James Fee GIS Blog

57 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dawnster // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:01 pm

  Art is often not appreciated, western society devalues uniquely refined output because it devalues the individual. The good cartographer is considered entry level while the borderline competents leapfrog into “real” careers in project administration and management where they continue in borderline fashion creating a mediocre concept and throughput and output.
  Ultimately no traction is gained and quality is tossed aside as not a business value, at least if it can’t be quantified and sold by the analysts and sales people.

• 2 Arnold // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  I do get what you guys are thinking. When I started out with GIS all we had (at least in my world) was ArcPlot. You had to really think about every line, color, thickness you dealt with.

  Now you just accept the default colors that the desktop clients give you without much customization. Even when you do try to make changes, the software limits you. With a text file, anything was possible. Your “hacking” comment is so right on with the way we used to do it.

• 3 atlasalive // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  Its a simple case of diminishing returns. One could spend astronomical amounts of time pursuing a perfect cartographic representation. But nobody has that time. So compromises are made. Thats perfectly understandable.

  So its mostly a matter of what are the simple things one can do to improve the overall cartography of a piece? And why aren’t those being done?

  Simple things a cartographer would do using standard cartographic tools are rendered very complex and sometimes kludgy in the precision-obsessed GIS tool paradigm.

  How simple is it to apply and layout cartography elements (north arrow, scale bar, grid, etc.).

  How easy is it to apply and change styling to individual and groups of labels, lines, and polygons?

  How much do you have to deviate from the usual GIS workflow?

  Web cartography can be blamed more on the technology because it places such a heavy burden on the labelling engine. Any real web ‘cartography’ we’ve done which has placed a high value on the aesthetics has involved individually labelling each zoom level.

• 4 Andrew de klerk // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  This statement is evidently true. While I try and spend a well above average time focusing on symbology, line thicknesses, label orientation, colours etc, this does not come anywhere close to a map that is produced in a graphic design package. Why is this so, because those type maps are painstakingly produced for printed mapbooks etc, and an exhorbitent amount of time is spent aligning labels along roads and rivers, fiddling with label sizes to fit in with surrounding features, moving labels, smoothing lines and adding graphic content. At the end of the day, as cartogrophers using GIS packages we can get the symbology right, the big crunch is in the labels. Of course we could convert the labels to graphics and fiddle with each and every label, but even then we will not get it close to what can be done in a graphic design package. And of course, as said previously, we do not have the time unless the project deemands it.

  Interestingly enough, I have gone through a process of trying to generate my own world wall map because I have not found a suitable one online. I have faced these exact same hurdles through this process. when my end product is done perhaps we can see how close we can get to a “non-gis” produced map

• 5 Simon // Jun 10, 2008 at 1:27 am

  Always comes down to budget for me - workin in consultancy, the map production is usually at the end of the project when the money is thin. I enjoy sitting down and paying attention to detail (e.g. coastal vignettes - see http://downloads.esri.com/support/whitepapers/ao_/CoastalVignettes_031505.pdf) but often im told to produce 30 maps in 1 or 2 days, and we have automated scripts that can produce the basic maps required.

  I regularly read ESRIs Mapping Blog - has some great tips/discussions on Cartography within ESRI products.
  http://blogs.esri.com/Support/blogs/mappingcenter/

  @Andrew “my own world wall map because I have not found a suitable one online.”
  Be interesting to see what uve come up with - I too have thought about doing this but have not had the time.

• 6 Andrew Bailey // Jun 10, 2008 at 2:35 am

  Atlasalive nails it with the cost/time argument but i don’t see it as a negative. We’re almost lamenting here a standard here in presentation. Well, standards bring ease of use.

  The map element of a website is just one component. The rest of the design still holds a majority in the overall impact and that’s down to the website designer and their use of css.

• 7 Andrew Zolnai // Jun 10, 2008 at 4:29 am

  How about ESRI’s “Ask a Cartographer” website?
  http://mappingcenter.esri.com

• 8 dslamb // Jun 10, 2008 at 5:03 am

  I want to use cartographic representations but unfortunately we only have one license of ArcInfo (we have several licenses of ArcView), so I can’t get access to it enough to really produce maps using representations. Ironically you could probably get a license of illustrator cheaper than ArcInfo and be able to produce nicer-looking maps (if you were only interested in representations of course).
  I had the same reaction about the decline of cartography in GIS when looking at a book about GIS in the social sciences. Got some interesting reactions when I posted a discussion here: http://groups.google.com/group/giscience/browse_thread/thread/74e7d221b15d482c

• 9 Matt // Jun 10, 2008 at 5:30 am

  I agree with many of the comments that the time factor is the primary rationale for quick cartographic output. I’ve never used Adobe Illustrator or similiar tools to spice up a map for output, mainly due to my lack of graphic arts background, but I try to leave the “default” symbology box when possible.

