Maps refer to either those produced by human cartographers or those created by computer tools such as geographic information systems (GIS). In other words, the maps we refer to are those produced by professionals who have received formal education and training. I tend to believe that the maps are objective, although they are considered as both scientific products and artistic works. Even though maps have certain artistic components, they are objective. Let me explain why.
Some people tend to think that maps are subjective, because map makers are human (Wright 1942). This view cannot stand, or we cannot make inference as such. Along the logic, can we say? Scientific results are subjective because scientists are human, or alternatively scientific instruments are made by human. Thus we have reached an absurd conclusion.
Wright J. K. (1942), Map makers are human: comments on the subjective in maps, Geographical Review, 32, 527-544.
There is no doubt that maps are designed or produced by human essentially, since the computer tools or GIS algorithms are designed by human. However, maps are objective even from an artistic point of view. Maps possess a new kind of beauty that exists in the deep structure or is emerged from the underlying scaling of far more small things than large ones (Jiang and Sui 2014). This new kind of beauty was initially discovered and defined by Alexander (1993, 2002). The beauty is objective rather than subjective as we traditionally believe –"beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Jiang B. and Sui D. (2014), A new kind of beauty out of the underlying scaling of geographic space, The Professional Geographer, 66(4), 676–686, Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.7303.pdf.
Alexander C. (1993), A Foreshadowing of 21st Century Art: The color and geometry of very early Turkish carpets, Oxford University Press: New York.
Alexander C. (2002), The Nature of Order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe, Book 1 - The Phenomenon of Life, Center for Environmental Structure: Berkeley, CA.
With the above statements, I look forward to your opinions, views, and discussions. Are maps subjective?
As map maker, from analogue pre-GIS in the early 1970s and digital with GIS since the 1990s (see profile), I love to share some observations. The cartography versus GIS (or RS) seems flawed. Cartography (visualization) is part of GIS as a set of operations under various labels, depending on the package; in practice visualisation is the final step of map making. In other words, map making is much broader than cartography.
Scaling is the fundamental map issue; the choice of spatial scale (vector) or resolution (raster/grid) determines to a substantial extent the map image (cartography) and its information content (legend). Scale applies to both geographic/spatial input data (except points; see below) and the subsequent up- or downscaling to produce the map image. Also transformations from raster to vector are carried out for "improved" visualisation (examples in my articles).
Many maps (raster and vector) are in effect generated from point observations (both pre-GIS and with GIS). These maps, based on points, have no inherent spatial scale. The scale/resolution is created by an extrapolation from points to raster or polygons.
In my experience mapping/spatial scaling, i.e. producing representations of space/geography, is embedded in the human mind; illiterate persons with whom I had no language in common have drawn informative maps in the sand for me, when I asked for directions. My side observations were that the spatial scale in two direction (x,y) and near versus far could vary, not compromising my direction of travel, but my estimate of the distance or travel time. In technical terms, these mental maps were not equidistant; but maybe that resulted from my phrasing of the question, the terrain or the mode of travel (by foot or 4WD).
Finally, I suggest to avoid subjective versus objective; the dichotomy in science would seem reproducible versus irreproducible and/or transparent versus unclear.
@Sayed Zaheen Alam
"...they are the distortion of reality. Therefore always subjective."
Thanks for your comment!
According to your logic, the trend line in the following scatter plot is subjective? This is because the trend line is the distortion of the scattered points. Furthermore, the scattered points are sampled from reality, thus another version of the distortion of reality.
Dear Hein Van Gils,
Thanks for your nice observations!
I want to point out your term scaling is very different from my notion of scaling. Your scaling refers to the choice of spatial scale (vector) or resolution (raster/grid), while my notion of scaling is synonymous to fractal. In other words, scaling or fractal refers to irregularity or roughness, or far more small things than large ones. For example, drop a piece of regular glass in stone ground, it would lead to numerous irregular pieces, and more importantly, far more small pieces than large ones. I have argued that maps share the same scaling or fractal property as the broken pieces, and mapping is essentially to reflect or reveal the underlying fractal structure.
Jiang B. (2015), The fractal nature of maps and mapping, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 29(1), 159-174.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263316490_The_Fractal_Nature_of_Maps_and_Mapping
Article The Fractal Nature of Maps and Mapping
maps are subjective by nature. first they are made by humans, hence they are prone to errors!! second they are baized..as you know, you can even lie with maps..
This is a very good question with many possible answers. In other words, a simple Yes or No answer is not enough.
I agree with @Bin Jiang that maps are not always subjective. If you think in terms of a map in Euclidean space and start drawing straight line segments between known points such as the SW corner and NW corner of the Alhambra, then the straight line segment is objective but the precise location of the Alhambra corners is not known. Our knowledge of where things are on the planet is approximate and very accurate (usually) but not exact.
So the in-between answer to this question is that maps are approximations of where things are. For any form of exploration, current cartography supplies us with very accurate maps. So there is very little by-guess and by-gosh in finding an almost 1-1 correspondence between maps and locations described on maps.
Dear James,
Thanks for your comments!
Are you saying the London underground map (see below: the first is topologically retained, while the second is geometrically corrected) is subjective? This is because with the map both locations and directions are distorted. I tend to think the map is objective, because topological relationship between the stations is retained and enhanced. This topology is what we are mainly concerned about while navigating in the underground lines. What do you think?
But objectivity is never reached in any scientific model - maps, digital surface models or 3D models included (think about choice of objects, simplification due to scaling, categorization of objects, choice of reference and projection systems and so on).
According to conventional science theory (e.g. critical rationalism) we can come closer to but (given the nature of our cognitive apparatus) never reach an objective view by having our (subjective) theories and models checked by other people and by means of acquiring further (control) data that may falsify (parts of) our model.
In science intersubjectivity often works as a surrogate for objectivity: If many (competent) people come to the same conclusion based on the same data and premisses this gives a model more credibility than in case others come to highly divergent conclusions.
Dear Michael Buchwitz,
Thanks for your insightful comments!
I agree with you that maps are like any scientific model, although their objectivity is hardly or never reached completely. In other words, all scientific models including maps are an approximation of reality. However, a 1:1 scale map can reach objectivity fully. Unfortunately, the 1:1 scale map is NOT a map, since all maps have a reduced map scale.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Geoinformatics
- Geographic Information System