See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233462562

Topographic Maps: Methodological Approaches for Analyzing

Cartographic Style

Article in Journal of Map & Geography Libraries · July 2009

DOI: 10.1080/15420350903001187

CITATIONS READS

39 34,706

1 author:

Alexander James Kent

Canterbury Christ Church University
117 PUBLICATIONS 696 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander James Kent on 24 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, 5:131–156, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1542-0353 print / 1542-0361 online
DOI: 10.1080/15420350903001187

Topographic Maps: Methodological

Approaches for Analyzing Cartographic Style

ALEXANDER KENT
University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, UK

Despite their status and ubiquity, modern state topographic maps

are seldom the topic of cartographic research. There is a notable de-
ficiency in the number of empirical studies that investigate their de-
sign, or, given their heritage, examine their symbology with a view
to identifying the ingredients of style. The issue of stylistic similarities
and differences raises important questions for the history and devel-
opment of map symbology and the wider relationship between maps
and society. The absence of critical interpretations of topographic
map symbology—which lay beyond a discussion of the problems
of cartographic representation—has also meant that the cultural
rationale for stylistic diversity has been neglected. This paper de-
scribes a strategy for identifying and explaining similarities and
differences in the cartographic style of topographic maps, with a
view toward developing a methodology for classifying and analyz-
ing their symbology. It provides a review of existing approaches for
investigating style in thematic cartography (such as transport maps
and national atlases) before proposing that a future method should
be based on that of Piket (1972), and offer direct application. A
systematic analysis of topographic map symbology would be partic-
ularly useful for identifying supranational styles and for exploring
the extent to which national conditions—specific variables such as
population density and cars in use, together with wider ideological
changes such as the achievement of political independence—are
intrinsically expressed through topographic map symbology.
KEYWORDS topographic maps, map symbols, map design

The author would like to thank Peter Vujakovic and Peter Thomas for their generous
assistance in nurturing these ideas to their current state, and Canterbury Christ Church Uni-
versity, UK, for enabling him to pursue this research.
Address correspondence to Alexander Kent, Head of Cartographic Unit, School of Ge-
ography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.
E-mail: a.j.kent@soton.ac.uk

131
132 A. Kent

INTRODUCTION

Topographic maps are among the most familiar of all cartographic products
and possibly the first maps we learn to trust. They are used by national map-
ping organizations (NMOs) to define the national landscape and as so-called
general-purpose maps are intended to serve a variety of uses and users
through the simultaneous presentation of many themes. The cartographic
style of topographic maps results from choices inherent in the process of
symbolizing a landscape—a socially constructed “good view” of the land—
as derived from certain ideas and conventions (Kent, 2008). If the most
significant of these choices is the selection and emphasis of certain features,
a particular symbolization of national landscape and its homogenous presen-
tation through a state topographic map series suggests that an investigation
of these nationally defined characteristics would provide some basis for the
identification of cartographic style on a national or supranational level.
While the overall goal for each country’s national topographic map se-
ries is generally the same, there are marked differences in the way this
national landscape is represented according to the choices suggested by
scale. Typically, survey information will have already been interpreted and
generalized before the processes of generalization (e.g., simplification, exag-
geration, and displacement as well as feature selection) are again performed,
according to customary methods for the production of topographic maps on
smaller scales. For example, in Great Britain, Ordnance Survey (OS) maps
at 1:1,250 (urban areas), 1:2,500 (rural areas), and 1:10,000 (mountain and
moorland areas) scales form the base material for the 1:50,000 series (Rev-
ell, 2005). Moreover, the derivation of a multiscale database from a master
database, through the application of sophisticated generalization methods
(Kazemi and Lim, 2007), has advantages for map compilation and revision.
Nevertheless, as smaller scale mapping is derived from larger scale products,
a higher degree of abstraction tends to be introduced into the symboliza-
tion of landscape in small-scale topographical mapping. It is therefore likely
that an investigation that aims to discover the characteristics of style should
focus on the smaller scales where, potentially, there is greater freedom to
express the character—as opposed to the dimensions—of a symbolized fea-
ture. Furthermore, if the choices in mapmaking reflect the needs of society,
a comparison of indigenous symbolizations should reveal similarity and dif-
ference and, perhaps ultimately, style.
Between countries, recent initiatives for collaborative mapping in Eu-
rope have concentrated on the consolidation of digital information held
together within a geographical information system (GIS) and standardization
of metadata. As data are typically stored in layers in a GIS, this eliminates
the critical limitation of paper maps with their simultaneous presentation of
all stored information. For civilian topographical mapping in Europe, the
EuroRegionalMap project coordinated by EuroGeographics (the association
 Topographic Maps 133

FIGURE 1 Extract from a sheet compiled as part of the International Map of the World project,
illustrating the legend of internationally agreed symbols that were eventually to become
defunct (USGS, 1949).

