Hexagons are for squares
I came across this NPR article on using hexagons for tile maps recently. These types of maps, where states are abstracted to an equal-sized shape have been all the rage this past year, featured on NYT, FiveThirtyEight, and the like.
They’re great and useful for a lot of things! Consider the US Senate, for example. While the House of Representatives is proportional based on population the Senate is not and each state gets equal representation. It’s in cases like this where factors such as land area or population don’t matter that we should use tile maps.
And, of course, it doesn’t have to be states. I’ve used this for Boston neighborhoods, for instance, or for states in India. It’s a simple, handy method. Though, I will say one thing to keep in mind is your audience as some maps may be easier to immediately ‘get’ compared to others. The US has a distinctive shape and has recognizable 2-letter state codes, which is great. Boston neighborhoods, not as easily recognizable.
Anyway, the traditional way this abstraction was done was via squares, but NPR decided that hexagons would provide “greater flexibility in arranging the tiles and a better chance at maintaining as many border adjacencies as possible.”
I agree with the reasoning, but disagree with the benefits: one of the strengths of tile maps is the abstraction, and adding complexity to this abstraction weakens the power of the information laid within. The square tile method already provides enough contextual clues as to which states are which, not to mention the labels that are on the states. The map should be showing the choropleth data, not the spatial relationship of states. I also think that having multiple borders reduces the visual clarity of the shape of the United States… I appreciate Florida hanging off the mainland!
Nathan Yau at FlowingData has a funny take on this as well. And then Evan Henſleigh made this:
