Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 July 2020 and 31 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slug145.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jguiltinan1.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been suggested[edit]

that Map design be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Map design is the most important part of cartography. It is a set of methods that help cartographic designers to convey the info to the map user.



where can i find more scans of old maps 03:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we've got here, as of 28th October 2002, is a section on map projections. So here are a few things we need:

  • A history of cartography
  • A clear explanation of what a map projection is
  • Images would be useful

Can we edit this to either use AD/BC throughout or CE/BCE throughout? I don't know which would be best here EddEdmondson 15:00 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I believe the Wikipedia standard is BC/AD; AD is usually omitted (and is not included in year links). Jorge Stolfi 09:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a lot missing here. Much needs to be added on trends in the explosion of cartography in the 20th century. I've added a section on "general" vs. "thematic" maps, but a nice treatment of thematic cartography is needed. The cartographers section was limited to Germans - I've added some of the great American names. CCampbell-- 22:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BCE as Before Christ Era and AD as Anno Domini are widely used and correct.


B.C. stands for before christ, whereas B.C.E. is a secular twist on that which means before the common era.

J Borkowski 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no maps?[edit]

I am astounded that there isn't a photo or .png with this article. Mabye an early nautical map? Cacophony 04:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

History of Cartography[edit]

Do we need a new separate article about the (history/timeline) of (cartography/cartographers/maps/maps of explorers)? Feydey 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map projections?[edit]

So apparently this article used to be just a list of map projections and then the present content was added. That's fine; it's good content; but what if you do want to know about map projections? Shouldn't there at least be a link to that info? – 11 Jul 2005

Added Map Projection to see Also. It seemed to me that it should be there. -- 19:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map symbols[edit]

Is there a list of common map symbols anywhere on Wikipedia? There's a list of Japanese map symbols, so a more general list might be a good thing to have. AnonMoos 05:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess there should also be some information on mapping standards, labeling, etc. that should go along the the legend (symbols). --Ant 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History additions[edit]

The recent additions to the history section contain obvious clues to a possible cut -n- paste copyvio. I have asked the anon for reference/source info. - Vsmith 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"It is unclear if he ever produced a map of the world according to his specifications, but if he did we have yet to find it."
(next to the picture of Muhammad al-Idrisi's world map)
I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on this, but shouldn't it be "It has yet to be found" instead of "we have yet to find it" as saying "we" would be none neutral? --illumi 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and rephrase then. Better yet, change "but if he did" to "since" or "because" for simplicity. =] //Big Adamsky 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Histoy[edit]

The most recent history section has obvious signs of plagiarism. Such as "in this chapter" and many other numerous signs. Also the page has lost some content such as Stabo and Geogrophika.

This was a part of the honours paper for my BA.

And yes, the page has lost some content about Stabo and Geogrophika because it was a BS.


Extend, kind of[edit]

1. Fishy sounding sentence: Extend of the current maps are always kind of...

2. Fishy also:

For example the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps of the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) are a standard as compared to the 1:50,000 scale
Canadian maps.

3. part of this article should be split out into a seperate place names article.

4. mention about maps being seen as top secret even up till today in many countries. Or yes you can have a map, but no coordinates allowed on the edges.


Western bias?[edit]

Information about historically significant map-making in the greater Persian, Indian, and Chinese regions of influence is completely missing from this article. It would seem reasonable to add some of this material between the Greek and European sub-sections. Thoughts?

Thanks, – Argon233TC @  00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added some Chinese and Islamic content to the new History of Cartography page but more views are needed. HMAccount

Objective Reality?[edit]

I eliminated the term "object reality" from the opening of the article because maps do not necessarily derive from objective reality. The statement, "Spatial data is acquired from measurement and can be stored in a database, from which it can be extracted for a variety of purposes," perfectly describes the map-making process without appealing to objective reality. The measurements that cartographers use aren't necessarily "objective". Objective reality is a philosophical interpretation of the end product, not a premise necessary to derive that product.


The verbiage you removed doesn't claim that reality is objective. It only claims that cartographic theory sets objective reality as an axiom and develops from there. I reverted the edit.

Strebe 08:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you need a citation that shows that all cartographers must use "objective reality" as an axiom. Otherwise such a strong philosophical claim needs to be qualified with "Some cartographers believe ..." or something to that extent. This would also need a citation. However, I stick by my original assertion that the only axioms necessary for cartography are that the world is measurable and those measurements may be represented symbolically for the purposes of storage, retrieval, and interpretation.

Dhskep 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have given you over a week to provide a direct citation, which you have not. I removed the sentence.

Dhskep 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have given me. Well, isn't that magnanimous of you. What exactly does a week have to do with anything? The only reason I reverted your edit is because your comment was fallacious. You're wandering around demanding citations without bothering to supply any of your own, you're setting deadlines, and now you've completely removed the (very long) sentence that you originally only slightly modified. Well, good riddance, I say; that sentence was out of context anyway and the philosophical nuances were unrelated to the topic.

Strebe 23:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... I like the world is measurable... and have added that bit. Please note that there are no references given specifically for anything in the intro - although many of the refs listed likely apply. Is that a reason to simply delete the whole intro? Vsmith 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strebe - Sorry if that came off a bit arrogant, but the fact is I could have just removed it on the spot. I didn't wan to start an edit war. So I gave you over a week because I felt that was an appropriate amount of time to allow you to find whatever source you felt justified the sentence. Furthermore, my original point is that it is NOT a self-evident axiom. In that case, it is either an uncited opinion or original research, neither of which are tolerable. Also, how can I supply a citation to a challenge of a word? If you are going to assert a point, then you have the burden of proof. If, however, I wrote in the article that "objective reality" was in dispute, then and only then would I have the burden of proof. Finally, my first modification was minimal to be polite. My second modification was complete removal because the sentence was unnecessary and out of place in addition to being unsupported.

Vsmith - Of course, I don't think that all uncited sentences should be removed ... yet. The point is, we need to be striving to cite everything. The best articles on Wikipedia do. I, personally, found the sentence in question to be the most egregious because it mentions fundamental axioms. I think the new sentence is much more appropriate. However, since it is an axiom, we should try and cite it.

Dhskep 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it is an axiom - if I drew a map of the world far enough back in history and wrote 'here be dragons' I would not be trying to provide objective reality, or if I tried to make my country look more important and imposing to intimidate rivals or impress the king, that would not be striving for objective reality. But the map itself would still fit with this description 'Spatial data is acquired from measurement and can be stored in a database, from which it can be extracted for a variety of purposes'. The variety of purpose in this case being to impress the king and to hide my ignorance. EdwardLane (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statement was not that maps are objective or that they portray reality objectively; the statement was that the enterprise of mapping assumes there is an objective reality to map. Strebe (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map date incorrect[edit]

There is no way that the map "Mercator world map Nova et Aucta Orbis Terrae Descriptio ad Usum Navigatium Emendate", shown in the Europe section, is from 1569. North America was just being discovered, and this kind of detail would not be possible. Also, note that the Baja California is considered a peninsula. Many cartographers believed this to be an island for much of the 16th century and beyond. Also, note that Antartica is displayed in near-perfection in the bottom left corner. Yes, they did believe there was an antarctica, but nobody actually even SAW Antarctica until the 19th century, so how could any cartographer in the 16th century have such a good idea of what it looks like?

The source page's detailed picture [1] gives the datum as 1569. Antarctica is just a guess by the cartographers of that era (and not even a good one). See Francisco de Ulloa for the discovery of Baja California peninsula in 1539. See also [2] for a simpler version of the mercator map from the same year with the date also clearly visible. Hope this validates the year. feydey 19:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no controversy over the date of the map. There are dozens of world maps from the period with similar detail. North America had been undergoing European exploration for 75 years by that time with very competitive motivations. Coastlines are the first to get explored. The myth of the island of California did not gain currency until later – about 1650; before that it was invariably shown as a peninsula. Antarctica's shape is nowhere near "perfection", but even more importantly, it's shown many times larger than reality. The Terra Australis myth derives from medieval cosmology requiring the hemispheres to be balanced in land extent. Since no Europeans (or much of anyone, for that matter) had ever visited the area, it was easy to draw what "must" logically be there. Strebe 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New History of Cartography page[edit]

I've created a new page called History of Cartography and moved the history section from this page over there. HMAccount 23:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article linked to in the header sure could use more content. Any offers :) Stefán Ingi 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictorial maps[edit]

I added a link in "See Also" to a new page I just created on the subject of pictorial maps.

Magnetic storage[edit]

It's not just magnetic storage anymore. Electronic data used to be stored only on magnetic media - like hard disks - but the range of storage devices now includes a lot of non-magnetic media.

