New Blog Post
Jun. 8th, 2012 08:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I was planning to review MAPHEAD by Ken Jennings today, but I'm not finished it yet, and also the blog post kept getting super long, so I split it into two parts. Today, I talk about the fact that I adore maps, and also what my favourite map is. And, once again, tie the whole thing back to how I met Faith and Laura. :)
You drew me a map, right?
You drew me a map, right?
no subject
Date: 2012-06-08 02:05 pm (UTC)... Have you ever been driving along (in the bus, mostly, for me - which is why I've no GPS), and looked out the window at the line of hills running alongside the road, and realised suddenly that you don't know what's beyond them? That you're not connected to anything, suddenly, there's just this strip of road, this strip of land, between the hills, and it doesn't mean anything, anymore, because it could be anywhere, because it's not connected to anything, because you don't know what's beyond the hills.
And then you look at a map, and it's alright, because now you do. That road means something, that journey means something, everything has context again, it's okay.
... Possibly that's just me. I
needlike to have a highly networked idea of where I am at all times. *shrugs sheepishly* And Ireland has an advantage, I think, because of the OSI Discovery series maps (1:50,000 scale, with everything from coloured height gradation to type-of-road to tourist attraction to key historical monuments to schools/churches, etc, with full country coverage). So. Excellent. Heh.I always have a bizarre sensation of disconnect when someone tries to explain to me why a map is just a bit of paper, how can you get anything from it, the map isn't real. *blinks* I get it, I do, some people see the world differently, a bit of paper doesn't always mean anything, but still. *blinks*
My favourite was during the practical class in 2nd year archaeology, where they were trying to teach us how to read the old series OS maps. The lecturer gave a grid reference for a site of the map, and asked the class what height above sea level it was at. There was one contour line near it, and the map was fairly flat, so you had, in theory, a fifty-fifty chance. The first person that answered picked the wrong one, saying the site was higher than the line.
I suggested it was lower, because of ... well, the nearest spot height on the same side of the contour was on the lower side, and aside from anything else, the site was in a river valley and on the same side of the contour line as the river itself, which would suggest it's lower because, pretty much universally, the river is the lowest point (in cross-section) of a river valley. Um. Duh.
The first person objected, on the grounds that that was cheating (no, really, she said this).
... Because a map is not, apparently, a representation of the ground, no, you're not supposed to use it contextually, you can't, say, use landmarks to get your bearings, no. A map is, apparently, a multiple choice test, and you're supposed to divine answers from the air about it. Whut?
Maps mean things, honey bunny. They are not, in fact, random bits of paper. *shakes head* Oi vey.
And, um. Sorry. Forgive the random rambling -_-; I, um, like maps. Heh.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-08 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-08 09:30 pm (UTC)Sorry. History of geography. And our cartography professor was ... perhaps a little intense. *smiles wryly* Right, usually, but a little intense. Heh.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-08 09:31 pm (UTC)