A few types of map exaggeration:
- Area features with thick outlines
- Points, if you were to measure them at the scale of the map, that are much larger than the thing they represent
- Raster grid cells that represent points, where the points are smaller than the grid cells
- Vertical height multiplied by a factor of two or more on 3D maps
Mapping a large geographic area with a few small, spread out area features in it, is a prime reason to use map exaggeration techniques. In order to allow them to “pop” or have the right amount visual heft in comparison to a large surrounding empty space, it’ll be imperative to exaggerate their size in comparison to the other features. If you have 4 golf courses delineated that you want to show within a large county, they won’t be very visible unless you utilize exaggeration. Similarly, a 3D map of road steepness over a large geographic area may not adequately emphasize the hilliest areas unless the entire elevation surface is exaggerated.
In these cases, it is necessary that a note be made on the map to the effect of, “Golf course areas are not to scale,” for example. If the map could easily be misinterpreted and the audience will only be giving it a quick glance, then this note needs to be front-and-center. Otherwise it can reside in a less conspicuous location.
One instance when it is not absolutely necessary to state this caveat is when using map points to represent points on the landscape. Casual map readers and experts alike understand that small dots on a map are general location visualization devices and not to scale, therefore there is no need to explicitly state it. (In some cases, however, in maps such as the famous – infamous? – space-junk map, it would be wise to mention it.)
There is no one who does not exaggerate! ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Recent Comments