THE METHODS OF MAP REPRESENTATION
AS A MAP SYNTACTIC TYPES
Ján Pravda
Institute of Geography, Slovak Academy of Sciences
Štefánikova 49, 814 73 Bratislava, e-mail: geogprav@savba.sk
He was born in 1934 in Slovakia. In 1960 he graduated from Technical
University of Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography as cartographic
engineer. At first he worked as a technical map editor in cartographic enterprise,
afterward as a scientific worker in Institute of Geography (Slovak Academy of
Sciences) in Bratislava. In 1975 he defended the thesis as the doctor of technical
sciences, and in 1993 as the doctor of geographic sciences. He participated in
creation and edition the greatest cartografic works in Slovakia: The National
atlas of Slovakia (1980) and The Ethnographic atlas of Slovakia (1990). Both
atlasses has been awarded The National Prizes of Slovakia. Sphere of his
professional interest is: map language, map cognition, map semiotics, map
representation, map making, map editing etc.
Resume
The methods (forms, kinds) of map representation, distinguished up to now in cartography, are
classified on the basis of empirical knowledge. They correspond to the contemporary state of
knowledge in cartography neither in view of the contents nor in view of the termonology. That part
of cartography can be adequately substituted by map syntactic types (with subtypes, variants and
subvariants). Although map syntactic types are distinguished in framework of linguistic conception
of a map and from aspect of typifying syntax, their significance is greater. Map syntactic types,
subtypes, variants and subvariants they are not only a contribution to the map theory, but they are
also the etalons (paradigms) for testing the commercial computer programmes and their graphical
possibilities for map processing.
Metody kartograficheskogo izobrazhenia
rassmatrivaemye kak kartograficheskie sintaksicheskie tipy
Reziume
Metody (formy, sposoby) kartograficheskogo izobrazhenia vydelialis do sih por na osnove
epiricheskikh znanij. Oni uzhe ne sootvetstvuiut sovremennomu sostoianiu znanij v kartografii ni s
soderzhateľnogo, ni s terminlogicheskogo aspektov. Vmesto nih mozhno adekvatno ispoľzovať
kartografičeskie sintaktičeskie tipy podrazdeliaemye na subtipy, varianty i subvarianty. Nesmotria
na to, chto kartograficheskie sintaksicheskie tipy vydeleny v ramkakh koncepcii jazyka karty, a
imenno s pozicij tipizacionnogo sintaksisa, ikh znachenie vykhodit za ramki etoj koncepcii.
Kartograficheskie sintaksicheskie tipy, subtipy, varianty i subvarianty iavliaiutsia ne toľko vkladom
v teoriu karty, no ikh mozhno ispoľzovať v kachestve etalonov (paradigm) v celiakh proverki
kommercheskikh kompiuternykh programm i ikh graficheskih sposobnostej v processe sozdania
kart.
Introduction
In the structure of the theoretical cartographic knowledge five methodological areas were
discerned with relative unanimity:
– methods of cartographic projection,
– methods of cartographic generalization,
– methods of map processing including map reproduction,
– cartometric methods and
– methods of map (cartographic) representation.
While considerable agreement in the first areas was reached among cartographers in terms of
their denomination and contents also at the international level, the same cannot be said about the
fifth area: cartographic representation.
The paper deals with the drawbacks of the views on map representation and simultaneously
points at the existence of map syntactic types, which substituted the ways (methods) of map
representation. Attention is also paid to the role of the map syntactic types as test criteria of the
complexity of computer softwares designed for creation of maps.
The existing classification of map representation methods
This part of cartography is known as cartographic expression (Slovak Standard STN 73 0401) or
as methods of cartographic interpretation (Salishchev 1982). In USA the denominations map
representation (Raisz 1948) and map symbolization (Robinson et al.1978) are used, in Great Britain
they are map representation and map design (Keates 1978), in France they are représentation
cartographique (Meinen et al 1973) in Spain it is representación cartográfica (Menen et al 1973),
in Austria, Switzerland and Germany they are Methodenlehre der kartographischen
Ausdruckformen (Arnberger 1966) and kartographische Darstellungsmethoden (Witt 1979), in
Poland they are metodyka kartograficzna (Ratajski 1973) and in Russia the terms sposoby
kartograficheskogo izobrazheniya (Salishchev 1982) are used.
In the framework of methodology of the map expression the following methods are recognized:
method of figural signs (or figural sign map), dot method (or dot map), method of line signs (of line
sign map), lines movement method (or lines movement map), qualitative method (or qualitative
map symbols, lines and areas), quantitative method (or quantitative map symbols, lines, areas
including choropleth map, dasymetric map, diagram map, and isopleth map) while the map
representation of relief concerns hachuring method (or hachuring map) shading method (or map
with shading of relief), hypsometric method (or hypsometric map), physiographic method (or
physiographic map), panoramatic method (or panoramatic map) and some other.