of European National Mapping and Cadastral Agencies) uses GIS software

developed by the ERSI (Environmental Research Systems Institute) and data
collected at scales between 1:200,000 and 1:300,000 (with a suggested output
scale of 1:250,000). Its primary data sources are the data collections of the
NMOs concerned. This seamless topographic database is intended to sup-
port GIS applications and background display, the basic requirements being
a full connectivity of transport and water networks and geometrical consis-
tency of administrative boundaries (EuroGeographics, 2005). Specifications
for the first version were settled by Germany, Belgium, France, Denmark,
Ireland, and Northern Ireland in 2003, and the project has since developed so
that thirty-one country datasets now contribute to the seven-layer database
(EuroGeographics, 2008). Given the difficulties posed by international collab-
oration in topographical mapping as exemplified by the ill-fated International
Map of the World project (see Figure 1), it is clear that success lies in focus-
ing on meeting particular user requirements and achieving interoperability
through the harmonization, rather than the standardization, of the portrayal
of features.
Existing studies that set out to compare the design of contemporary
topographical mapping (e.g., Piket, 1972) and the series initiated by For-
rest et al. (1996), generally aim to highlight differences by applying purely
descriptive methods, the latter concentrating on a set of individual symbols
or features. But in all such studies, there is a lack of critical interpretation
that transcends discussion of the problems of cartographic representation to
seek any possible cultural rationale for the differences that exist. Although
such research is useful in documenting different symbologies, it does not
question why, given the influences of convention and scale, different styles
might exist or what might constitute a “style.”
134 A. Kent

The reasons for these lacunae may be related to the particular status of
the topographic map in society. Produced under the hegemony of science,
topographic maps maintain their façade of objectivity and exhibit naturalness.
The objective and natural qualities that topographic maps exude are probably
the main reasons behind this lack of critical interpretation. The sense that
the message of the topographic map is spoken by nature itself resembles the
attitude expressed by Olson and Whitmarsh (1944: 146) that “symbols on the
maps of any area are a function of the land itself.” Comparative studies of
topographic maps are, therefore, used as comparative studies of landscape,
as in the contributions by Wood (1968) and Knowles and Stowe (1982). As
studies comparing topographic map symbology do not set out specifically to
identify cartographic styles of any sort, examples of stylistic analysis have to
be found elsewhere in cartography.
The comparatively few approaches offering interpretations of carto-
graphic styles and associating these with wider cultural and political con-
texts, including nationality, have tended to involve thematic maps, such as
public transport maps (e.g., Morrison, 1994; 1996) and cycling and motoring
maps (e.g., Nicholson, 2004). While these studies offer descriptions of style
and its wider implications, another approach, that taken by Zeigler (2002), is
particularly significant because it explicitly sought to detect a “cartography of
independence” in the maps of European countries provided by their respec-
tive embassies in the United States. Furthermore, although such studies do
not aim to describe styles through an examination of symbology, the critical
interpretation of national atlases (e.g., Kent, 1986; Monmonier, 1994; Vu-
jakovic, 1995; and Jordan, 2004) suggests how nationality is communicated
and expressed through maps in ways that are not necessarily subtle, by com-
menting on the cartographic treatment of certain entities and the range of
themes included. These atlases can offer useful clues as to the societal values
underpinning the design of topographic maps.
In devising a suitable methodology, therefore, the aim should be to an-
alyze the symbology of topographic maps to discover whether any wider
comparisons are possible and, more specifically, if it would be feasible
to suggest that a particular set of similarities between maps constitutes
a distinctive supranational style (for example, Alpine or postcommunist),
core-periphery relationships, or even genealogies of style that outline their
historical evolution. If it is possible to group countries according to their car-
tographic styles and identify their main traits, the findings should also provide
some explanation for group membership. Furthermore, if such a methodol-
ogy were to generate qualitative and quantitative data, map styles could be
correlated with possible causal factors such as population density and car
ownership. Following this, it should be possible to consider the extent to
which the cartographic design and symbology of topographic maps might
express political independence or more abstract notions such as national
identity.
 Topographic Maps 135

An Evaluation of Methods for Analyzing the Design of Thematic Maps

TRANSPORT MAPS
As a number of studies of thematic maps has sought to determine styles
(even national styles in some cases) and to offer some interpretation of
their significance, a discussion of their strategies and techniques is therefore
relevant to any attempt to compare the symbology of topographic maps.
Although thematic maps are, in general, produced under different circum-
stances than topographic maps, particularly in their capacity to be authored
by an individual, the following studies of cartographic style involve maps
that have been produced within a corporate structure. While it cannot be
assumed that decisions involved in their design are as closely managed and
controlled as those for topographic maps, their mode of production does
suggest a collective mechanism for design input and evaluation before pub-
lication. The two studies by Morrison (1994; 1996) are especially relevant
because they seek to define cartographic styles on a national basis and,
more importantly, offer reasons for differences in style extending beyond
the immediate circumstances of production.
Morrison’s first approach was to compare the styles of transport maps
of cities in Spain and Germany with those of France, which he considered to
have a distinctive style because of the attempt made to show the route of each
bus service by a different color (Morrison, 1994: 113). After examining the
natures of the different transport networks and treating the transport network
itself as a particular design problem for cartographers, Morrison sought to
explain how reasons for this stylistic distinction result both from the modes
of public transport used and from external factors such as the amount of
subsidy given to public transport and the degree of political centralization.
It was then explained how these factors gave rise to the particular styles of
representation. In West Germany, for example, buses are complementary to
the three forms of railway that are more commonly the backbone of urban
public transport, whereas buses are the predominant mode of transport used
in French cities, so the whole range of colors is available to represent bus
routes (Morrison, 1994: 120). Spanish cities depend on buses but, despite
expectations that this would bring them into stylistic similarity with France,
it was not the case because of the level of subsidy available locally, derived
from a local payroll tax (the versement transport) (ibid.). As Morrison puts it,

The local nature of this tax is perhaps significant in ensuring that even
quite small French towns can fund a proper public transport system,
including maps. This may have permitted the cartographic houses they
commissioned to choose a lavish design involving lines in ten or a dozen
colours which, by the photochemical methods used before the most
recent technical advances, would have been expensive to prepare and
136 A. Kent

print, in comparison with a design using lines in only two or three colours
(Morrison, 1994: 120).

Morrison goes on to explain that the reason behind a similar style of

transport map across France was the “centralised nature of France”; in Ger-
many, the administrative forms of central control found in France are not
present in federal state relations, encouraging the variety of approaches to
map design found in German maps (ibid.).
It was the uniformity of this distinctive character that led Morrison to
later refer to the “French style” in a further paper that analyzed the styles of
public transport maps across western Europe (Morrison, 1996). Basing the
research on both the study of maps and interviews with mapmakers and
public transport officials, he sought to determine whether national styles
exist, describe their characteristics, examine the reasons for their application
based on the nature of the transport networks, discuss problems of transport
mapping in more depth, and, finally, propose guidelines for choosing the
mapping method depending on the transport network.
Morrison’s (1996) methodology was again to describe and compare the
different methods of representation, seeking to understand the different ap-
proaches to the problem of designing maps of European transport networks,
rather than focusing on the representations themselves. In asking the ques-
tion, “Are there national styles?”, Morrison (ibid.: 93) investigated the various
methods of representation further, classifying similar approaches into “styles”
and designating “national styles” based on their use in twenty-five cities and
eleven countries across Europe. Four styles of cartographic representation
were identified, based on their method of depicting the various transport
networks:

r French style (as outlined above), which identifies every bus service by a
different color
r Classic style, which identifies bus services by number labels along the lines
as one line is used to represent all the services on each street
r Scandinavian style, which resembles classic style but different modes of
transport (e.g., buses, trams, and metro) are each given their own color
r Dutch style, which also resembles classic style, but is “exceptionally well
applied,” minimizing the difficulties of classic style with usually not more
than two lines representing tram and bus, or two bus companies, on each
street (summarized from Morrison, 1996: 93–94).

Morrison (ibid., 95) additionally points out that if the style of transport map
did not fall into any of the above, it was not regarded as exhibiting a char-
acteristic style. This in itself seems to suggest a bias toward the qualities of
distinctiveness and repeatability. The investigation concluded that there are
certainly national differences between the styles of public transport maps,
 Topographic Maps 137

but none so strongly marked as in the case of France, owing to the central-
ization of the state and, consequently, the mapping of the public transport
systems.

CYCLING MAPS
Whereas public transport maps can be designed with many types of user but
perhaps only one use in mind, the case can be different for other modes of
transport. In his analysis of cycling and motoring maps in western Europe
from 1885 to 1960, Nicholson’s (2004) method was to take each country in
turn, describe the main maps of the genre that were produced and their
origins (noting their scale and any significant designs), and recount how the
publishers met the growing demand for these maps. He deliberately chose
the cutoff period of 1960 because this was when “the motor car had ceased
to be a luxury and had become a universal, everyday chattel in most of the
countries concerned, as had its maps” (ibid.: 181). Of course, the maps were
especially designed for certain uses, such as touring, but this usage rendered
them exclusive to a particular sector of society. In effect, the growth of the
motorcar as a mode of personal transport and mobility meant that the degree
of exclusivity diminished over time.
Before describing the mapping developments of each country or region
(e.g., Benelux) in detail, Nicholson sets the scene by commenting upon their
wider social and political context. Regarding Germany, for example,

After its creation in 1871, united Germany rapidly became industrialized,

with a growing population and a numerous and prosperous urban middle
class, overtaking France in these respects. It had varied and mainly rural
landscapes, with which there was a prevalent, Romantic sense of mystical
communion. This fostered organized walking and cycling, as well as a
profound love of Heimat or home ground (Nicholson, 2004: 196).

Although brief at times, these insights offer a cultural dimension to the

analysis and act as a lens through which to view developments in the design
and production of the maps, as well as the attitudes of their makers. More
significantly, they reinforce the idea that factors external to the production
of maps affect their design and, therefore, appearance. As these factors vary
between different countries, this also implies that uniformity of scale or
symbology should, therefore, not be expected, despite similarities in terrain,
climate, or vegetation.
In describing the story of road maps across Europe, Nicholson highlights
the link between supply and demand and suggests that the factors controlling
the demand for maps operate within a wider cultural context. For Italy, he
presents this link as being rather unambiguous:
138 A. Kent

[In 1871,] Italy was a populous but still overwhelmingly rural, backward,
poverty-stricken country with a small, wealthy aristocracy but without a
significant middle class. It did, however, have in the south—the beau-
tiful but lawless Mezzogiorno—a population much given to plundering
tourists, and to murdering State servants such as surveyors and road
builders. Italy’s roads were notoriously awful—the facts were not, per-
haps unrelated—and it had a central, mountainous spine, the Apennines.
It followed that in the early 20th century, the market for cycles and motor
cars—and hence for road maps—was small (Nicholson, 2004: 207).

Although Nicholson does not go as far as Morrison by seeking to define na-

tional styles or suggest general geographical trends such as a core-periphery
arrangement (although this may nevertheless be inferred using examples
such as that of Italy above), his reference to the routine production of maps
of French, German, Austrian, and Swiss mapmakers in their native languages
as “a sort of cultural imperialism” and his conclusion that “all road maps were
mirrors of society” (Nicholson, 2004: 212) clearly support the idea that maps
can reflect something of the complexities of society, including its values.
For the sake of clarity, symbolization in thematic maps (especially those
dealing with public transport) is likely to be more abstract in nature, in-
evitably employing a small range of symbols. A comparison between maps,
especially that of Morrison above, will therefore serve to highlight the dif-
ferent conceptual approaches to the various problems of representation.
Additionally, thematic maps are more likely to rely on topology rather than
topography in meeting the needs of the user. The map devised by Harry
Beck for the London Underground in 1931, for example, included little to-
pographic information (such as the River Thames) in its rational approach
to the problem of navigating the Tube. The design was founded on meeting
the essential needs of the traveler by indicating the line, number of stops,
and connections.
The identification of national styles and any further classification is there-
fore likely to be more straightforward with nontopographic maps because
there are usually fewer themes to consider and a smaller range of visual
design problems to overcome. As Wood (1992: 24) reminds us, “it is not that
the general reference map lacks a theme, but that it has too many, or that
they are too deeply interwoven, that the map is more subtle than simple, too
complex to bare in a single word.” As there is usually one principal theme
(e.g., the depiction of roads), the analysis of thematic maps can focus on
the different cartographic representations of this theme and their relation-
ship with the other types of information selected. In contrast, topographic
maps need to exhibit some balance among their many themes if, as Vanessa
Lawrence (current director-general and chief executive of Ordnance Survey)
asserts, the national series of paper maps are produced principally to meet
customers’ needs (Lawrence, 2004: 119). Otherwise, a topographic map may
 Topographic Maps 139

fulfill the needs of one user group and neglect the needs of another, veer-
ing away from its general-purpose stereotype, or at least an accepted—or,
indeed, naturalized—hierarchy of features.
This does assume that the ideal “all themes covered by a topographic
map should be held in perfect balance” is itself a universal cartographic goal
across cultures. But as Robinson et al. (1995: 316) insist, “a ‘pure’ general
reference map is rare. Usually, some geographic characteristics are thought
to be more ‘important’ than others and will consequently be given visual em-
phasis.” As topographic maps bring together so many themes, each with the
potential to form independent thematic maps in isolation (e.g., hydrology or
terrain), they could perhaps be regarded as a compilation of thematic maps.
Moreover, the various purposes that together constitute the term “general”
for topographic maps differ for each country; a specialist use in one may
be more commonplace in another and the selection and relative emphasis
of features will probably reflect this. Where the limitations of paper as a
static medium influence the design of topographic maps, coordinating the
complex interplay of these themes and their graphical components creates a
coherent and organic whole, in which these choices are preserved.
Cycling and road maps are similar in appearance to topographic maps,
but this is not solely because of similarities in scale. Topographic information
is necessary for touring because it includes landmarks and other features for
navigating the landscape. Furthermore, mimetic symbols (those retaining
more representational elements) will be more useful in feature recognition
than more abstract symbology. In addition, touring maps have one defining
characteristic: they are produced in order to reveal an area and make it
accessible and convenient to outsiders (Black, 1997: 90).
So although the research of Morrison (1994; 1996) and Nicholson (2004)
compare thematic as opposed to topographic maps of western European
countries, they serve to illustrate that a methodology that describes the simi-
larities and differences between maps produced in these countries can reveal
how diverse approaches, ideas, and otherwise extrinsic factors affect the way
a map is designed—and consequently, its style and appearance.

COUNTRY MAPS
Prior to the analysis of cycling and motoring maps that had led Nicholson
(2004) to put their developments within a wider context, the link between the
external factor of political independence and its expression in postcommunist
European cartography had been investigated by Zeigler (2002). This reading
of maps was a far cry from the view of maps as objective mirrors of nature, a
view perhaps closer to seeing them as weapons of propaganda. In a way not
too dissimilar from that of Morrison (1996), Zeigler aimed to identify styles,
but the notion of style in this instance was perhaps closer to a map’s purpose
140 A. Kent

and in this case, to that of “persuasive cartography”. As Zeigler (2002: 671)

states: “Through the lens of persuasive cartography, we are able to note
the nation-building process at work and the emergence not only of newly
independent countries but of a new Europe.”
So while Morrison (1994; 1996) and Nicholson (2004) examined styles
and suggested that the social context of their production had an influence,
Zeigler (2002: 672), in contrast, accepted the social context of maps from the
outset and expected to see differences in their style: “After the Communist
collapse, 1989–1991, I expected that the geopolitics of Eastern Europe would
be reflected in a new cartography of independence.” His approach embraced
theories of semiotics, perception, and communication:

Semiotics stresses the importance of understanding symbols in their larger

cultural context. Communication theory suggests that there is a set of con-
ventional standards that govern the choice and manipulation of design
elements in order to send a clear message. Perception theory stresses the
importance of how we imagine the world, not how it really is (Zeigler,
2002: 675).

