On Representation

I have an old hand-drawn survey map of Thirty Island Lake that I find beautiful. The attention to detail is astonishing. Surface types are painstakingly detailed; landmarks such as boathouses and beaver dams are meticulously labeled; fish spawning areas are identified according to species. I can imagine how much time was spent navigating these waters to transfer such minutiae to a scaled drawing. The author must have been intimately acquainted with this lake and its surrounding environment. In contrast, I also have a digital copy of this same map. It may also be considered beautiful, but I can't help feeling that something is lost in translation.

The debate of paper vs. digital maps has been ongoing in much the same manner as that of books. There are those who claim that digital maps will eliminate their paper counterparts in short years to come, while others adamantly oppose this view. I would argue that the answer shouldn't be one or the other, but rather that each representation is useful in its own right. But what is it about paper maps that digitization cannot replicate or replace?

There is the obvious answer, that of the experience itself. The physicality involved with opening a map and spreading it out before you is a much more tangible experience than loading an image onto your mobile device. Paper maps provide a big picture that simply isn't possible on a screen. Travelers are given somewhat of a dreamscape; tracing routes, noting landmarks, planning adventures. One can see the peculiarities of a landscape, they physical features and invisible boundaries that serve to divide the Earth's surface into physiographic regions and counties and countries. Studying paper maps enforces a connection with place, allows us to orient ourselves within the wider scope of the world. We develop a familiarity with our surroundings before ever leaving our front door.

Digital maps do not allow for this level of connection. Screen sizes impose limitations on view extent so that users may only see a very small portion of their area of interest. Applications such as Google Maps, developed for navigational convenience, are very user-centric; placing the viewer at their current location in the center of the screen without being able to see both their origin and destination at once. This somehow feels lonelier, navigation in isolation, with users often spending more time looking at their screen rather than their surroundings. Familiarity with the landscape is lost, as shown in the results of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Tokyo which found that users on foot with a device stopped more frequently, covered more distance and demonstrated a poorer knowledge of the terrain than those using paper maps (McKinney 2010).

Paper maps are already a representation of the real world. They reflect subjective choices related to scale, symbology, and the importance of some features over others. They are snapshots of the physical and political landscape of a particular place at a particular time, and a critical examination of the circumstances surrounding their creation can reveal much about history and the author him/herself. "A map is not a miniaturized reproduction of the Earth's surface; it is undeniably an abstraction of the Earth, a model which strongly depends on the cartographer's interpretation" (Brovelli, Zamboni, and Arias Muñoz 2014, p. 97). Digital maps, traditionally developed more for convenience than culture, do not exhibit such history simply due to their dynamic nature.

Now, don't get me wrong - digital mapping technologies are AMAZING. Paper maps are necessarily static snapshots in time, while digital mapping applications provide features and functionalities that make it possible to view the world in a new way. Map data is provided as a function of scale, which means that a user will begin to see more detail according to zoom level. This allows for analysis of features at multiple scales. Users can also overlay maps of an area from different times and adjust transparencies to view changes in the landscape over time. Researchers are able to perform analyses that tell us where and how quickly a fire may spread, or the best location for a new business, or the migratory patterns of caribou. It is simply incredible what has been made possible through the development of digital mapping technologies; but in no way can digital maps claim to have made paper maps obsolete. Both are representations of the real world; digital maps are often representations of paper maps; and digital mapping technologies often utilize paper maps as starting points for development. These representations are and forever will be inextricably linked. In my mind, the question of one or the other is unnecessary. The answer is that both paper and digital maps are useful in their own right, and both are capable of enriching our experience of the world in very different ways.

References

Brovelli, M.A., Zamboni, G., and Arias Muñoz, C. (2015). "From paper maps to the Digital Earth and the Internet of Places". Geodesy and Geomatics to the Edge, 26 (1): S97-S103. DOI 10.1007/s12210-015-0437-y.

McKinney, J. (2010). Don't Throw Away Your Paper Maps Just Yet. Pacific Standard Magazine. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/don-t-throw-away-your-paper-maps-just-yet-f995ebf69606#.a5cozgesh.