GEOG 205: PRINCIPLES OF CARTOGRAPHY

LECTURE 2
The Map as a Commun !a" on s#s"em
SUMMARIES

The Mo$e% o& Commun !a" on

Communication is basic in all forms of human interaction. In its simplest form, Singh (1966) identifies the following elements as comprising a typical communication system or networ ! Source ! "essage Con#eys the message $ecei#es the message

Channel ! $ecipient !

%he most common form of communication is through the medium of language which can be in the form of speech (spo en word) or te&t (written). 'ther e&amples include music, art, smo e and light signals. (ust as most writing assumes a reader' map ma ing assumes a map reader and recipient that is a #iewer to whom the map will be e&pected to con#ey information.
F (u)e 2*+ , a()am o& a -as ! !ommun !a" on s#s"em

SOURCE

CHANNEL

RECIEVER

Source! $obinson et al (19)*) Citing e#eryday language as an illustration, a spea ing person may be regarded as the source, the #oice mechanism will be the encoder, the sound

wa#es generated will be the channel and the ear+brain capabilities of the listener will be the decoder which transforms the sound bac into thoughts. ,igure -.- .iagram of the Cartographic Communication system Signal

Source

Encoder

Channel

Decoder

Recipient

Source! $obinson et al (19)*) /hist the spea er originates a message in the e&act order as it was spo en, the recei#er is of course still free to draw his own personal conclusions or ma e his interpretation of the presented information. "uch the same can be said of other forms of interaction e. g. written language, music, art and acting. 0 primary condition in language communication is that the language or message is understood, including its grammar.

Commun !a" on n Ca)"o()aph#

%he role of the cartographer is to create a depiction or picture of the world that coincides with some part of the map users reality, e.g. a topographic map or a tourist map. %he ob1ecti#e of this is to show that a person who is unfamiliar with the area can still understand the landscape features being portrayed by the cartographer. ,igure -.2! %he cartographic communication system .

REAL WORLD

CARTOGRAPHERS CONCEPTION

MAP

RECIPIENT

Source! $obinson et al (1993) ,igure - .*! .iagram of the Cartographic Communication system

E%emen"s o& a !a)"o()aph ! mo$e% Source is the real world and the cartographic concept of it, for e&ample water, traffic congestion, population distribution and floods. Encoder or encoding mechanism is the synthesis of graphics on the map. Signal is the -+dimensional graphic pattern created by the symbols. It consists of the light rays which ma es the message #isible. In speech or language, it is the #oice mechanism ta ing the thoughts of the source and transforming them into sound wa#es Decoder is the eye or mind mechanism of the recipient. In language it is the hearing mechanism of the listener transforming the sound wa#es bac into thoughts. %he map is the coded message from the source %he channel is mapping or cartographic space %he receiver, decoder and destination are the eyes and mind of the percipient.

%he function of the encoder is to impro#e the efficiency of the system. ,or e&ample the #oice mechanism, as the thought of or the source are identified and transmitted into sound or light wa#es. %he decoder is the hearing mechanism of the listener which transmits the sound wa#es bac into thoughts. In its interpretation, therefore, the model as illustrated in ,igures -.2 and -.* simply e&amines a gi#en message which may emanate from the earth or a communication ob1ecti#e of the cartographer. It is howe#er, #ery often difficult to relate the model in practical cartographic situations. In the cartographic system, the real world is the source, the encoding mechanism is the symbolism of the map, and the signal is the two+dimensional graphic pattern created by the symbols ma ing up the map, the signals consist

of the light rays transmitted through the channel space to the decoder which is the eye+mind mechanism of the percipient map user.

Mo$e%s o& Ca)"o()aph ! Commun !a" on

Se#eral authors ha#e described cartographic communication process in #arying details. 'ne of these models which is often cited is that by 4olacny (196)). %his is illustrated in ,igure -.3

,igure -.3 0 simplified #ersion of 4olacny5s diagram of cartographic communication. (0fter 4olacny 196))

U REALIT(

U# Cartographer& $ realit"

U' Map u$er&$ Realit"

S# Cartographer$ %ind

L Cartographic language

M Map

L Cartographic language

Map U$er&$ Mind

-------------------------------------The Meta Language o! Cartograph" ---------------------------------------------------

Source! "ichael 6. 6eterson 1993

)o* +'+# Meta Language o! Cartographic Co%%unication

U U1 U' S1 + M S' I% -

Total Reality Reality (Universe re!resente" as seen #y t$e %arto&ra!$er Reality (t$e (niverse as seen #y )a! (se re!resente" as seen #y t$e %arto&ra!$er S(#*e%t re!resentin& reality t$at is t$e Carto&ra!$er Carto&ra!$i% lan&(a&e, sy)#ols, r(les Pro"(%t o- %arto&ra!$y t$at is t$e Ma! Ma! (ser or !er%i!ient Carto&ra!$i% in-or)ation

,igure -.6 shows another illustration of cartographic Communication. %his is 7enn+diagram which relates the conceptions of the map ma er and the map user as to whether these conceptions are either correct or erroneous (see 8o& -.-).

