Dear All
B Hopper said "the OS did create standard symbology
but this was a very limited outlook based on an OS view of the landscape
presented in a format believed suitable for purpose. For the last 200 years
we have been looking at a cartographic (OS) view not necessarily a
geographic one. What was a wood or not, or a marsh or a swamp was based on
what would now be seen as metadata standards - i.e. OS surveyor and
draughtsman instructions and terms of reference. However as I said these
provided a limited view of the landscape. They were also a standard not
freely available to the general public. GIS can provide many more
individualistic views of the landscape."
I think this view is the limited one. OS maps were understood by all, not just individuals. Map creation was a rich process laden with theory and interpretation but eminently understandable. The symbols were "inter-subjective", the standard was available to the general public. They could relate what was on the ground to the map and generate their own feeling of place (isn't this what we are all supposed to be fostering ?). True OS maps provided a cartographic view of the landscape, and our GISs can and should provide a more sophisticated, dynamic view of the landscape. But individualistic views are not necessarily more accessible intellectually or understandable (just have a look at old Russian excavation reports where the idiosyncratic symbologies are incredibly difficult to make sense of). Why should we throw out the baby of understanding with the cold bathwater of cartography ?
Cheers,
Neil
|