  On the teaching of cartography side of things, if I had entered our Geography program one semester earlier, the Cartography class would have entailed the use of pen & ink techniques. I thank my lucky stars that I missed that headache, although I often wonder if it would have offered a better perspective on making maps than our rudimentary Mac-based mapping program did at the time. Our professor was an awesome “classically trained” cartographer from Germany that regaled us with studies and research concerning proper fonts, symbologies, color gradients, etc. Personally, I think that many of these cartographic techniques can be more than adequately produced in our ESRI environment…given the time. Cartographic representations are a huge step towards that nexus of timely production and cartographic quality.

• 10 Casey // Jun 10, 2008 at 5:59 am

  “Good Enough For Government Work” is not well received when contracting for the Federal Government! Something we have struggled with (government GIS people) is “standard” symbology. The agency I work with has several regional offices and the coordination it takes for any sort of agreement is astronomical and therefore, “standard” ESRI symbology isn’t such a bad thing.

  While I appreciate nice maps, if we still were creating artistic topographic quad maps, I’d be doing a different job. I do, however, miss the krakens in the coastal regions : )

• 11 Simon // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:17 am

  http://blogs.esri.com/Support/blogs/mappingcenter/default.aspx

  Great blog from ESRI that I look at frequently.

  Would be great to get time to xtra time to spend on tarting our maps up, but map production is usually at the end of our project cycle. And at the end is when our projects budget is very tight and everything is a bit of a rush.

• 12 Lefty // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:49 am

  I don’t buy the its good enough argument people are seeming to argue above. Sure there are reasons why you shouldn’t worry about kerning and the such, but taking a couple of minutes to make good cartography decisions isn’t going to hurt anyone.

  @Casey: I don’t know why Krakens ever went out of style.

• 13 Andrew Bailey // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:15 am

  I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘good enough’. When i get my car repaired i want the mechanic to do ‘good enough’ and no more because he’ll charge me for that.

  I think we’re moving towards seperating data from presentation anyway. The user can now choose to view data in GE, their own GIS, an internet browser or on some portable device. If it makes sense to do so we shouldn’t restrict them access to the data just through one channel.

• 14 Adam // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:15 am

  I graduated in 2005 and I took several cartography classes, but they were not required. I think some people don’t think it’s necessary and others just really don’t care. I really think your points are right on, people just settle for good enough.

  A lot of people take the extra steps to pretty up their map using external image editing software, but I don’t see many arcmap users fully exploiting the tools available to them, it really seems to be all or nothing from what I see.

• 15 TransGenderPreOpClown // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:16 am

  I agree, there’s a glut of “GIS” style maps out there, maybe for the same reason that there is a ton of generic sounding digitally recorded music out there. There are some popular tools that make it relatively easy so you don’t have some big barrier where a person is going to make maps (or record music) only if they work really hard at it.
  There’s nothing wrong with this, but I don’t know if it should properly be called cartography any more than the utilization of Google maps makes one a cartographer.

• 16 Powered by Wires // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

  Most GIS professionals have no theoretical or applicable background in communication design. Therefore, they see no inherent value in it and consider cartography the “practice of making data look perdy…if there’s time”. All of the necessary tools to create a well designed map can be found in applications like ArcMap and it has nothing to do with time. Of course if you’re creating maps like National Geographic, then there is a time component involved, but then again, that understanding and commitment to communication at all levels has made them who they are.

  IMO the point of GIS is to take raw data and transform it into something meaningful. It’s about reading between the lines, providing insight and perspective, and being able to offer companies, organizations and individuals, real answers and solutions, not just facts. And this is where the visual component comes in.

• 17 mentaer // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:28 am

  2 numbers that express the amount of work done by a cartographer:
  . Time spent by French Mapping Agency to make a topographic map sheet of 1:100.000 scale with interactive techniques (say mid-90ies): 1200 hours for “generalization” + 800 h for labeling. But this assumes a well defined set of symbology.
  . Time spent with “new” special software (such as 1Spatial’s Clarity): 150h + 160h
  => thus there are still 300 h!

  source: Lecordix et al (2006): see http://ica.ign.fr (2006 Workshop in Portland)

  However, a population-density map may be done very fast (1h), while a geologic map is probably the most difficult map to do. As the current state of the art is, I think we are still a few years away from true real-time mapping with good presentation.