Naming conventions[edit]

This section was not really about cartography but rather on placename etymology and toponymy. The anecdotes about explorers asking natives "in a loud voice" about a placename are not about making maps. The fact that places on the coast of Brazil are often named after saints also seems to have little to do with making maps. Those things are better suited for the toponymy page. I wanted to keep the story about Nome, Alaska, except correcting it to being a map reading error – was "Name?" on a survey chart for a cape with no name, which was misread as Nome and labeled as Cape Nome on later maps – I even have a reference for that! But alas, it too doesn't really belong on this page but perhaps over on toponymy or placename etymology. So I kept little or none of the original text – sorry to whoever wrote it! Instead I tried to write a bit about the issues of labeling places on maps that cartographers actually face. Although most of what I wrote is (or should be) common knowledge, I still added a reference, since I used it as a guide for writing this bit. Its an appendix in one of Rand NcNally's better atlases. The atlas is one of my favorites but seems to be out of print. I tried to add an ISBN number to the citation, but the atlas only has an "SBN" number, which didn't take. I will try to find its real ISBN and add it. I particularly like this atlas because it labels places in both English and in the local language (transcribed into the Latin alphabet). Like, on the map of North Africa, the Mediterranean Sea is also labeled Al Bahr al-Mutawassit, while the France map page has it "Mer Méditerranée". That's why there is an appendix section on this topic. ..anyway, just wanted to explain my wholesale deletion and rewriting of a section! Pfly 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An editor keeps trying to add the following text:

From before the Age of Exploration when the Moors dominated European knowledge, the famous Muhammad al-Idrisi (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد الإدريسي; b.1100-d.1165 or 1166) was the prime cartographer that transformed the maps that were to be used between the 15th century to the 17th century...

This edit is tendentious, controversial, hyperbolic, and poorly structured. It's impossible to claim something like "Moors dominated European knowledge" without expecting serious rebuttals. It's also not allowed without citations. "Famous" is an expletive here. It's not clear what the editor intended with "...who tranformed the maps that were to be used between the 15th century to the 17th century". What does that mean? Does it mean al-Idrisi's cartography influenced maps of those periods? If so, again, it needs a citation and probably a description of how, since it's not at all apparent. The citation supplied by the editor (a link to the al-Idrisi page) does not support the edit except in the vaguest sense of al-Idrisi having been important in cartography during the European Middle Ages.

al-Idrisi's important contributions do need to be acknowledged in the text. I'm not qualified to do that, so I'm not going to try to fix the edit. Strebe 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About additions to the history section on the contributions of al Idrisi[edit]

Editing the history of Cartography were good and varifiable they were coherent and varifiable source to the Cartography heading on internal links were provided to other wikipedia articles varifying his contributions. About the Moors intellectual dominance? if they weren't then who was in the Christian dark ages i thought that was the meaning of the dark ages when the rest of Europe was in the dark. Was there a need to re-edit this addition:

From before the Age of Exploration when the Moors dominated European knowledge, the famous Muhammad al-Idrisi (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد الإدريسي; b.1100-d.1165 or 1166) was the prime cartographer that transformed the maps that were to be used between the 15th century to the 17th century...

indeed it added more value to the article. References for the information on contributions on European transformation can be found in many books such as "the Ornament of the World" by Maria Rosa Menocal this information can also be varified by many other sources. I would have thought Wikipedia as a resource for an up to date encyclopeadia rather than an out of date one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

symbolization vs. symbology[edit]

symbology is a more accurate word with relation to cartography, which describes the way in which symbols are chosen and used to create effective maps. though certainly not exclusive to this area, it is a common word in cartographic vocabulary, and furthermore connotes logic, knowing, and thought. on the other hand, symbolization does not necessarily relate to cartography and could be misleading by referring to other cognitive processes. see symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Borkowski (talkcontribs) 22:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


Orienteering is a Good Article nominee, here, and awaiting review. Please consider reviewing the article. --Una Smith (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wider meaning?[edit]

Hi from Germany. I was of the opinion that in English language, the term Cartography comprises more than just "drawing maps" (sorry for this simplification), namely the whole process which leads to a map, thus encompassing geodesy or surveying as well. Is this so, or has it ever been? Where can I find more about this? Thanks, Wschroedter (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cartography" in modern North American English refers both to the practice of mapmaking and to the academic study of mapmaking. While there are no sharp boundaries in the definition, it generally does not include geodesy, surveying, or even "geographical information science" (GIS). This restrictive meaning is evident in the curricula of cartography departments in universities as well as in the purviews of the cartographic societies: North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS:, Cartographic and Geographic Information Society (CaGIS:, and the Canadian Cartographic Association (CCA: None of those organizations or university departments embraces geodesy or photogrammetry, and all of them specifically distinguishes between "cartography" and "Geographic Information Science".

