I am afraid the battle between graphic designer and cartographer is an
ongoing problem for Antarctica - mainly because a) the continent is
continually changing, even on the scale of an Atlas map and b) We are
still improving the mapping, but no longer, I am pleased to say at
scales that would bother an Atlas. The last point is important, though.
Until the 1990s, we were still finding errors of many kilometres - I
remember very well in about 1992 finally getting an authoritative
location for Mount Siple that was 20km from the previously accepted
location! Even now, there are places where I wouldn't bet the acciuracy
was better than a few kilometres.

Why is this a problem for atlases and similar commercially produced
maps? Simply because for all sorts of reasons, they tend to have a stock
map that is reproduced with graphic changes in successive versions of
the Atlas. They have copyright sorted out for this map, and have full
control over what can be done with it. This is fine for most parts of
the world, where the topography does not change on continental scale
maps, and where our knowledge is pretty complete. But it is inadequate
for Antarctica, where neither condition was true as recently as the mid
1990s. In the 1990s, MOST atlas representations of Antarctica were
downright awful, and did not represent current knowledge - or even, in
some cases, knowledge gained since the IGY!. My colleague, Janet
Thomson, wrote a blistering review of Atlas representations of
Antarctica in Cartographic Journal! Since then, the larger Atlas
publishers have taken steps to improve their mapping, I am pleased to
say. Not all, by any means (and I would know; I am the manager of the
data source they would have to use!). But most have. I am afraid there
are still some diabolical maps of Antarctica out there, which rely on
extremely out-of-date mapping, tarted up by a graphic designer, but
thankfully they are declining slowly.

Moral - don't trust a map of Antarctica unless a) You can see the
Antarctic Digital Database (www.add.scar.org) in the credits or b) it is
based on a GOOD satellite image - that is, LIMA (lima.usgs.gov) or RAMP
(www.nsidc.org). And don't trust ANY map of Antarctica that was
published before about 1985; before then we didn't even have a good map
of the main features of Antarctica. 

I presume an Antarctic Peninsular is a member of British Anatrctic
Survey staff who is currently living on the Antarctic Peninsula? If so,
it is nice of them to acknowledge us!

Paul

>>> [log in to unmask] 27 January 2008 21:18 >>>
The Independent on Saturday Magazine of yesterday (London, 26 January
2008 - for those still possibly recovering from Burns Night excesses)
carried its usual page-length column 'The Weasel'.  This time devoted
entirely to a 'puff' for the 12th edition (2007) of The Times
comprehensive atlas of the world.  All relatively harmless and
entertaining reading from the pen (according to the online version) of
Christopher Hirst. But let down by the map - redrawn from the atlas's
Antarctica plate - by an 'artist' (?) whose name I forbear to mention.
Behold a place-name: "The Antarctic Peninsular".  

 

Do we perchance remember (in the UK at least) a mantra from 'New
Labo[u]r' of 'Education, Educashun, Edication'? (Answers, please, to
The
Independent's Reader, who possibly will apologise in the regular
column
set aside for this purpose).

 

Francis Herbert

[log in to unmask] 

 


--  
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only.  NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act.  Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.