• 18 cmoore // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:51 am

  This website is great, it lets you play around with settings interactively. It also gives you all the specs, guides you for screen vs print and more. I found the link on the ESRI Mapping Center a while back.

  http://www.typebrewer.org/

  Chris

• 19 JohnD // Jun 10, 2008 at 10:41 am

  I can think of three reasons. The first is money. My staff is billing out ~$85/hr on average and it takes as much time to make a map ‘pretty’ as it did to make it functional. Few clients want to double the cost for aesthetic reasons. Second is precision. A lot of our maps are ‘ugly’ because first and foremost they have to completely display a lot of complicated data in an precise manor. Sure, it would look better if we moved a few lines around - but that would no longer be an accurate representation of the wetland, etc. And lastly - I tend to hire people for their spatial and technical skills. It would be great to find one with an artistic eye as well, but those are fairly uncommon in my experience. So if we have something that has to be ‘pretty’ we call in support from the grapics dept to take the base map and do some magic in Illustrator.

• 20 AlbertW // Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18 am

  I disagree with the notion that you have to pick either good cartography and expensive or cheaper and good enough.

  Great cartographers can produce as good maps with as good analysis as anyone.

• 21 pierre.k // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:11 pm

  Well, I personally do not think that the time&cost factor is the key one, i suppose lack of knowledge of basic visual communication principles, graphic design and cartography (which are all arts of their very own) plays the major role. Surely, to refine your map to every detail takes the time none of us have, but in case of most bad maps I have seen, few minutes paying attention to eliminate crucial cartographic mistakes would improve map appearance dramatically.
  Most of the time, it boils down to amateurism, really. And we’re not talking map finish only, this applies to layout as well. How many times again and again have you seen basic rules for making up a map title broken? Incorrect map scale bar? Illogical and illegible legend?
  But there’s another thing. Even once you want to make every single aspect of your map perfect, you really need to delve into Illustrator or OCAD and sit hours and hours moving line vertices and letters around. ArcMap can take you a long way, but at one point, everything more sophisticated becomes a real pain in the *ss. In my opinion, cartographic representations do not solve the problem at all. What ArcMap needs is full-blown purely cartography-oriented toolset to assist you. Now, what tools would such a toolset contain? As I was planning to write such an extension, I’m desperate to hear from you what things you are missing.

• 22 mentaer // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  as cmoore pointed out the Type Brewer (http://www.typebrewer.org/) , one should also mention:
  . Color Brewer: http://www.personal.psu.edu/cab38/ColorBrewer/ColorBrewer_intro.html
  and
  . SymbolBrewer:
  http://www.carto.net/schnabel/mapsymbolbrewer/
  and may be:
  . Flex Projector for customized projections:
  http://www.flexprojector.com/

  (where is my beer?)

• 23 cmoore // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Impressions on your clients (and potential clients) are very important. Maps are also your marketing pieces. Hammering out ugly maps reaks of amateurism to me, regardless of why. It does not take longer to make it look decent, you just have to know what you are doing. Some time invested in making re-usable templates will acheive a unique style, consistency and efficiency. All of which are sound business practices.

• 24 Claude // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

  Pierre,
  here are a couple of things that would make for immediate improvements in the Arc cartographic experience
  -ease of editing: ability to click and edit without having to enter editing mode (a la MapInfo’s cosmetic layer) for quick label adjustments. Also , quicker reaction times to label adjustments.
  -The ability to scale labels
  -a redesigned style manager (just rip off Illustrator wholesale-their symbols, line styles, swatches palettes are sooo much easier to use)
  -easier management of color ramps and the ability to see the names of each ramp
  -easier to navigate font menu’s (it’s insane how many clicks one has to make to adjust font “symbols”)
  -better color picker-i always feel like i’m in Windows Paint when i need to fine tune a color

• 25 cartographer // Jun 10, 2008 at 3:50 pm

  I think the reason has party to do with the fact that great cartographers are born great cartographers. There are definitely some things you can try hard to learn - but, like great artists - I think it’s party genetics.

  Part of the problem is that GIS makes it easy for non-cartographers to make maps - and most don’t look good.

  The other part of the problem is that the GIS software just don’t have a rich toolset to make great looking maps. Sure ESRI’s “Cartographic Representations” are a step in the right direction , but they have miles to go to catch-up.

• 26 Eric Wolf // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:39 pm

  I agree that many GIS users are not well-trained in information design - but it’s not all the fault of poor education. Geographic data, by and large, does not include clues to how they should be represented. A great deal of effort is put into designing ontologies for geographic data in the database. The same level of care needs to be put into the “map ontology” or legend. But this is, perhaps, more complex than the back-end ontology - and it’s a task assigned to the same person who clicks the print button in the GIS software.

  Contrary to the “good enough for government work” ethic, I’m currently researching ways to ensure that data sources made available through The National Map carry semantic character from the back end to the user map. One way is to create Styled Layer Descriptions for each layer served in an OGC WFS.

