Introduction to map cartography

 The first assignment of my computer cartography course was to critique several maps, both good and bad. We were to critique their map elements, design, and layout. Included below are examples of a good and bad map that I found online. There is a synopsis included for both that discusses what is good and bad about each, what map principles they did well or missed, and the elements I liked or what they could have done better. 

Good map:

Overall, this map meets its objectives. It is a well designed and easy to understand map. The map is intended to be an index for the rest of the atlas. The design is clean, uses a consistent font and style, and makes good use of symbols. It effectively executes the principle of “effectively label maps” and “map substantial information.” The colors are also simple and make the distinction between each sub area clear. I appreciate the font used, the use of different colors to include lots of labels, and the map layout. 

Bad map:

This map includes a lot of information but falls short by using a complex color ramp. Because of this, it does not meet its intended goals. It would take a long time to interpret the data on the main map. It failed the map principles of “Concept before compilation” because it seems as though the creator did not give much forethought to the interpretation of the map.  They also failed on “maximum information at minimum cost” because they were trying to display a lot of information but it is displayed at a high cost because it is so difficult to understand. I do appreciate the map labels and sub-labels because they provided really good background information and their intentions. They could have improved by simplifying the data by including fewer data. They could have quantified the data, instead of using colors. Or they could have provided a better legend to interpret the colors.