the territory. Physics puts a practical bound on how closely a
         | map can represent the territory that in modern contexts turns
         | out to be important.
        
           | tomgp wrote:
           | True, but that's not so much a dirty secret as something
           | cartographers will loudly and endlessly tell anyone who'll
           | listen within moments of meeting them
        
       | gryn wrote:
       | Title needs a (2001) I skimmed the paper looking for new insight
       | only to see it talk about stuff that's already prevalent.
       | 
       | QGIS, FME, D3, Open layers, Mapbox, and others GIS related tools
       | has been prevalent in all the workplaces I've worked at that
       | needed something related to this topic.
        
       | superfist wrote:
       | Parts of theoretical cartography are model example how
       | Information Theory Bandwagon [1] works:
       | 
       | 'By the mid-1970s any historical account of the development of
       | models of cartographic communication becomes unmanageable very
       | largely because of their increasing popularity and the way in
       | which authors making use of them learn and borrow ideas from one
       | another. One commentator faced with the proliferation of these
       | models is distressed by being 'awash in a sea of scientific-
       | sounding terminology mostly pirated from other fields such as
       | electrical engineering.' [2]
       | 
       | [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1056774
       | [2] Christopher Board, "Cartographic Communication",
       | Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic
       | Information and Geovisualization, 1981
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-07 23:01 UTC)