  But SLD doesn’t address generalization operations (like selection and displacement) that cartographer traditionally did as they applied pen to paper.

• 27 Nat Case // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:37 pm

  There are a lot of really dreadful maps out there, and there always have been. GIS and desktop publishing tools just make it faster to produce them.

  Attention to the aesthetic needs of end user may not always be necessary. My car is an old Honda that runs great and looks like crap, but it does what I want it to do, and visual appeal isn’t one of the things I care about doing.

  But good design isn’t about looking pretty; it’s about clarity, ease of use, fit to function, fit to fit context, and fit to end-user’s headspace. Clients do themselves a disservice if they give a mumbled presentation, and they do themselves a disservice if their map mumbles, regardless of whether they’re wearing a custom-tailored suit or t-shirt and cutoffs. That’s the kind of bad design that drives me crazy, and given a good basic toolset, that’s where the attention to good cartographic design needs to be paid: clarity, hierarchy, distinction between ground and object, and focus.

• 28 Jack Dangermond // Jun 11, 2008 at 5:12 am

  Good luck telling a client you took an extra 10 hours and $1,000+ of their money taking a good enough map and making a unnecessarily pretty map.

• 29 Jesse // Jun 11, 2008 at 9:41 am

  This is a great thread. I’ll add my $0.02 to some of these excellent comments.

  I would add that cartographic quality is largely dependent on the expectations of the end user. If your map requestor only expects an ugly map that has all of the necessary data piled into it, then that’s what the GIS professional will end up producing (because that’s what they’re paid to do). If, on the other hand, high-quality work is expected, than that’s what will be produced. In our small GIS shop, we actually have a cartographer who focuses specifically on making high-quality maps. In our organization, there has always been an expectation that we can produce professional cartography, so we’ve hired someone with strong cartographic and design experience to fill our endless map requests.

  Secondly, I think the general trend towards sub-par cartography that we all see reflects a general trend in the GIS profession away from cartography and towards custom programming, web-mapping, and enterprise technology integration. How often does anyone see job openings for cartographers vs. developers? Most organizations are willing to pay relatively well for custom GIS application development, and are generally unwilling to pay for high-quality cartographic design.

• 30 anonymous // Jun 11, 2008 at 10:13 am

  Dawnster-

  Care to explain what you mean by this sweeping generalization?

  “western society devalues uniquely refined output because it devalues the individual”

• 31 James // Jun 11, 2008 at 10:45 am

  When producing a map it’s all about the profit that you can make, & as long you produce a map that is clear, precise, & if the client is happy with the final output than you have done your job. Just look at the many opportunities in the geomatics industry, only pure cartography is aimed at the creation of pretty maps.

  Most cartographers are forced to setup their own freelance ventures, we must also understand the education system is also setup so that most map makers have the ability to produce the product & have the skills to do it but within a specific time constraint, therefore the emphasis is on productivity.

  We see the changes in our industry with the increasing demand of IMS type applications such as Google Maps API & the decreasing demand of the paper map industry. I tend to agree with some of the comments here that there is more money involved in the development of GIS type applications, there is one site as an example that I can tell you that graphic type maps almost always go under $500 per bid as compared to programming & GIS oriented projects that can go as high as 25K if you have the right knowledge.

  In my opinion in some countries cartography is a two year diploma when it should be a four year degree that involves advanced GIS training in particular with a final two year emphasis on GIS web design & programming IMS applications. Besides in a two year course your not getting enough knowledge to truly understand the industry you are about to enter.

• 32 nat case // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  “only pure cartography is aimed at the creation of pretty maps.”

  No No No!

  I try to make attractive maps, but only rarely am I looking for them to go with someone’s sofa. Good cartographic design is clear and to the point. It may or may not be “pretty.”

  Good design sense is a good idea whatever your official job description, just like good writing skills are a good idea whether you are preparing an article for publication or an email to your boss. That’s what cartography boils down to these days.

  The excuse that it takes more time is like saying it takes more time to use proper English. It takes more time when it isn’t habitual, or when you have to automate it. What it takes is practice. Just like learning to use GIS analysis tools. But saying it doesn’t matter or it’s too hard is letting sloppy work go by.

  Sure, who cares if your memo sounds like it was, like, written by, you know, a schoolkid (whatever…). Maybe no-one cares this time but (1) it cumulatively doesn’t make your thinking look as good as it may actually is, and (2) when it does really matter (and eventually it will), you’ll have that much less practice, and it will be hard work.

  Same deal with design skills. It takes practice. And if your company/group doesn’t value the goal of clarity and grace (in whatever form that takes) in what you put out to clients, they should.

