I follow the approach that I'm making models, like bridges, airplanes,
etc. These just happen to be in paper map form rather than
plastic. However, the analogy seems valid because no one would expect to
be able to use a model car, plane, or bridge, we intitively understand
that it is a representation of reality.
Now for the maps you are creating. True they are models of reality, but
they have a characteristic that should be integrated directly in the
legend box which should be inclucded in any map you distribute. It is
very wise to include a few lines explaining various aspects of the source
data, such as the scale at which the original data was collected, how that
scale differs from the map presentation scale and a few other useful bits
of qualitative information. In particular, you should also have a
statement regarding the "reliablity" of the map, If you used statistics
in the development of the final map, how does the map correspond to the
95% confidence intervals. Additionally, how does the data depicted on
the map relate to a spatial confidence zone (does that quality of the
input data vary spatially within a single theme, or across multiple
themes), do you integrate maps of varying spatial resolution?
If you include these statements with the map, you identify all of the
known limitations of the input data, as well as protect yourself by
acknowledging the limitations of the final product. If end users choose
to ignore these declarations, what can you say except that it is easy to
lead a horse to water, but it is much harder to get them to drink.
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 Eeqmc11@... wrote:
> Greetings all - my first post
> After reading the complex problems roaming around this board, I am hesitant
> to post such a question. However, the more I make maps, graphs and charts
> (per GIS, etc.), the more I am struck with the awsome repsonsibility of the
> map (chart, graph, etc.) maker. I find two distinct problems in creation -
> 1) the client rarely understands how many subjective decisions go into each
> product and 2) the client rarely cares. I find then a third problem with the
> intended audience 3) they generally truly believe that the map IS reality,
> not mearly a subjective representation.
> since all models share this same problem (i.e., no matter how complete, the
> model is still a model and is therefore subjected to subjective decision
> making throughout its lifetime), I was wondering if anyone would care to
> comment on the implications.
> Not a very rigorus question, but perhaps some fun!!
> Richard Hammond
> United States Environmental Protection Agency
> *To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@....
> *As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary
> of any useful responses to your questions.
> *To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@... with no subject and
> "unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body.
> DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list!
*To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@....
*As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary
of any useful responses to your questions.
*To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@... with no subject and
"unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body.
DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list!