This approach was especially useful because it encouraged a more thorough

reading and interpretation of the maps that were to be analyzed, seeing them
as products of the cartographer and society at large, but also as products that
influence the perceptions of map users and therefore the society that reads
the maps.
For his methodology, Zeigler (2002) sought to determine whether coun-
tries of eastern Europe adopted a new “cartography of independence” during
the 1990s by comparing small-scale country maps for official distribution by
national embassies based in the United States:

From 1994 to 1999, countries with embassies in Washington, DC, were

periodically solicited for maps. [ . . . ] Fifteen of the 19 embassies sent
one map and many (especially those seeking tourists and foreign in-
vestors) sent more. Some were freestanding maps, but most were [sic]
included other literature such as in brochures and booklets. Poland sent
the most, Albania and Moldova the least. No maps (or other literature)
were received from Yugoslavia/Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
or Russia. [ . . . ] Yet, all may be dated to the 1990s, and all, in being sent
out by the embassies, have a certain state-level approval (Zeigler, 2002:
672–673).

In his analysis of these maps, Zeigler drew heavily on the larger political con-
text and concluded that these countries had adopted persuasive cartography
in their message to the world; although these maps seemed designed to
inspire their own populations and to serve as iconographic, nation-building
tools, they were also designed with outsiders in mind and, as such, were
 Topographic Maps 141

important in projecting refurbished spatial images (ibid.: 685). Examples

Zeigler highlights include the centralization of Poland on its map of Europe
to express a desire to be at the center of the mental map of Europe, the
omission of foreign country names (e.g., the label of Russia in Estonia’s map
of Europe) or capitals (e.g., Croatia’s omission of Belgrade) to make a clear
break from the past, and the renaming of features (e.g., “Lithuania Minor,” for
the Russian territory surrounding Kaliningrad, on Lithuania’s map of Europe).
Although such maps can suggest how the country wishes to promote
itself and seeks to be regarded, these were maps with an ordered structure—
with frames—and were designed to convey a theme. As Zeigler (2002: 671)
discovered, almost all the maps involved in the study demonstrated a car-
tography of independence as part of an effort to redefine the image of the
nation-state’s character and relative location on the European stage. The
maps would certainly exhibit differences in scale and extent as they were
designed to be stand-alone products rather than sheets from a series. Fur-
thermore, while possessing a “certain state-level approval” (ibid.: 673), the
maps used were not official topographic maps produced under the hege-
mony of modern scientific survey. The small scales employed in showing
the country’s position within Europe deny the maps any detailed expression
of landscape, using instead the iconic symbol of the country’s outline, and
do not make the same pretense of objectivity as topographic maps.

NATIONAL ATLASES
The small-scale country maps described above and topographic maps both
share certain similarities with another type of cartographic product: the na-
tional atlas. All three types of map are intrinsically connected to the nation
that produces them: they enjoy state-level approval to varying degrees and
they engage an audience of “insiders” and “outsiders.” As Monmonier (1994:
1) suggests, national atlases “may be viewed as the inevitable systematic
publication of institutionally collected geographic knowledge,” a position
that seems to have been upheld in early surveys such as Yonge’s (1957).
But they are also demonstrations of a nation’s character and pride, and they
portray a nation to its own people and the world (Kent, 1986: 122) by
emphasizing symbols of national unity, scientific achievement, and politi-
cal independence (Monmonier, 1994: 1). Moreover, according to Vujakovic
(1995: 129), national atlases “can be regarded as complex narrative struc-
tures, intricately weaving a story of national identity through a combination
of words and images.”
In creating a visual representation of a historical-national space (Vu-
jakovic, 1995: 131) and seeking to legitimize their nationhood, some at-
lases include a selection of reproductions of historical maps, which usually
precede a main section devoted to a series of thematic maps covering a
142 A. Kent

diverse range of themes, such as climate, vegetation, population density,

and distribution of ethnic minorities. As national atlases are intimately as-
sociated with sovereign governments (Kent, 1986: 122), the expression of
societal values in the range of topics included and the treatment of data (i.e.,
the relationship of the theme with other data on maps) might be more pro-
nounced here than in the design of topographic maps and therefore easier
to identify. However, while they may provide the critical reader with more
straightforward clues about the character of a society, national atlases lack
the ubiquitous yet subtle objective and natural qualities of topographic maps
that Wood (1992) unmasks.