• 33 James Fee // Jun 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  Well put nat! I think you’ve summed it up very well.

  Thanks to Jan for this updated image.

  

• 34 Darrin Clement // Jun 12, 2008 at 3:44 am

  Our business started on the entire premise that maps, for businesses, need to be high quality cartographically but that it’s inescapable that you have to balance time and decision clarity. A pretty map, that you can’t make a decision from, is useless. I think people have done a good job here debating the time/cartography question. We discuss cartography on our blog, specifically as it applies to how businesses use maps (rather than consumers). And in the end, your client (or more generally, your market) really are the ones who need to make the decision about where that “good enough” line lies, through their wallet.

• 35 Charlie Frye // Jun 12, 2008 at 8:29 am

  I knew if I waited long enough someone like Nat would save me a lot of typing.

  Also, James, nice idea for a post. Though I worry that the comments are just the choir preaching to itself.

  Given that there is a burgeoning body cartographic know-how at sites like http://Cartotalk.com and http://MappingCenter.esri.com I am wondering what it will take to get people, actually many more people, using it and over time making better and better maps. Seriously, a well-trained cartographer with a modicum of business sense should be raking, financially speaking. I don’t know anyone who is.

  With MapQuest, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, et.al., there is now an established perception and expectation that good maps are free (even though we’re all eventually paying for the advertising). But it’s that perception that flies in the face of the fact that all maps are not created equally. That coupled with the latest publishing model (the ads on your map are worth more than the map).

  The obvious admonishment for cartographers would be to get some business sense. Ironically or unfortunately, I know better, since the temperament of most cartographers leads them to value and spend their time doing what they enjoy most—making maps. I’ve long suspected (and heard whispers to the same effect) that cartographers and geographers for that matter are a self-selected breed. Now that others have figured out that what we know is valuable, we’ve sort of become indentured to our craft. Ironically, that will make most of us happy.

• 36 DaveAtCOGS // Jun 12, 2008 at 9:17 am

  Hi all;

  Great topic with good comments. We’ll use a lot of your thoughts and comments as we prepare for courses in Fall 2008.

  We try to have our students consider the market for each product they create: sometimes “quick” maps with ArcMap / PCI / MapInfo; often ArcMap / PCI / MapInfo with more attention to detail; at times with CorelDRAW, but always thinking about expected audience.

• 37 Lichanos // Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08 am

  It’s true that making an okay map into a very well designed one can add a tremendous amount of time to production, but it’s not always true. I think that maps with lots of labeling are the ones that require the most time.

  The main reason for GIS mediocrity in cartography is just lack of interest. Maps are seen as graphic tables, utilitarian conduits of information. I sense that there is little interest in or excitement over the craft aspect of cartography, and the pleasure it can bring viewers. In the end, of course, a well designed map is often a better map because it communicates more information more clearly. A map that pleases and intrigues through its careful design and direct communication will keep the attention of the viewer - what more can a cartographer want?

  For the bulk of the maps that I see, you could get a great deal of improvement with a lot of relatively simple and easy changes, but these changes take something that is the most precious and scare of all - THOUGHT, and that takes caring! It’s not a big deal to use different color conventions, to look at other maps and note their class-color schemes, to study how classic maps use fonts, to think a bit about what you want to emphasize and how to do it, and so on. No big technical deal here, and not a tremendous amount of time, either. But it does require a long-term committment of energy, a strong interest, and a belief that aesthetic quality is of value in itself.

• 38 Lisa // Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45 am

  This is definitely an education issue- of students, programmers, and the people requesting the maps. You may not be able to make really great maps through ArcGIS/programming/automation, but there is a lot that can be done to improve their quality. Programming an object to be in one spot or one colour is usually just as easy as putting it somewhere else/ making it another colour/ size. Cartographic design just needs to be considered.

  @Dave: Cartographic design is one of the main differences I’ve noticed between my education as a COGS student and graduates from other schools. I am glad that the backlash against the lack of quality is getting stronger and I would like to think that this represents a trend in the industry back towards higher standards. I think COGS can do more to address this trend. In addition to a cartography project with CorelDraw (which is great), try adding another cartography specific assignment that only uses Arc. Perhaps include creating a map template and make a series of 2 or 3 maps- standards really seem to fall apart with series. I think this would be a good way for students to really understand their options and the endless nesting of prompts. As many people have said, especially in consulting, it is all about how much money/time it takes to make good looking maps. I don’t think it takes that much more time to increase the quality when you know how to use navigate through Arc.

