3 ms·

why nobody has managed to create digital cartography as beautiful as this yet? I mean, ability to pinch zoom into satellite photo of my neighborhood is awesome

by borism 15y ago

why nobody has managed to create digital cartography as beautiful as this yet? I mean, ability to pinch zoom into satellite photo of my neighborhood is awesome and such, but I'd change it any day for beautiful (and correct!) offline cartography like Times Atlas.

patrickaljord 15y ago
> but I'd change it any day for beautiful (and correct!) offline cartography like Times Atlas. Are you implying that offline cartography like Time Atlas do not come with errors? Both online and offline come with tons of errors, the difference is that online maps get corrected faster.
celoyd 15y ago
The kind of information packing that you see in a good map (like the Times Atlas) is nontrivial. Deciding which features to show, how to label them, and how to arrange the labels is a knapsack problem. Plus, it often involves hard-to-quantify local constraints about what’s most important in a given area. (As a trivial example, a pond is a lot more important in the middle of the Sahara than it would be in Bangladesh. There are many more subtle versions of this.) While it’s certainly possible to come up with good algorithms, and outfits like Google Maps and Bing Maps have, maps are judged by esthetics and practical usability as well as quantitative criteria[0], so the best results are likely to be hand-tuned. 0. Maps as opposed to the underlying GIS data, which is easier to judge solely by whether it’s complete, precise, and accurate.
- borism 15y ago
  Yes, but they do it on paper? I mean, even the static scan of paper maps with dynamically resizable labels will often times do better than what we have on screens right now.
  - celoyd 15y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re asking. The Times Atlas design process is mostly digital now, but as far as I know, the flagship products are only available on paper. You can get a basic look at their workflow starting at page 10 here: http://fluidbook.microdesign.nl/geoinformatics/05-2008/ http://fluidbook.microdesign.nl/geoinformatics/05-2008/ . I certainly agree that onscreen mapping could be a lot more sophisticated than it is now without too much strain on even mobile devices’ hardware and connections.
- njharman 15y ago
  I can't remember / find the artcle (proly on HN) that explained how google maps does (some of) the information packing, and visual display/emphasis of what's important.
  - celoyd 15y ago
    I thought I remembered something like that but I couldn’t find it. Since you mentioned it I looked a little further and found http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1311136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1311136 . This links to a page which has rotted away; here’s a Wayback Machine version: http://web.archive.org/web/20101223025250/http://www.41latitude.com/post/557224600/map-comparison http://web.archive.org/web/20101223025250/http://www.41latit... . Thanks for the push!

by borism 15y ago

patrickaljord 15y ago

> but I'd change it any day for beautiful (and correct!) offline cartography like Times Atlas. Are you implying that offline cartography like Time Atlas do not come with errors? Both online and offline come with tons of errors, the difference is that online maps get corrected faster.

celoyd 15y ago

The kind of information packing that you see in a good map (like the Times Atlas) is nontrivial. Deciding which features to show, how to label them, and how to arrange the labels is a knapsack problem. Plus, it often involves hard-to-quantify local constraints about what’s most important in a given area. (As a trivial example, a pond is a lot more important in the middle of the Sahara than it would be in Bangladesh. There are many more subtle versions of this.) While it’s certainly possible to come up with good algorithms, and outfits like Google Maps and Bing Maps have, maps are judged by esthetics and practical usability as well as quantitative criteria[0], so the best results are likely to be hand-tuned. 0. Maps as opposed to the underlying GIS data, which is easier to judge solely by whether it’s complete, precise, and accurate.

borism 15y ago
Yes, but they do it on paper? I mean, even the static scan of paper maps with dynamically resizable labels will often times do better than what we have on screens right now.
- celoyd 15y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re asking. The Times Atlas design process is mostly digital now, but as far as I know, the flagship products are only available on paper. You can get a basic look at their workflow starting at page 10 here: http://fluidbook.microdesign.nl/geoinformatics/05-2008/ http://fluidbook.microdesign.nl/geoinformatics/05-2008/ . I certainly agree that onscreen mapping could be a lot more sophisticated than it is now without too much strain on even mobile devices’ hardware and connections.
njharman 15y ago
I can't remember / find the artcle (proly on HN) that explained how google maps does (some of) the information packing, and visual display/emphasis of what's important.
- celoyd 15y ago
  I thought I remembered something like that but I couldn’t find it. Since you mentioned it I looked a little further and found http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1311136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1311136 . This links to a page which has rotted away; here’s a Wayback Machine version: http://web.archive.org/web/20101223025250/http://www.41latitude.com/post/557224600/map-comparison http://web.archive.org/web/20101223025250/http://www.41latit... . Thanks for the push!