This classification of map expressing methods originated on the basis of progressive
generalization of experience. Initially (in the 1950´s to 1970´s), it contributed to the theory of
cartography but it is not adequate at the present time because of numerous drawbacks such as
empiricity, incapacity of adaptation to new knowledge, and ambiguity above all.
The drawbacks of classification of the map representation methods
The classification of the methods of map representation used in the eastern European countries
was first produced by N. N. Baranskyi (1956) who prepared it with the purpose of discerning the
thematic maps by the methods of their compilation and generalization. Baranskyi used the terms dot
map, sign map, map of close lines, chorochromatic map, isopleth map, lines movement map, etc. It
was the classification, which responded to the differentiation used in the western European
countries, and in USA. Numerous cartographers adopted the Baranskyi s classification including K.
A. Salishchev (1982) who tried to change the terminology and replaced the term method by sposob
kartograficheskogo izobrazhenia (mode, way of cartographic representation) as he was convinced
2
that the term method can be used in cartography only in case of such important procedures as
cartographic generalization and cartographic projection.
However, classification terminology used by Salishchev was also insufficiently flexible to
absorb the changes brought about by the methodological and technological progress in map
processing. For instance, the term map symbol (map sign, map mark) was also used in case of
conventional (non-associative) sign. It was long before the map sign was linked with the category of
designation in philosophy (in theory of cognition above all), in logic and semiology (semiotics),
which was constituted as the general theory of signs and sign systems. Another terminological
drawback was the considerably spread use of terms denoting the kind of map (dot map, symbol
map, area map, choropleth map, isopleth map, etc.), which was empiric, non-scientific, nontheoretical compared with differentiation of the methods used for compilation of these map.
Besides, for example, the term dot map was used for the maps, which instead of full dot (full point)
also used other forms like the empty circle, square, triangle and the like. These maps should be
more correctly referred to as a density-representing map (and the density-representing method)
though no cartographer was as brave as to do so, also because such maps were not made by
cartographers in the majority of cases but by statisticians, geographers and others, who have applied
empirical approach (often incorrectly and inadequately)
Differentiation of kinds of maps according to the methodology of the expression mean used
collided with the differentiation according to the approach to their compilation, for instance with
differentiation of analytical, complex and synthetic maps with differentiation of quantitative and
qualitative methods especially in case of method, which was a combination of qualitative and
quantitative maps, etc. A different approach to the issue of map expression was proposed in 1990 in
the framework of map language conception that is map syntactic types were identified.
Map syntactic types and their classification
Map syntactic types stem from the theory of map language. The map language (Pravda 1990 and
1997) contains four levels: map signics (the vocabulary of map language), the morphographics of
map sign (the creation of map signs), map syntactics (syntax of map signs), and map stylistics
(knowledge about map styles).
Four classes have been discerned within the map syntactics: typifying, componentional,
stratigraphic, and compositional.
In relation to the method of map expression the typifying syntactics involved in differentiation of
map syntactic types interpreted as models (standards, etalons, paradigms) of composition of the
map signs, that is implementation of signs into the topographic base of map or in the map face.
Such interpretation of the map syntactic type is very close to the interpretation of the method of
map representation and they are almost identical at the application level.
The individual map syntactic types were identified by the following typifying criteria (the
formalized marking and abbreviations are from Latin):
SF – figural sign,
SL – linear sign,
SAD – discrete areal sign,
SAC – continuous areal sign (surface),
Q – qualitative,
M – quantitative (multitudional),
Dens – density,
Diagr – diagrammatic,
Curs – directional,
Int – intensity,
Isogr – isogradational,
Anam – anamorphous.
3
Classification with 11 map syntactic types (fig. 1) originated according to these criteria better
express in formalized form than by words:
1. SF(Q) - type of qualitative figural signs,
2. SF(M,Dens) - type of quantitative figural signs (density type),
3. SF(M,Diagr) - type of quantitative diagrammatic sign (diagrammatic type),
4. SL(Q) - type of quantitative linear signs,
5. SL(Q-M,Curs) - type of qualitative–quantitative directional signs,
6. SL(M,Diagr) - type of quantitative linear (diagrammatic) signs,
7. SAD(Q) - type of qualitative discrete areas,
8. SAD(M,Int) - type of quantitative discrete areas – cartogram,
9. SAD(M,Diagr) - type of quantitative discrete areas with diagrams – cartodiagram,
10. SAC(M,Isogr) - type of quantitative continuous (isogradational) areas (or surfaces),
11. SF,L,AD,AC(Anam) - anamorphous type.
Designation SF(Q) or SF(M,Dens) is a formalized abbreviation of map syntactic type.