  The strange thing is that the reaction to good and bad maps from the person requesting the work is usually the same- they don’t care, it is a figure at the back of their report. A lot of people don’t understand what GIS is or how a map is different from a regular figure. It is our job as GIS analysts to inform them and I think change towards better maps has to come from the GIS staff. I think putting a set of standards in writing that you can refer other people to is a good place to start. (”We may have done x in the past, we are no longer doing this because…”). Engineers/ scientists generally react well to these types of changes when they are organized.

  How have other people been successful (or unsuccessful) in increasing cartographic standards?

• 39 ChrisW // Jun 14, 2008 at 7:53 am

  James: “Do today’s GIS students not get traditional cartographic education?”

  I’m on a one-year MSc programme in GIS for students from different backgrounds i.e. not just geography, and we’ve had only a brief overview of cartographic design principles. The teaching staff are mostly from a geography background and regard cartography as important (and are often critical of some of the web-mapping outputs you see around the web). But there does not seem to be enough room in the curriculum for in-depth training in cartographic design, for whatever reason.

  As a GIS student, I’d really like to know more about this stuff, because it is obviously important (and I was a nerdy kid who always enjoyed looking at maps anyway), but I simply haven’t had time to do so, at least not so far, especially given the nature of the tools involved and the fact that you have to practice this kind of thing a lot to get good at it.

  And some GIS tools seem to place different emphasis on cartography anway e.g. ArcMap vs. MapInfo, because they’re aimed at different markets.

  As for me, I reckon I need to find time at least to work through ESRI’s virtual campus course on cartography. And read some books on the subject - any recommendations?

  On the other hand, I can also see the “good enough” argument - it all depends on what the map is going to be used for, after all. I don’t care about the line-widths, generalisation or symbology on the little Google map printout I use to find my way to the airport, because it’s good enough for my purposes. But if I’m hiking, I’ll rely on the Ordnance Survey rather than Google every time.

  As several people have pointed out, having access to a cartography specialist for the “pretty” stuff seems like a good compromise.

  Perhaps the example of typographic design is relevant: a talented designer can make an ordinary document look great, but most of us get by with the basic MS Word templates most of the time, as they’re good enough for our daily purposes.

  Casey: “the coordination it takes for any sort of agreement is astronomical”

  I feel your pain! I’ve done plenty of government work (I was a DB developer before starting the MSc), and my general experience is you either get bogged down for months/years in endless committee meetings, trying to reconcile conflicting requirements from competing departments in the utmost detail (it really will take 90% of the project’s lifetime/budget to satisfy the last 10% of requirements that nobody will ever actually use but had to be included for political reasons), or the government client just wants you to churn out any old cr*p ASAP because their political masters need to be able to declare the project a marvellous success at next month’s press conference.

  So the problem does not seem to be specific to GIS, although as we have a truly terrible record of big public sector IT project disasters here in the UK (Britain still leads the world in some fields, hurrah!), maybe I’m not the best judge of these things anyway!

• 40 ChrisW // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:49 am

  Some of you might be interested in this 2-part online interview with Steve Chilton, chairman of the UK Society of Cartographers:

  Part 1:
  http://googleearthdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/steve-chilton-interview.html

  Part 2:
  http://googleearthdesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-recent-conversation-you-suggested-to.html

  He talks about the relationship between traditional cartographers and GIS people - both GIS professionals and web-mappers - and different views of the importance of cartography in electronic mapping.

• 41 John from Jerzee // Jun 23, 2008 at 7:16 am

  Let’s not forget the unqualified people that are creeping into GIS from other disciplines and calling themselves GIS professionals. At my last job, my boss was a political science major who took one god damn ArcView class and he ran the whole GIS department. I don’t work there anymore, do you want to guess why? The problem I see alot in my home state of NJ, is too many IT specialists and environmental science professionals are leading GIS organizations. They leave little opprotunity for Geographers and Cartographers to lead the funadamentals that they have formal training in. (IMHO)

• 42 nat case // Jun 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

  John: I’m a studio art major who took three graduate-level classes and have learned the rest on the job over 17 years. So I am (I hope understandably) leery of the “you got the certificate, so you’re qualified” theory of training. That said, there are too many pointy-haired bosses out there…

  To me, the point is not how much schooling you had but how much practical experience and hands-on understanding of the system you have, and how well you have developed your “auxiliary skills,” like:

  - how well do you understand geography (either your specific local geography, or world geography, or just latitude/longitude, north/south)?

  - how well do you spell geographic names (the temp who couldn’t spell “Kentucky,” for example, was a disaster)?

  - how’s your basic design sense, and how’s your cartographic design sense (see my post above)?

  - how well do you work with a team (e.g. do you ask questions or just wander off on your own; how do you deal with critique; how often is the client right and how do you gently break it to the client when they aren’t)?

  - and how well do you know the program and how quickly can you pick up specialized bits you don’t have now?