"Cartography" is a fairly young word, coming into use in the late 1800s. Hence the term has no long history to talk about. The histories of cartography and surveying generally have been treated quite distinctly. Sorry; I can't provide references at the moment, but if you refer to cartographic texts spanning the 20th century, you will find only passing references to geodesy. Strebe (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapping political boundary lines[edit]

It must be bewildering for world atlas publishers to clearly define and draw borders between countries, particulatly in the part of Africa along the Red Sea. May I cite the area that includes Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti. This area has had so many border wars and civil wars that the map publishers can't keep up with the changes. This situation has political, military, humanitarian, and religious connections. Other factors are poverty, famine, lack of education, crime, and sometimes mass slaughter of the indigent.

Yes, you can by a nice, colorful world atlas at a book store but there's no guarantee that international border lines will be accurate henceforth.

Musicwriter (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No mention for Analytical or Mathematical Cartography[edit]

I am surprised that there is not a single sentence regarding Analytical (or mathematical) cartography which is considered as the application of mathematical theories in cartography ( the father of AC is by many considered to be Professor Waldo Tobler in the 1960s). In the last 50 years or so, analytical cartography has included topics such as map projections, generalization algorithms, digital terrain modelling and hillshading, automatic placement of placenames and labels, geometric transformations, cartometry, etc. Some may say that all these topics are now part of the Geographic information science (I personally disagree), although the Wikipedia article mentions Cartography as a general topic...So is AC left out on purpose, or is it just lack of references and related info? Any thoughts or ideas?VRChriss (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analytical and mathematical cartography certainly are not left out on purpose. The article is not in very good shape. This being Wikipedia, please improve it! Strebe (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You are right, the section on map projections is quite modest and the expressions you mention are not even referred to . Anyway, there is a whole article on Map Projections, where the general concepts of the discipline are addressed. I wouldn't say that Tobler is the father of mathematical cartography, he only proposed the expression AC as a replacement for MC. I wonder if he still uses it himself? Like Strebe says the article can be improved by anyone and I know a couple of users perfectly capable of doing it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I thought as much, thank you both. FYI I can write the entry for Mathematical /Analytical Cartography.VRChriss (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cartography and prehistoric topographic engravings[edit]

(This is copied from my talk page. Hi Strebe, you've recently deleted some paragraphs on the "Cartography" Wiki page stating that "These artifacts are ambiguous and disputed, and the description is too detailed for the context". While I agree as concerns the too detailed description (I shortened it), I don't agree to the "ambiguous and disputed" condition of the items I'm treating, which are the so-called topographical prehistoric representations in the alpine rock art.

I'm an archaeologist with more than 30 years of experience in the field, and I know what I'm writing about: these "artifacts" act as real archaeological finds, are well dated by the study of the sequence of the engraving phases, and widely recognised by most scholars since the beginning of the last century as a plan depiction of human landscapes (cultivated plots or farms or villages), although some-way symbolic (but all maps are symbols...). So it's not the best choice to define them as ambiguous or questioned.

As being a zenith representation of a territory dating back to 4000-3500 BC (it's not a coincidence that it was the period of the agriculture revolution led by the use of the plough, but this is not a cartography matter), I don't understand why they shouldn't be cited in the history of cartography, indeed as the most ancient European and near-East landscape representation. I may add that, being in a mountain environment, a zenith view of of the land below, like the bottom of the valley or the opposite slope, is quite natural, and may provoke its depiction as a rock engraving; this is a further element which favours a topographic interpretation.

In conclusion, I hope you won't delete again this little contribution, which I think is valuable. It will be interesting for me to write a paper regarding which kind of consideration is granted to such subject, i.e, the engraved iconographic heritage, by scholars of other disciplines.

Many thanks and best of all.