An Evaluation of Methods for Analyzing the Design of Topographic

Maps
Any investigation into the cartographic design of topographic maps should
analyze the symbolization of landscape according to the fundamental choices
within a particular scale that govern its style, that is, the selection of features
(the classification of landscape) and their appearance (see Figure 2). The
state topographic map, as a whole, is a symbol of the socially constructed
landscape and a methodology acknowledging that the circumstances of pro-
duction vary between cultures and time is likely to offer a wider application.
Scale, for example, suggests rather than dictates a particular series of choices
regarding the generalization, symbolization, and appearance of features; for
official topographic maps, these choices are directed by the imperatives of
the state. Examining maps at similar (ideally, identical) scales would nev-
ertheless facilitate a systematic and methodologically rigorous comparison
between the cartographic approaches taken by different countries, different
periods, or both.
Despite the difference in variety and content, while there may be shar-
ing of resources for certain projects (including those discussed above), the
major distinction between topographic maps and thematic maps is that in
most circumstances the former are designed and produced exclusively by
NMOs, whereas the latter originate from nongovernmental (e.g., commer-
cial) enterprises. Because of the huge human and financial resources larger
scale topographic surveys demand, state mapping agencies are often the best
equipped to undertake such projects and, if the data are costly to purchase,
these can monopolize the market for large- and medium-scale topographic
maps. But there are exceptions. Freytag & Berndt of Vienna, for example,
has been producing 1:50,000 topographic maps of Austria since the 1960s—
albeit largely based on state sources of topographic data (Halbwachs,1 pers.
comm.). These maps appear to be at least as accessible in Austria as the of-

1 Christian Halbwachs, manager, Freytag & Berndt.

 Topographic Maps 143

FIGURE 2 Style comprises both feature selection and appearance, and its homogenization
of landscape embodies the character of a national series of topographic maps (a 1:24,000
topographical map sheet covering part of the U.S. Virgin Islands, produced by the USGS,
1982).

ficially produced maps of the Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen

(BEV), the state mapping agency, reestablished in 1945 (Kretschmer, 1991:
16).
Although there are good grounds for studying the similarities and differ-
ences between house styles of unofficial topographic maps, those produced
by the state have a public responsibility to fulfill, rather than just meeting
144 A. Kent

commercial obligations. The rationale for making commercial topographic

maps is profit maximization—selling as many copies of a map as possible
and reaching the greatest number of users. According to Lawrence (2004:
119), if the OS Landranger map series (1:50,000 scale) were to be produced
on a purely commercial basis, it would offer only 40 percent national cover-
age. Where topographic maps are specifically designed for leisure use (e.g.,
for walkers and tourists rather than architects or planners), their interests
are, of course, likely to influence the design and content of the maps. A
departure from a general-purpose specification, and the balance of themes
that this has come to require, might signify a move away from state owner-
ship to privatization, i.e. from producing topographic maps as “cartography
for cartography’s sake” way, which can accommodate the needs of diverse
user groups, to meeting the needs of a specific user group. This might occur
when income (and to some extent, survival) relies on revenue protection
from selling more maps as opposed to state funding. But the design process
of official topographic maps is particularly significant. There is no single
aesthetic judgment, but a corporate judgment: the landscape must be sym-
bolized and defined in a way that will appeal, that meets the needs of several
user groups, that serves multiple purposes, and that perhaps also expresses
the sense of place and aesthetic character of the national landscape.
As already implied, topographic maps are problematic to interpret be-
cause of the many themes they incorporate and the many users, uses, and
interests they aim to serve. Consequently, attempts to offer a comparison
from a design perspective are largely descriptive. Devising a solid methodol-
ogy that draws on existing research to examine topographic maps therefore
needs to incorporate some elements from the study of thematic maps, such
as those described above. The method offering the most straightforward
comparison of topographic map symbologies is probably that of Olson and
Whitmarsh (1944), where symbols appear out of their context, redrawn in a
set of tables according to the type of feature symbolized (Figure 3). These
tables are by no means exhaustive in terms of symbology or NMOs, and sym-
bols were omitted “in cases in which there is little or no standardisation and
in which the symbols are rare” (ibid.: 150). By showing “representative sym-
bols for types of objects that are common to many areas” outside the United
States, the aim was to offer guidance for interpreting foreign maps and land-
scapes, despite the somewhat demoralizing caveat, “If there is no legend,
interpreting the symbols may be impossible” (ibid.: 146). This demonstrates,
perhaps, an early acknowledgment to the effect that connotations vary with
culture.
Manuals designed purely for military use such as Foreign Maps pro-
duced by the United States Army, similarly describe, evaluate, and present
examples of topographic maps from around the world to aid in interpreting
the landscape and appraising map reliability in terms of accuracy, currency,
and presentation (Department of the Army, 1963: 272). The contributions
 Topographic Maps 145

FIGURE 3 A table of typical point symbols used in topographical maps of the world (from
Olson and Whitmarsh, 1944; actual size). Copyright 1944, Harper & Brothers.

of Wood (1963; 1968) and Knowles and Stowe (1982) are based on similar
comparisons of topographic maps, but extracts are accompanied by aerial
photographs and, in the case of the latter, the legends themselves. As previ-
ously discussed, these were intended to serve primarily an educational aim,
offering a systematic comparison of topographic maps and landscapes in
order to develop skills of map reading and landscape interpretation.
Studies suggesting that the symbology or style of topographic maps re-
sults from factors beyond their capacity as a function of the land itself are
146 A. Kent

FIGURE 4 Distribution of feature types or “range classes” in five European 1:25,000 topo-
graphic maps (redrawn from Piket, 1972; an explanation for the quantity of symbols indicated
by the stars is not given).

