scholarly journals An interactive tool for teaching map projections

Author(s):  
Magnus Heitzler ◽  
Hans-Rudolf Bär ◽  
Roland Schenkel ◽  
Lorenz Hurni

Map projections are one of the fundamental concepts of geographic information science and cartography. An understanding of the different variants and properties is critical when creating maps or carrying out geospatial analyses. To support learning about map projections, we present an online tool that allows to interactively explore the construction process of map projections. A central 3D view shows the three main building blocks for perspective map projections: the globe, the projection surface (cone, cylinder, plane) and the projection center. Interactively adjusting these objects allows to create a multitude of arrangements forming the basis for common map projections. Further insights can be gained by adding supplementary information, such as projection lines and Tissot’s indicatrices. Once all objects have been arranged in a desired way, the projection surface can be unrolled to form the final flat map. Currently, the tool is limited to visualize the construction of true perspective map projections. In the future, prime concerns are to increase the genericity of the application to support more map projections and to integrate it into the GITTA (Geographic Information Technology Training Alliance) platform.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Heitzler ◽  
Hans-Rudolf Bär ◽  
Roland Schenkel ◽  
Lorenz Hurni

Map projections are one of the fundamental concepts of geographic information science and cartography. An understanding of the different variants and properties is critical when creating maps or carrying out geospatial analyses. To support learning about map projections, we present an online tool that allows to interactively explore the construction process of map projections. A central 3D view shows the three main building blocks for perspective map projections: the globe, the projection surface (cone, cylinder, plane) and the projection center. Interactively adjusting these objects allows to create a multitude of arrangements forming the basis for common map projections. Further insights can be gained by adding supplementary information, such as projection lines and Tissot’s indicatrices. Once all objects have been arranged in a desired way, the projection surface can be unrolled to form the final flat map. Currently, the tool is limited to visualize the construction of true perspective map projections. In the future, prime concerns are to increase the genericity of the application to support more map projections and to integrate it into the GITTA (Geographic Information Technology Training Alliance) platform.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 162
Author(s):  
Magnus Heitzler ◽  
Hans-Rudolf Bär ◽  
Roland Schenkel ◽  
Lorenz Hurni

Map projections are one of the foundations of geographic information science and cartography. An understanding of the different projection variants and properties is critical when creating maps or carrying out geospatial analyses. The common way of teaching map projections in text books makes use of the light source (or light bulb) metaphor, which draws a comparison between the construction of a map projection and the way light rays travel from the light source to the projection surface. Although conceptually plausible, such explanations were created for the static instructions in textbooks. Modern web technologies may provide a more comprehensive learning experience by allowing the student to interactively explore (in guided or unguided mode) the way map projections can be constructed following the light source metaphor. The implementation of this approach, however, is not trivial as it requires detailed knowledge of map projections and computer graphics. Therefore, this paper describes the underlying computational methods and presents a prototype as an example of how this concept can be applied in practice. The prototype will be integrated into the Geographic Information Technology Training Alliance (GITTA) platform to complement the lesson on map projections.


Author(s):  
Mark Monmonier ◽  
Robert B. McMaster

Summarizing a decade of cartographic research in a short chapter is difficult: bias is inevitable, randomness is indefensible, breadth is tricky, and coherence is essential. Rather than attempt a broad, shallow survey, we chose to focus on some of the period’s significant conceptual frameworks, and relate each model to one or more related research papers published since A. Jon Kimerling (1989) summarized cartographic research for the first volume of Geography in America. This has been a transition period in which the discipline has witnessed several significant changes, including: (1) the nearly complete automation of the cartographic process and a proliferation of maps produced by desktop mapping systems and GISs; (2) the inclusion of significant amounts of core cartographic research—such as terrain modeling, geographic data structures, generalization, and interpolation—within the growing discipline of GIS; and (3) the wide adoption of the term “geographic visualization” to describe the dynamic, interactive component of cartography. These developments and the migration of more and more cartographic interests into the newly created discipline of GIS have raised concern about whether our discipline would survive. These doubts are offset by growing recognition that research and education on representational issues in GIS is critical, and that research in map design, symbolization, and generalization cannot be neglected. Cartography remains an independent discipline. Our two journals, Cartography and Geographic Information Science (recently renamed with Science replacing Systems) and Cartographic Perspectives, are thriving. American cartographic researchers also publish their work in Cartographica, GeoInfo Systems, GIS World, and the International Journal of Geographic Information Science. The Mapping Science Committee of the National Academy of Sciences and the recently formed Committee on Geography represent our interests at the national level, as do the Cartography and Geographic Information Society (a member organization of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping), the North American Cartographic Information Society, the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, and the AAG’s Cartography Specialty Group. During the decade our educators, researchers, and essayists have published many textbooks and monographs, including the sixth edition of Elements of Cartography (Robinson et al. 1995); several new editions of Borden Dent’s Cartography: Thematic Map Design (most recently 1999); Terry Slocum’s Thematic Cartography and Visualization (1999); John Snyder’s (1993) seminal work on projections, Flattening the Earth: Two Thousand Years of Map Projections; Alan MacEachren’s How Maps Work (1995); Denis Wood’s (1992) social critique of cartography, The Power of Maps; and a series of books by Mark Monmonier, including Maps with the News: The Development of American Journalistic Cartography (1989b), How to Lie with Maps (1991, rev. 1996), Mapping it Out: Expository Cartography for the Humanities and Social Sciences (1993), Drawing the Line: Tales of Maps and Cartocontroversy (1995), Cartographies of Danger: Mapping Hazards in America (1997), and Air Apparent: How Meteorologists Learned to Map, Predict, and Dramatize the Weather (1999).


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Merschdorf ◽  
Thomas Blaschke

Although place-based investigations into human phenomena have been widely conducted in the social sciences over the last decades, this notion has only recently transgressed into Geographic Information Science (GIScience). Such a place-based GIS comprises research from computational place modeling on one end of the spectrum, to purely theoretical discussions on the other end. Central to all research that is concerned with place-based GIS is the notion of placing the individual at the center of the investigation, in order to assess human-environment relationships. This requires the formalization of place, which poses a number of challenges. The first challenge is unambiguously defining place, to subsequently be able to translate it into binary code, which computers and geographic information systems can handle. This formalization poses the next challenge, due to the inherent vagueness and subjectivity of human data. The last challenge is ensuring the transferability of results, requiring large samples of subjective data. In this paper, we re-examine the meaning of place in GIScience from a 2018 perspective, determine what is special about place, and how place is handled both in GIScience and in neighboring disciplines. We, therefore, adopt the view that space is a purely geographic notion, reflecting the dimensions of height, depth, and width in which all things occur and move, while place reflects the subjective human perception of segments of space based on context and experience. Our main research questions are whether place is or should be a significant (sub)topic in GIScience, whether it can be adequately addressed and handled with established GIScience methods, and, if not, which other disciplines must be considered to sufficiently account for place-based analyses. Our aim is to conflate findings from a vast and dynamic field in an attempt to position place-based GIS within the broader framework of GIScience.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document