0o1 *2*2 E1p%ana" on "o & e%$s n F (u)e 2*2

S (Sc 9Se)!represents the total geographical en#ironment as percei#ed by man Sc! 6art of the en#ironment correctly percei#ed. %his is also information which is mis+concei#ed as a result of general incorrect conception of the en#ironment in data collection or resulting from the poor graphic symboli:ation of the information Se ; 6art wrongly percei#ed 8! the conception of the en#ironment shared by both cartographer and map user consisting of correct and erroneous part "! 'b1ect of study of part of the en#ironment (") which becomes ob1ect of study by the map user. "1! Information in the map nown to the map user already "-! %hat information content of the map which is newly comprehended by the user "2 ! %hat part of the information in the map not percei#ed by the user. <! 0n increase in the map user5s nowledge as result of the map use, but which was not intended by the cartographer, nor has it been symboli:ed in the map.

No se n "he !a)"o()aph ! !ommun !a" on s#s"em

%he cartographic process is disturbed at certain points in an unplanned way. %his unwanted disturbance is what is nown as Noise. It is anything in the signal or channel that disturbs or interferes with the transmission, such as distracting graphic patterns on the map or poor lighting, which blurs map #isibility. It may be identified in language as= bad #oice, static in radio or in %7 as distortions on the screen. In its direct application to Cartography, 0rthur $obinson and 8arbara $etcheni (19>6) emphasi:e that ? the communication system incorporates complex processes of selection, manipulation and interpretation from both the source (the cartographer) and the final destination (the percipient). 0ccording to them, ?these, along with whatever corresponds to NOISE: the system produces a discrepancy between the real world on the one hand, and the image retrieved (reconstructed or re+de#eloped) by the percipient on the other. art of this difference is due to the personali!ed and, therefore, inevitably disturbed views of reality held by the cartographer and also by the percipient. art is due to the methods of coding the message that is the map made by the cartographer and its decoding by the percipient @. 'ne of the ma1or tas s of the cartographer is therefore how to reduce the discrepancy. 0s a starting point, we must reali:e that the map ma er and the percipient are not independent of each other. 0n increase in the efficiency of the system depends upon an acti#e feedbac mechanism from the decoding percipient here through to the encoding map ma ing phase. It is a process+response mechanism in which the blame for a poor Auality map or a goodBe&cellent Auality map must be borneBshared eAually by both the map ma er (cartographer) and the percipient (map user).

Fee$-a!3 Me!han sm n "he !a)"o()aph ! !ommun !a" on S#s"em

Successful cartographic communication is more than deciphering and understanding indi#idual symbols. It is also the full understanding of graphical relationships and of spatial distributions. %his is easily achie#ed through feedbac or interacti#e mechanisms. ,igure -.>a illustrates the situation in which the map user must ad1ust to the depiction of the world that is created by the cartographer= the cartographer controls the communication process. ,igure -.>a! ,eedbac mechanism with emphasis on the cartographer REALIT(
Cartographer&$ Realit" Map U$er&$ Realit"

Cartographer&$ Mind

Cartographic A,$traction

Static Map

Recognition

Map U$er&$ Mind

Cartographer

Map U$er

Source! "ichael 6. 6eterson (1993) ,igure -.>b ,eedbac mechanism with feedbac loop

REALIT(

Cartographer&$ Realit"

Map U$er&$ Realit"

Cartographer&$ Mind

A,$traction U$er Inter!ace

Interacti.e Map

Recognition

Map U$er&$ Mind

Source! "ichael 6. 6eterson (1993)

%he model in ,igure -.>b incorporates interaction. In this model the cartographer pro#ides a general map use en#ironment but the map user controls what is depicted and how. It is clear therefore that a cartographic communication process can only be successfully accomplished if the sender (cartographer) produces a signal (the map) which is understood by the recei#er (the map user). Cowe#er, successful cartographic communication is more that deciphering and understanding indi#idual symbols. It is also the full understanding of geographical relationships and of spatial distributions. D&isting nowledge with the map user and the study of the map, may lead to interpretations and to information beyond the content of the map. 'ne of the reAuirements to achie#e such understanding of relationships and spatial distributions is the proper design of symbols by the cartographer to portray information. Eou must remember that symbols design is not 1ust the ability to design and assign different symbols for each sub1ect or ob1ect to appear in the map= it is more importantly, the intellectual process of the design of an harmonious set of symbols that properly portray the type, character and location of the single or grouped elements in the map. 0t the same time, the map portrays the total sub1ect matter (grouped elements) of the map as a well balanced entity between the cartographer and the map user.
5

0lthough the #arious components of the communication system may be Auite different from another element of the system, the fundamental characteristics of all communication systems are familiar. 0s a result, in order to employ any system to the best ad#antage, the attributes of each component must be clearly understood. %herefore, bear in mind that ?unless a map is prepared so that it is comprehensible to the person for whom it is intended, it will not perform its function@. Re6 e7 8ues" ons . . /ith reference to illustrati#e diagrams elaborate on the definition of the map as a communication system 0ccount for F'ISD in the cartographic Communication System. Cow can it be minimi:edG . .istinguish between the cartographerHs reality and the map user5s

reality. /hat accounts for any discrepancies between any such reality

Re&e)en!es: $obinson, 0.C, and 6etcheni , 8.8. (19>6) %he Fature of "aps! Dssays toward understanding maps and mapping. <ni#ersity of Chicago 6ress (Chapter -= "he map as a #ommunication $ystem) 6eterson ".6. 1993, Interacti#e and 0nimated Cartography, 6rentice Call, Dnglewood Cliffs, Few (ersey. $obinson, 0. C., (. "orrison, 6. C. "uehrc e 0. (on 4imerling and S. C. Iuptil 1993, Dlements of Cartography 6th Ddition, (ohn /iley J Sons, Few Eor *