1. The equator spans 360 decimal degrees.
2. North-South measures 180 decimal degrees.
And no, just because Brazil appears smaller than Alaska, Greenland, and Antarctica on the Mercator projection does not mean that they are larger than Brazil in real-life. Each projection has its difficulties and shows size relative to the projection, and unfortunately not equal to size in real life.
This exercise in map projections has taught me several key lessons about not only map-making, but about map-reading as well. Different projections lead to different scales and sizes, making some land masses appear larger or smaller in perspective. If even I can make a particular territory appear larger or smaller based on the map projection that I choose, then in the hands of a professional map-creation can certainly distort reality in a way to make a particular point.
This really adds on to what we discussed in class, especially when we began to discuss how different colors map certain map attributes jump out. By utilizing color alone, particular elements of a map may jump out at the viewer and create a designed impression that either backs up or rejects a certain assertion.
This is particularly unnerving because like numbers, maps are viewed in the eyes of the general public as something that must be absolutely and positively true. In the same way that statistics can be used to manipulate numbers, GIS can manipulate maps. Prior to this lab, I had no idea that maps could be manipulated in such drastic fashion merely by re-assessing the map projection. Like all things, I hope that this power is used in good faith to create the most accurate and best possible recreations of reality, but I am scared that the technology could easily be manipulated to refocus ideological positions.
*Note: Once again, I pasted each map into their own post, as for some reason my Blogger account has prevented me from posting multiple photos into the same post.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
GCS WGS 1984
On the GCS WGS 1984 map projection, the distance between Washington D.C. and Kabul is 9,891 miles.
Equidistant Cylindrical
The distance between Washington D.C. and Kabul is 4,959 miles under the Equidistant Cylindrical Projection.
Equidistant Conic
The distance between Washington D.C. and Kabul is 7,012 miles under the Equidistant Conic projection.
Cylindrical Equal Area
The distance between Washington D.C. and Kabul is 9,899 miles under the Cylindrical Equal Area Projection.
Aitoff Equal Area Projection
The distance from Washington D.C. to Kabul is 8,503 miles under the Aitoff Equal Area Projection.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Lab 4
This ArcGIS lab has been the most trying lab yet. The program is very detail oriented, and tedious steps are required to make everything go correctly. Missing just one minor detail can throw off the entire map. To add to my personal exasperation, Blogger would not allow me to post more than one image within the same post, so all 5 screen shots of my lab as I progressed throughout the lab are seen in the following 5 posts.
As we only got through a small portion of the lab in class, the majority of this lab was learned by myself on my own. While the tutorial is extremely detailed and very helpful, instead of being a fun exercise in learning new computer software the lab became a tedious exercise with only one goal in mind, completion. Although I have now gone through the tutorial three times, I still find the steps to be a procedural guide and not extremely helpful in understanding the program. Yes, I was able to create the required maps for this particular example and could make these exact maps again, the tutorial provided little comprehensive guide for understanding the program of ArcGIS as a whole. Instead of clicking on buttons because the tutorial said so, I wish that there was explanation provided of what each button did or accomplished, so that I may utilize these skills in making my own maps in the future.
Additionally, the exercise itself of following the tutorial took out the fun part of learning new software: one's own individual creativity. In making your own maps, you get to decide what is important enough to include, what colors to make the various items, what design to use, what symbology to use, what legend to use, how to display different key terms, what to label, what to title, and every other minute detail with your project. This requires individual thinking, creativity, problem-solving--human skills that I have and would love to employ. Rather, this project was just filing through various steps to create a map of a fictional town that I have no connection to and don't get to make any decisions whatsoever. In this scenario, I could have literally done this as a 5th grader and feel that I personally have gained little knowledge from working with this system. Yes, I am slightly more familiar with the program ArcGIS, but I would be much more so if I had just sat and clicked randomly on different items and seen what happened for a half hour (which I ended up doing on my own just so I have an idea of how the program works).
Lastly, I believe that this tedious, minute-detail oriented process offers a lot of valuable information about GIS at large. Yes, it is important to follow procedure, but what makes the process of creating maps fun and useful has to do with individual characteristics of the map-maker, making decisions, and being a person. Details are vital; the smallest details can through off the entire GIS map projection. Learning how to join tables and make graphs is fantastic, I can see the relevance of these skills to future map-making projects. It is about detail, it is about procedure, but most importantly I believe that map-making is a reflection of human knowledge and progress. When we look to the simplicity of the previous empires, we look to the ancient maps and see how much more we know today. GIS is changing the game; now we can access more accurate maps than ever before. When people look back on the maps of today, what will they say about our level of knowledge?
As we only got through a small portion of the lab in class, the majority of this lab was learned by myself on my own. While the tutorial is extremely detailed and very helpful, instead of being a fun exercise in learning new computer software the lab became a tedious exercise with only one goal in mind, completion. Although I have now gone through the tutorial three times, I still find the steps to be a procedural guide and not extremely helpful in understanding the program. Yes, I was able to create the required maps for this particular example and could make these exact maps again, the tutorial provided little comprehensive guide for understanding the program of ArcGIS as a whole. Instead of clicking on buttons because the tutorial said so, I wish that there was explanation provided of what each button did or accomplished, so that I may utilize these skills in making my own maps in the future.
Additionally, the exercise itself of following the tutorial took out the fun part of learning new software: one's own individual creativity. In making your own maps, you get to decide what is important enough to include, what colors to make the various items, what design to use, what symbology to use, what legend to use, how to display different key terms, what to label, what to title, and every other minute detail with your project. This requires individual thinking, creativity, problem-solving--human skills that I have and would love to employ. Rather, this project was just filing through various steps to create a map of a fictional town that I have no connection to and don't get to make any decisions whatsoever. In this scenario, I could have literally done this as a 5th grader and feel that I personally have gained little knowledge from working with this system. Yes, I am slightly more familiar with the program ArcGIS, but I would be much more so if I had just sat and clicked randomly on different items and seen what happened for a half hour (which I ended up doing on my own just so I have an idea of how the program works).
Lastly, I believe that this tedious, minute-detail oriented process offers a lot of valuable information about GIS at large. Yes, it is important to follow procedure, but what makes the process of creating maps fun and useful has to do with individual characteristics of the map-maker, making decisions, and being a person. Details are vital; the smallest details can through off the entire GIS map projection. Learning how to join tables and make graphs is fantastic, I can see the relevance of these skills to future map-making projects. It is about detail, it is about procedure, but most importantly I believe that map-making is a reflection of human knowledge and progress. When we look to the simplicity of the previous empires, we look to the ancient maps and see how much more we know today. GIS is changing the game; now we can access more accurate maps than ever before. When people look back on the maps of today, what will they say about our level of knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)