  Those are just off the top of my head; I’m sure I’ve missed something vital.

• 43 John from Jerzee // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:58 am

  Nat: I find your post irritating to say the least. Your example is based on getting an entry level job you were never qualified for then learning on the job and taking a higher position you should’ve never been qualiifed for either.

  My argument is based on people like yourself who think you can pick up every detail on the job. Unfortunately, you can not and that is why formal training is neccesary. All my cartographic skills were developed in training and college. I applied them in my job but I never gained more cartgraphic training at work.
  On the job training teaches us how to make cost effective maps not cartographically correct maps.

  My schooling worked for me, we ‘re obviously on two different ends of the spectrum. It seems to me that more emphasis should be based on background knowlwedge if you want to improve map quality. Which is the purpose of this blog, not to jusify ones unqualifed background.(IMHO)

• 44 nat case // Jun 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  John: Sorry you find my post so irritating. My point is not that training is bogus, but that it isn’t everything. My entry level job was working at a map store, where I started making maps (in Freehand, not GIS). I didn’t have geographical training, but I did have design experience. Qualified or not, I think I make pretty decent maps.

  By contrast, when we have interviewed people fresh out of college with geography degrees, the stuff they produce is often not to our design standards, however well they may know the programs in question.

  As you say, we are on two ends of the spectrum. And while formal training is great, it isn’t the whole tamale. Some of us work better learning in a classroom, others learn better diving in and messing around. Likewise, some software (like Illustrator) is more forgiving of this way of doing things, while others (like Arc) really aren’t.

  To sum up: Incompetent supervisors/GIS are a problem. In my end of things, art directors who want me to make a map of Chile and give me a horizontal shape to do it in are a similar problem (note: example exaggerated for comic effect). Formal training can help with some of the ignorance-based issues that lead to bad management, but so can experience. It all depends on where the ignorance holes are in the manager in question, and on the learning style he or she works best in.

• 45 Richard Treves // Jun 24, 2008 at 3:32 am

  I keep a blog about how to apply cartographic principles to Google Earth, I came across this post as someone linked to me (thanks). I’ve speed read the comments here so I hope I’m not reiterating a point but Jack Dangermond’s comment:

  “Good luck telling a client you took an extra 10 hours and $1,000+ of their money taking a good enough map and making a unnecessarily pretty map.”

  Struck a cord. I happened to create a tutorial based within GE that nicely tracked how long users spent looking at the map. The results were startling:

  http://googleearthdesign.blogspot.com/2008/06/users-do-not-care.html

  7/8 of the 600+ people accessing the 45 minute long tutorial gave up before they’d looked at it for more than 10 minutes. If you put a ‘good enough’ map on the web you are probably hemorrhaging users at an even greater rate, eMaps should be designed with cartographic principles in mind not because we are making a ‘pretty’ map but because it makes a more *usable* map, and that keeps users attention longer and THAT translates (through whatever your motivation is to create a map in the first place) into a better bottom line.

• 46 Charlie Frye // Jun 24, 2008 at 7:44 am

  Richard–Can you prove it? How many maps have been put through something like Google Analytics? Did any show that a good map contributes to realizing a website’s business goals or that a lesser quality map became a jumping off point?

  I’ve always believed in the concept of “graphics sell”, but that’s my religion–too many mapmaker’s boss’s need to hear the economic justification in terms of simple numbers. They also need to understand that design talent combined with domain knowledge (e.g., geography, planning, etc.) and cartographic skills are the human resources commodities that make the best maps.

• 47 Richard Treves // Jun 25, 2008 at 1:23 am

  Charlie - I don’t have direct evidence (although this is a research area I’m trying to get funding for) but I think I can make a good argument based on analogy. What we’re talking about is geo-web usability, web usability is obviously strongly linked. Jakob Neilsen says that sales rates (sales per site hit) for commercial sites increased 100% in the 10 years from the start of the early web and he puts the increase down to the improvement in design in web pages. I strongly suspect that a similar improvement in effectiveness can be achieved on the geo-web as most geo-web design out there at the moment is amateur to say the least.

  There are all sort of complicating factors such as - how exactly do people measure effectiveness,
  - the google earth environment is more highly constrained than early browsers were
  but I’m still sure there are massive improvements possible.

  I completely agree with the problem of persuading the boss’s about the importance of human skills but I think a well argued case study can work wonders, I already have fun showing students kml files which, with a couple of clicks, I can dramatically improve.

