I am curious to hear what others think of the current change in meaning and
usage of the term 'roadmap', as instigated by the current American
administration.
Myself, I find it profoundly irritating. A map is not a route. If someone
wants to know how to get to e.g. London to Leeds, I would imagine they would
not fork out a penny on a map which only showed one road. A map is a
considered graphic representation of what is on the ground, not a hasty
political proposition of what may be in the future. The rapidity with which
the map-users of the Middle East roadmap have got lost is an indication of
its utility. The political use of the term 'roadmap' implies progression,
and, in my opinion, plays on the (mis-)perception of 'truth' and authority
that maps are sometimes imbued with. The cartographic use of the word
indicates a laying out of all relevant available material in order for the
user to travel by road, using his own skill.
I would not normally play pedant, but last week I heard the word 'roadmap'
used in a presentation in my workplace, and I now worry where it will all
end. Surely we should defend our cartographic language!
And if anyone can tell me how big a god or goddess is, then I can start to
contemplate thinking of 1:1 mapping. Swedish for 'leg' is 'ben'; perhaps
evidence of the Vikings having been in Benin?
Karin
Karin Cheetham
Flat Earth Maps UK
_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
|