Ruparch (AA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruparch (talkcontribs) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ruparch. Thanks for the note and contribution. My hesitation here is due to how conservative the rest of the history description is. Every other description is of an artifact that is obviously a map, by anyone’s definition, clearly depicting geography in a way that was not so abstract or generalized that papers have to get written about it to make a case. That’s deliberate. A lot of material concerning ancient, highly abstract or disputed artifacts, has appeared in and disappeared from this article over time. I, for one, am loath to expand the scope. It wouldn’t bother me for there to be mention of these terrain depictions as a wikilink to an authoritative article on one. As it stands, I still think too much space is devoted to them in this article, for the reason I gave. I would like to hear other editor’s opinions. Again, thanks. Strebe (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Strebe, many thanks four your reply. I'm not strictly an historian, but, as archaeologist, I obviously favour an historical perspective, which, for me, should never be discarded. Naturally I agree that it shouldn't be overwhelming. Regarding prehistoric topographic engravings, I would add (here and not in the Cartography wiki page, naturally…) that in the two main alpine rock art poles, which are Mt. Bego and Valcamonica, tenths and tenths of such engraved rocks show the so-called topographic compositions. As you say, the key is "so-called". But this case is far away from fiction-archaeology or press sensationalism or amateur archaeology: it is clear and self-evident that the engraved geometric and repeated patterns are related to territorial anthropic elements (pls browse if you have any time the suggested references; I can't overload this page with more sample, but I've a lot); it should be disputed if they are fields, houses or shelters for herds: only in this sense, it seems to me, the definition "disputable" may be applied. Their chronology is well testified by the superimposition among figures: these patterns are overlapped by full Copper Age (3000-2500 BC) dagger depictions, archaeologically dated, so they are older. Being so ancient, one thousand year older e.g. of the Yorgan Tepe tablet (2300 BC), which anyway should be cited in the historical section of this Wiki page, no alphanumeric symbols is present, and poor relation is to be applied to the actual landscape, so making it more difficult to interpret. As I wrote, anyway, the fact that such elements of a human-laboured landscape were depicted with a zenith view, fully justifies, IMHO, their inclusion in the history of cartography, as they already are, indeed, like in Delano Smith 1987, which I added to references. Best again Ruparch (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having read the materials referenced, I am now opposed to retaining the several references to these topographic engravings. As Andrea Arcà leads out with in The topographic engravings of the alpine rock-art: fields, settlements and agricultural landscapes these depictions were made by local peoples with no evident motive for use as maps. They are depictions. They are rock-art. In some abstract sense, they are maps, but they were not made for wayfinding or information about the geographic space. Because Cartography#History mentions no other artifacts that are not clearly intended to be used as maps, I oppose mentioning these terrain depictions at all, and I strongly oppose more than one mention. Strebe (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European cartography of Africa[edit]

User:Jennap7, thanks for the contributions. It would be good to have scholarly mention of the cartographic deconstructionism, but as it stands, several paragraphs of material specifically on the cartography of Africa is way out of proportion to the remainder of the article. That content probably belongs in a separate article that specifically addresses European cartography as a tool of empire. I would encourage you to start a separate article to that end. After a period for commentary I intend to pare down your additions to a sentence or two. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys (and/or Gals) - I have a feeling that this article gets too loaded on fuzzy things and too skimpy in hard precise science. I just had spent part of the evening trying to get from Wikipedia some info for my kid on traditional long-range marine navigation techniques (like how to plot great circle course on a map) and have found references to "deconstruction" (Derrida) but not to Gauss (most accomplished mathematician of XIXth century in case someone does not know, developed a "better" map projection to present world "fairly" in terms of shape and area). I am sure it is proper to point out cultural etc consequences of particular cartographic traditions, but this article should tell the reader HOW maps are made and what are their "hard" properties - FIRST. Have proper references to hard math here. As it is, I see this article as an example of a drift away from explaining things by science, towards perceiving the world in magical terms. Navigational software (programmed by somebody from a minuscule elite which knows the science of it) will draw the maps/chart courses, and everybody else will just know proper spells (ok, how to press proper buttons). But everybody can vigorously discuss the cultural consequences of the magic art of mapmaking, without putting any effort to really understand things. Very worrisome trend for me. Szafranpl (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I didn’t address your concerns earlier, Szafranpl. As a map projection researcher, I would like to imagine map projections are exceedingly important. But if I look at the situation objectively, the projection is just one of myriad components that go into making a map. Since map projections are necessary, there is an article devoted to that topic, unlike many or most of the topics that are addressed in the Cartography article. In that sense, I feel like projections get their due. Indeed, dozens of map projections have their own Wikipedia pages. Meanwhile the Cartography article does does note map projections as a fundamental problem of cartography while providing a link to the main article. Strebe (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(first ever) Tithe map on Wiki commons.[edit]