  For more detail see:
  http://googleearthdesign.blogspot.com/2008/05/2005-2015-lost-decade-of-neo-geography.html

• 48 ChrisW // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:03 am

  John from Jerzee: Guess I’ll have to irritate you some more, too. GIS is getting bigger, so although I’m sure you’re absolutely right about the importance of cartography training and experience at your end of the spectrum, it may not do you much good in other areas of GIS. As an IT person trying to convert to GIS (via an MSc), I’ve already seen plenty of GIS people who have not the first clue about organising or accessing large volumes of spatial (or non-spatial) data, something which is bread-and-butter to an old Oracle DB person like me. Similarly, I am working with a local GIS consultancy who are delighted to find a student on an MSc in GIS who actually knows anything at all about software design. I guess it depends how you define “GIS”, eh? But the customer will probably be more interested in whether or not you/we can get the job done well and on time/budget, rather than in our diplomas and white coats.

• 49 ChrisW // Jun 26, 2008 at 2:04 am

  John from Jerzee:
  Don’t want to irritate you too much (honestly!), but I was struck by your remarks that “too many IT specialists and environmental science professionals are leading GIS organizations. They leave little opportunity for Geographers and Cartographers to lead the fundamentals that they have formal training in.”

  Why do you think these unqualified people (in your terms) are apparently more successful than geographers or cartographers in reaching those leading positions in GIS organisations? What do you think they are they offering their organisations/customers, that the Geo/Carto graduates are not?

• 50 KoS // Jun 26, 2008 at 6:24 am

  @Chris….just maybe John has been unlucky to have ran into the ole saying. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

  It still happens. Some people experience it or see, way too often. Not everyone in a position of authority has “earn” it.

  KoS

• 51 Chris C. // Jun 26, 2008 at 7:31 am

  @Kos

  That works both ways - I see a lot of degrees/diplomas adorning people’s walls - doesn’t guarantee they know what they’re doing and that they need to rely on the uneducated underlings to get anything done

• 52 John from Jerzee // Jun 30, 2008 at 7:38 am

  ChrisW, With all due respect. The post is about disastorus cartography, not database adminstration.
  Eventhough Human Resources, and Personnel Departments have no clue what ‘GSI’ is. I still find it imperative for GIS departments to be led by multi-talented people with excellent personal and technical skills. Not IT pro’s who choose a profession that helps them avoid people. “My computer’s my best friend” (generalization). From reading this post it does seem that many GIS organizations a led very poorly. In my home state, GIS became a new program in the early/mid-90’s many of the government agencies just plucked someone from another department and installed them as GIS Czar. To this date, GIS is not used for anything other than a simple viewer in NJ. We have no meaning when it comes to tax maps, environmental regulations, or property disputes. In most cases, We are out lobbied by the surveyors who are written in to so many laws and regulations it makes me want to puke! (tangent)

• 53 ChrisW // Jun 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

  John: “I still find it imperative for GIS departments to be led by multi-talented people with excellent personal and technical skills. Not IT pro’s who choose a profession that helps them avoid people…”

  Couldn’t agree with your first statement more. Unfortunately, your second statement seems to hint at one of the reasons why you’re having trouble persuading your bosses of the value of your own personal skills, old boy.

  As for the lack of understanding of professional skills in public sector GIS, it sounds pretty bad in NJ, but then it’s probably not much different from public sector anything else, anywhere else, as far as I can tell. But instead of complaining about it (since the mid-1990s?), why not do something about it? Either find a way to demonstrate the value of your professional skills to your Dear Leaders (show them how a decent cartographer could improve their tax maps etc), or start your own consultancy to prove you can make money through giving them a better service, or find a job where those skills are better appreciated. Life’s too short to spend it bitching about work!

  I’m not a DBA, by the way - those guys really don’t have any personal skills :-).

• 54 John from Jerzee // Jun 30, 2008 at 9:50 am

  Thank you for your time.

• 55 ChrisW // Jul 1, 2008 at 4:43 am

  You’re welcome!

• 56 Chris M. // Jul 9, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Did anyone else see the discussion board at the last ESRI conference about the GIS certificate being a false industry standard? I am starting to agree with that posting. Increasingly I am seeing first hand people with the P after their name who can hardly open arcmap let alone tell you how many files make up a shapefile. Perhaps this certificate program needs a good second (or maybe first) look before it establishes itself as a ’standard”

• 57 Anterra // Jul 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  A note: GIS is more than making maps. It is an analysis tool with many outputs from 3d models to crystal reports. Maps are only a subset (albeit a significant subset) of what is produced at any one time.

  Moreover I’ve found that to really maximize the map you need an in depth familiarity with the field. If you’re making a geological map, you need a geologist, if you’re making a forestry map you need a forester etc…

  A lot of maps are probably esrified because we have a situation where two specialists are working to a compromise and we have people who are specialists such as geologists and foresters who are using the software in house to to make their own maps.

Leave a Comment