rare. In his analysis of five European topographic maps, Piket (1972) was
able to differentiate between types of topographic map from a classification
of the legend content by dividing the number of features appearing in the
legend by the type of feature, raising questions surrounding the design of
the maps themselves. Basing his approach on the theories of Wrenn (1949),
which sought to divide language into indicative (to state facts) and emotive
(to suggest emotional attitude or feeling)—heralding the concepts of respec-
tively denotation and connotation—Piket also argued that the cartographic
language of topographic maps exhibited these two types of expression, sug-
gesting that maps have “emotive functions” when a mapmaker desires to
transfer “feeling” for an area to the user (Piket, 1972: 268).
Using topographic maps of the same scale (1:25,000) from five European
countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, West Germany and Denmark, Italy, and
Switzerland), five types of phenomena were selected—built-up areas, roads,
ground cover, orography (relief), and hydrography—to form five “range
classes.” The number of features represented in the map legend for each
was then counted to indicate the variations in selection of feature type,
summarizing the overall character of each map. Although the definition of a
symbol is not given and neither are the actual figures, Piket’s summarizing
table does provide some sense of how the selection of certain types of feature
varies by country (Figure 4). These results led to an identification of a “type”
(which could easily be read as “style”) of topographic map, based on the
treatment of a particular feature type. For example, “Italian type,” exhibits
an accent on relief and a remarkably narrow range for built-up areas and
ground cover (Piket, 1972: 276).
Piket also applied a similar method of classification to an assortment of
different maps, plotting the landscape characteristics and features given in
the map legend against the controls of scale (and, therefore, the degree of
 Topographic Maps 147

FIGURE 5 Symbolization as “topographic range” for different maps (redrawn from Piket,
1972).
148 A. Kent

generalization and symbolization), so that the five topographic maps could

be placed within a greater cartographic context (Figure 5). The different
types of landscape feature formed a continuum, while the range of symbols
shown on the map was called the “topographic range.” Maps that included
a variety of features, therefore, were regarded to possess a wider range than
those concentrating on a particular phenomenon. Thematic maps would thus
typically exhibit a narrow range in comparison with topographic maps.
While Piket (1972: 268) considers topographic maps to be indicative
maps—concerned with presenting an inventory of the real, measurable el-
ements and characteristics of the terrain as authentically and accurately as
possible—he acknowledges that there are peculiar shortcomings in their
symbolization of landscape that correspond to national differences:

One finds that the selection of topographic phenomena to be included,

usually follows a national norm, rather than a norm which reflects the
landscape to be mapped. The legends, which in effect represent the
collection of terrain elements to be mapped, are generally inadequate in
relation to the diversity of landscape types (Piket, 1972: 270).

Although this seems to imply that the classification of landscape is influenced

by cultural values, this interpretation is not taken any further. But what
is perhaps more surprising is that, while offering a new interpretation of
the cartographic language paradigm (i.e., indicative, emotive and symbolic
forms) at the outset (ibid.: 268), this theory was not used by Piket to discuss
the findings. There is no postanalytical suggestion that the different types of
topographic map, for example, may be designed to evoke different feelings
about the landscapes they symbolize.
Of course, this is not surprising, given that the academic cartographic
literature of the time was concerned with the application of communication
theory to maps; the structural analysis of Barthes and the deconstruction of
Derrida, for example, would not find expression in cartographic literature for
another twenty years. Under the postwar hegemony of modernism, it was,
therefore, perhaps inevitable that Piket (1972) envisioned a future where “to-
pographic norm landscapes” could be classified and, through international
cooperation, subsequently used to devise a single and continuous topo-
graphic legend (Piket, 1972: 276). The variation in style between national
topographic map series was thus seen as a problem to be solved, rather than
an acknowledgment of the richness in approaches to mapping landscapes
that arises from social diversity: “Without international consultation, the di-
versity of topographic maps with a ‘national tinge’ will remain in existence”
(ibid.: 273).
In contrast, the approach outlined by Forrest et al. (1996) was to com-
pare, and in effect, almost to celebrate the different methods of topographic
representation. The drive for this comparison was to fill a gap left by
 Topographic Maps 149

cartographic literature that had neglected descriptions of current practice

and the similarities and differences in solving particular representational
problems in different parts of the world by different organizations (ibid:
57). In a way reminiscent of the approach adopted by Morrison (1994; 1996)
above, the aim was to illustrate the diversity of approaches taken by different
mapmakers in solving particular problems of cartographic representation.
A series of papers was envisaged that would each deal with a cho-
sen phenomenon such as settlements, communications, vegetation, surface
characteristics, hydrology and hydrographic features, and archaeologi-
cal/historical features (Forrest et al., 1996: 57). The authors also planned to
produce a further set of papers dealing with tourist and recreation facilities,
land use and industry, boundaries, and civil divisions (ibid.). The methodol-
ogy applied for the ensuing series of studies—by Forrest et al. (1997), Collier
et al. (1998), and Collier et al. (2003)—involved the identification of features
associated with particular phenomena and a description of the various ways
in which these had been presented on topographic maps. For example, in
the first of the series (Forrest et al., 1997), the topic was the coastal envi-
ronment, investigating the various depictions of coastline: rocks, cliffs and
wave-cut platforms, sandy beaches and coastal dunes, and reefs. The result
was a plethora of illustrated examples accompanied by clear, detailed, and
highly descriptive comparisons such as this:

Both Soviet and AS [Ausgabe Stadt] maps show rocks in the sea using
standard symbols, an upright T for submerged rocks, an inverted T for
emergent rocks and a cross (+) for a rock that is covered at high tide. On
Soviet maps these symbols are printed in brown whereas on the DDR
[Deutsche Demokratische Republik] editions they are shown in black
(Forrest et al., 1997: 84)