Fig. 1. Map syntactic types
4
If additional typifying criteria are chosen in the framework of each map syntactic type, subtypes,
variants and subvariants of map syntactic type can be discerned. However, all hierarchic levels
cannot be identified. In types 1-6, 10 and 11 only subtypes and variants can be identified but in the
types 7, 8, and 9 subtypes, variants and subvariants can be identified.
Fig. 2 illustrates the topographic subtype 7.1 SAD(Q,Top) of syntactic type 7 SAD(Q), which
breaks further into at least 3 variants according to the criteria:
Plen – areas filling the whole map face or interest territory,
Sep – separated areas,
Cum – cumulative areas.
Fig. 2. Map syntactic subtype 7.1 and its delimitation.
Eventually at least 6 subvariants of criteria were identified:
Color – colour signs,
Descr – areas with patterns and texture,
Nom – named areas,
Alphanum – areas marked with letters, numbers,
Sign – areas marked with signs,
Praetex – areas with fringe.
Fig. 3 illustrates the variant 7.1.1 and its division to subvariants.
One of the especially interesting elements of the map is the georelief, the map expression of
which requires specific approaches. Fig. 4 illustrates the division of the map syntactic types
S(Relief) to subtypes by the criteria:
Physiogr – physiographic representation,
DecLin – hachuring,
Ton – black-and-white shading,
TonColor – color shading,
Alt – altitudes,
Isohyps – contour lines, isohypses,
IsohypsLux – illuminated or shaded contour lines,
Scelet – skeleton lines, skeleton of relief.
5
Fig. 3. Map syntactic variant 7.1.1 and its delimitation.
The illustrations show that classification of map syntactic types is open as it makes possible to
include more subtypes, variants and subvariants (advantage as the development continues). Such
theoretical differentiation of the ways of map expression allows for classification of more than 100
different ways (types, subtypes, variants and subvariants) of map expression which agrees with
practical situation.
Conclusion
Map syntactic types (subtypes, variants and subvariants) originated in the language conception of
map, as logically supported. It is an important piece of knowledge and its contribution is in two
areas:
– the area of map theory (meta-cartography) as the map syntactic types replace the issue of
methods of map representation, which was not acceptable both with its content and terminology,
– in the area of testing the possibilities of commercial computer programmes used as GIS tools
(first experiments for MapInfo and TopoL have been made (6) as it is known that the majority of
softwares has been developed by analysts-programmers, and not by cartographers or geographers
who need them most (the software which is able to process all types, subtypes, variants and
subvariants of map syntactic types is still missing).
Acknowledgement
This paper is a part of scientific project 2/1037/21 „Landscape mapping and assessment by
application of the remote sensing and geographic information system methods“, supported by the
VEGA Grant Agency
6
Fig. 4. Map syntactic tyoe of relief and its delimitation to subtypes
References – Bibliography
ARNBERGER, E. (1966). Handbuch der thematischen Kartographie. Wien, F. Deuticke. 554 p.
BARANSKIJ, N. N. (1956). Ekonomicheskaia geographia. Ekonomicheskaia cartographia. (The
economic geography and economic cartohraphy). Moskva, Gos. izdat. geogr. lit. 366 p.
KEATES, J. S. (1978). Cartographic Design and Production. 2. ed. London, Longman. 240 p.
MEINEN, E. (1973). Multilingual Dictionary of Technical Terms in Cartography. Wiesbaden, F.
Steiner Verlag. 568 p.
PRAVDA, J. (1990). Základy koncepcie mapového jazyka. (Foundations of conception of map
language). Geografický ústav SAV 1990. 168 p.
PRAVDA, J. (1997). Mapový jazyk (Map language). Bratislava, Univeryita Komenského. 88 p.
RAISZ, E.: General Cartography. N. York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1948. 354 p.
RATAJSKI, L.: Metodyka kartografii spoleczno-gospodarczej. Warszawa, PPWK 1973. 380 p.
7
ROBINSON, A, H., SALE, R., MORRISON, J. L. (1978). Elements of Cartography. 4. ed., N.
York, J. Wiley and Sons. 448 p.
SALISHCHEV, K. A. (1982). Kartovedenie. 2. ed. Moskva, Izdateľstvo MU. 406 p.
Slovak Standard STN 73 0401. (1989). Terminológia v geodézii a kartografii (Terminology in
geodesy and cartography).
WITT, W. (1979). Lexikon der Kartographie. Wien, F. Deuticke. 707 p.
8