The National Library of Wales have released a high resolution version of the 1840's Newport tithe map to Commons. Perhaps it would be good to include the map/or part of the map in this article. See the full map and high res sections. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jason.nlw. Can you comment on the importance of the tithe map to the topic of Cartography? How did it contribute to the development of the practice of making maps? How did it influence civilization? Thanks. Strebe (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imperialism edits[edit]

Concerning recent edits by User:Asha.abukar], I will explain why these edits have been reverted, and invite the contributor to clarify the intent of the edits. The edits as provided were misplaced and disproportionate. They would need to be integrated into the article much more cleanly; as written, they’re an abrupt transition from a simple, factual accounting to a deconstructionist interpretation, and then abruptly reverting to a factual accounting afterward. The verbiage is also not encyclopaedic; it is more didactic and rhetorical. Meanwhile, the Cartography#Deconstruction section already states much of the same material and interpretation. If you can give us other editors some notion of what you intend by these edits, we can help integrate them reasonably into the article if a good place can be found for them. The Deconstruction section needs a lot of work, for example, and that is where your edits would fit. Strebe (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map key or map legend[edit]

I've added a section, and I believe it deserves a separate article that lists and explains the various symbols used, like crossed swords for a battle field. See Japanese_map_symbols or in German de:Legende_(Karte) (see below) or openstreetmap wiki -- Matthead  Discuß   09:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbols for Points[edit]

Symbol Explanation
Gfi-set01-cave.png cave
Gfi-set01-archaeology.png Gfi-set01-archaeology1.png Sevärd.svg Archaeological site (Looped square symbol)
Schlaegel und Eisen nach DIN 21800.svg Schlaegel und Eisen nach DIN 21800 gedreht um 180 Grad.svg mine (Hammer and pick symbol), former mine
Gfi-set01-castle.png Gfi-set01-castle1.png castle, Burg
Gfi-set01-castle-ruin.png Gfi-set01-castle-ruin1.png ruin
Set01-church.svg Set01-church1.svg church, chapel, monastery ()
Gfi-set01-ruined-church.png Church ruin symbol FLC.svg church ruin etc.
Gfi-set01-mosque.png Gfi-set01-mosque1.png Mosque
Gfi-set01-memorial.png Gfi-set01-memorial1.png monument
Gfi-set01-tower.png Gfi-set01-tower1.png Tower
Gfi-set01-antenna.png Gfi-set01-antenna1.png radio tower
Gfi-set01-trigpoint.png Gfi-set01-trigpoint.png Trigonometrical point
Gfi-set01-hostel.svg Hotel
Gfi-set01-airport.png Gfi-set01-airport1.png airport
Gfi-set01-camping.png Gfi-set01-camping2.png Camp site
U-Bahn.svg subway station
Gfi-set01-railway.png Gfi-set01-railway1.png railway station
Gfi-set01-stadium.svg Gfi-set01-stadium.svg Stadium
Gfi-set01-info.png Info Simple.svg Tourist information
Your edit wrecked the section hierarchy, so I fixed that because legend is part of symbology, not the other way around. I rewrote the symbology section and the blurb you wrote for the subsection on legends. Maybe someone could make a List of map symbols article separately; I’m agnostic about the value of that, but I do think there should be a separate Map symbology article. Strebe (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Deconstruction section...[edit]

I feel bad about marking this section as confusing without trying to fix it myself, but I'm not an experienced editor and I don't have access to the academic sources. I think parts of it are worth keeping - the impossibility of avoiding bias, the effect of the Mercator projection, the carving up of Africa - but it's messy. There's a part where it says that maps were a tool of colonialism in Africa because the colonialists used the maps to find their way around... Factually correct, but tenuous in a way I haven't seen since my days of frantically trying to bulk up word counts when I was a student! That part is also written as if Europeans were the only people making 'scientific' maps at that time, which doesn't seem right to me at all. (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early Modern Period[edit]

Hello fellow wikipedians, I am a student at a research university working on a wiki project. Going over the cartography article, it seems like there is some balance missing, mainly with Islamic and Sinic contributions to cartography. I am going to add a section called the Early Modern Period in order to tie together the contributions Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Sinic civilizations made to Cartography. I hope you enjoy it! Slug145 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]