Print

Print


Why would showing a lot of water on a map make a country look tiny? If you need, want, and are connected to the ocean, then showing a lot of water on a map makes your country look huge. The point certainly deserves critique and deconstruction, but the Small Island Developing States are aiming to brand themselves as Large Ocean States (compare their land areas to their EEZs).

Alternatively, produce a larger map and learn how to fold it. Or use the map on your phone so that you can alter the scale at will. Or perhaps you want a map of the ocean because you are on a ship.

This is not arguing against boxes per se. It is pointing out the number of possibilities for maps and mapping, to be flexible, creative, and needs-driven--as always, depending on resources and uses. Let's not permit the map to wag the user.

Ilan
Twitter/Instagram @IlanKelman



On Saturday, October 6, 2018, 8:16:20 PM GMT+1, Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Nobody's mentioned the issue of map scale here. The distance from the northern tip of the Orkneys up to the northern tip of the Shetlands is approximately a third of the distance from the northern tip of the Orkneys down to the southernmost point of Scotland. So any map of Scotland that doesn't use a box for the Shetlands is going to be reduced in scale by 33% compared to one that does. I thought a major problem with Africa and the Mercator porjection is that it leads to absurdities like Africa looking anbout the same size as Europe and much smaller than Greenland. Do Scots like their country to look tiny on maps?

Dr Hillary J. Shaw
Visiting Fellow - Centre for Urban Research on Austerity
Department of Politics and Public Policy
De Montfort University
LE1 9BH
www.fooddeserts.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Ilan Kelman <[log in to unmask]>
To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Oct 6, 2018 9:06 am
Subject: Re: is this the craziest mapping 'law' yet?

Alaska's coastline length according to NOAA https://coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/states/shorelines.pdf is 33,904 miles = over 54,000 km yet NZ's coastline length according to NZ's government https://teara.govt.nz/en/natural-environment/page-2 is 15,000-18,000 km with the CIA World Factbook giving it as https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html 15,134 km.

"Larger mountain chain" could refer to various parameterisations, but Mont Blanc's peak is just over 4,800 metres above sea level while Aoraki's peak is just over 3,700 metres above sea level. Given the Earth's equatorial bulge and the difference in the two mountains' absolute latitudes, it is possible that Aoraki's peak is farther from the centre of the Earth than Mont Blanc's peak.

Since for many islanders and coastal peoples the sea is more important than the land (as documented by Epeli Hau'ofa amongst many other island studies authors), the UK claims a far larger EEZ than NZ http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/UKNDA%20EEZ%20and%20Territorial%20Seas.pdf although the UK numbers appear to include the UK Overseas Territories whilst the NZ numbers do not appear to include NZ's "self-administering" or "self-governing in free association" territories.

In summary, these metrics are more for games than for being useful and, irrespective, NZ, Shetland, and Svalbard amongst many others deserve their rightful places on maps. Does this preclude boxes? It depends on the purpose of the map, such as the balance between using the land, the water, and the areas in between. Because some people do want, use, and need maps which are mostly open sea.

Ilan 
Twitter/Instagram @IlanKelman


On Friday, October 5, 2018, 10:08:01 PM GMT+1, Chamberlain, Kerry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Careful Hilary, New Zealanders are sensitive about being continually left off maps and want our rightful place in the world recognised.
As one commentator said “For a country that is physically larger than UK, has a population of 4.5 million, more coastline than California, Alaska and Florida combined and a larger mountain chain than the entire European Alps, it’s time for New Zealand to be put back on the map – literally!”
Cheers,
Kerry
 
 
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, 5 October 2018 at 05:53
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: is this the craziest mapping 'law' yet?
 
yes, we really want maps of Scotland, and the Shetlands, that are mostly open sea?
 
And then what about New Zealand (often moved S and W under Australia). Corsica and France? And those pesky London tube maps that make Amersham look only a little bit further from Bank than Notting Hill is?
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45733111
 
Dr Hillary J. Shaw
Visiting Fellow - Centre for Urban Research on Austerity
Department of Politics and Public Policy
De Montfort University
LE1 9BH
www.fooddeserts.org
 

To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM&A=1


To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:


To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM&A=1


To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM&A=1



To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM&A=1