Paper to Print to Screen

The changing landscape of cartography

The other day I stumbled upon a 1956 map of the Greenland ice cap from the National Geographic. I was impressed by its simplicity. It conveys one message but does so incredibly well.

With seismic sounding they were able to measure the underlying land mass below the icecap. It highlights how the shear weight of the ice has caused the country itself to sink below that of sea level, contrasting the uplift seen my many other countries since the ice age.

Naturally, as technology has changed over the years cartography has changed with it. This map of Greenland comes at the interchange between an entirely paper map and one that went on to be printed in a magazine.

With recent developments we can view similar maps entirely within a browser in 3D. I wanted to take open data and recreate the map I’d seen on Twitter. Below is my quick attempt to bring together the successes and challenges from the map creation.

Overall, it was incredibly promising that I didn’t need to search for a long time in order to add the data directly into a 3D scene such as this and there was even a grey DEM which I could use as a basemap. However, I think most people would agree that it’s not as pleasing on the eye as the National Geographic version. I reckon it goes to show where we are in cartography and potentially the final steps needed to make 3D cartography suitable for wider consumption.

Firstly, we need a way of making 3D components less harsh through symbology. Secondly, and in addition to above, we need the ability to correctly place text and labels around the map without having to export the 3D elements and adding on the labels later. Finally, a simpler and more convenient way of sharing a static 3D scene published entirely from the web.

Below are some of my thoughts on the good and bad of both maps:

3D Scene

• The whole map took around 45 minutes to create and most of that time was finding the data layers themselves and then decluttering the labels. (I didn’t manage a great job of this)
• Being a 3D scene you can fully witness the curvature of the globe.
• There are too many labels… (I blame this on the open place gazetteer I decided to use)
• The text in the ocean which was part of the article is not just hard to read but doesn’t look particularly enthralling.
• The 3D icecap element doesn’t look real… although arguably it has more of a visual impact drawing the attention of someone looking at the map.
• In a scene countries more closely resemble their correct shape.

The Original

• It feels friendly and it emphasises the care and attention to detail that was put into the study.
• Despite being 2D the icecap is much more pleasing on the eye.
• There are fewer contour lines and potentially inaccuracies in the data for visual effect.

Data

• Living Atlas — Lat/Long, Greenland Coastline, 2014 Global Relief (Grey)
• The icecap is visualised from the Arctic Important Areas dataset on ArcGIS Online
• Place names — Greenland Gazetteer

Twitter is the place to tell me how this doesn’t look at all appealing. Twitter — @RobACollins.

The above article contains all my own views, not that of friends, family or my work. The map layers were all available within the Esri Living Atlas or available as public Open Data.