Although the series offered little interpretation of the cultural, social, or

political factors affecting topographic map design, the systematic analysis
of symbolization led to the conclusion that a wide range of representative
approaches, with varying levels of detail, is adopted for mapping these phe-
nomena (Forrest et al., 1997: 85). A similar conclusion could also have been
reached by comparing the topographic map extracts in Margaret Wood’s
Foreign Maps and Landscapes of 1968. Additionally, instead of providing
an illustrated stylistic comparison between the topographic maps of NMOs
at an identical scale, as in the case of Piket’s (1972) analysis, the series of
studies initiated by Forrest et al. (1996) encompassed a range of scales from
1:10,000 to 1:1,000,000 and incorporated both state and privately owned map
producers.
As scale and type of mapmaker (i.e., state and commercial) greatly in-
fluence factors such as generalization and audience, the method used by
the series initiated by Forrest et al. (1996) is unsuitable for examining the
150 A. Kent

similarities and differences between styles of official mapping agencies. Fur-

thermore, despite offering an insight into the different approaches that dif-
ferent mapmakers adopt to map certain phenomena, their methodology was
based on the premise that these were objective phenomena receiving sub-
jective treatment; they posed certain problems of cartographic representation
that were overcome in different ways. Consequently, a critical interpretation
of map styles with an analysis of how cultural values might influence sym-
bolization was avoided. Nevertheless, this group of studies provides a useful
description of different approaches, together with an idea of the resulting
styles that exist, and how these styles change by scale and organization.
The potential identification of a national style and any further classifi-
cation is likely to be more straightforward with thematic than topographic
maps, as there is usually a smaller range of design problems to overcome
and far fewer variables to consider. Put simply, as there is usually one theme
to analyze, the research can focus on how the cartographic representation
of this theme varies in comparing maps and in its relationship with other
types of information selected. Differences between maps of a similar topic
are also easier to recognize and identify. But with topographic maps, de-
sign problems that might arise (such as with the addition of a new type
of information) are more difficult to resolve because the cartographer may
fulfill the needs of one user group and neglect the needs of another as a
result. The need to strike a balance between many themes—a quintessential
characteristic of the topographic map—thus renders critical comparison and
interpretation somewhat more difficult.

Approaches for Developing a New Methodology

Building on the theoretical framework laid down in previous studies, a
methodology for analyzing topographic maps should be based on the
premise that, far from being objective representations of an objective world,
topographic maps exhibit values through choices made in their symboliza-
tion of a socially constructed landscape. So, while according to Keates (1996:
256), the general visual appearance of any sheet in a topographic map se-
ries is a function of both type of landscape and its graphical representation,
an approach needs to be taken that embraces the connotative possibilities
of different styles of graphical representation. Its point of departure should,
therefore, be to consider maps as socially constructed texts in which differ-
ent cultural values, power relations, and interests influence (and to some
extent, control) map design, rather than simple records of spatial variations
in geophysical characteristics such as terrain, climate, and vegetation.
The aim of any methodology should be to generate findings with an
applied dimension. The need for this has been highlighted especially by
 Topographic Maps 151

Pacione (1999: 5, 6) in his discussion of both the value and possible limita-
tions of postmodern research methodologies. Thus:

One of the major achievements of postmodern discourse has been the

illumination of the importance of difference in society as part of the
theoretical shift from an emphasis on economically rooted structures of
dominance to cultural “otherness” focused [sic] on the social construction
of group identities. [ . . . ] In terms of real-world problems, postmodern
thought would condemn us to inaction while we reflect on the nature of
the issue.

It should, therefore, be emphasized that while the methodology should

build on postmodern (and essentially, poststructuralist) approaches to un-
derstanding maps, it should also aim to provide useful interpretations and
possible solutions to problems associated with the lack of understanding of
difference between styles of representation. The poststructuralist handling
of maps as texts allows an open interpretation of the meaning of symbols
wherein connotations are not fixed, and perhaps acts as a basis for consid-
ering whether styles could plausibly be described as “dialects”—a subgroup
of particular expressions within a shared cartographic language. Moreover,
if, as Leppert (1996: 5) states, all meaning results from social practices that
are in a constant state of flux and are under challenge by people holding
diverse, often conflicting interests, then it is taken that a topographic map
can offer a snapshot of these interests as expressed through its symbology,
even though the shared meanings of these symbols may change over time.
In Visual Methodologies, Gillian Rose suggests that a critical approach
to interpreting visual images should involve taking images seriously (care-
fully), thinking about the social conditions and effects of visual objects, and
developing one’s own way of looking at images (Rose, 2001: 15, 16). The
topographic map image is constructed from its symbolization of landscape,
in which individually designed symbols result from value-based choices. But
if approaches to comparing styles of representation preserve the hegemony
of objectivity, in which, according to Piket (1972: 271), “Standard legends
work more or less like a filter which withdraws certain topographic data
from the map image,” the significance of these choices may be overlooked:

The most appropriate way to illustrate the differences found in the map-
ping styles of Western European countries is to produce sample maps
of selected areas in Great Britain using medium scale specifications from
selected Western European countries. By using the same areas in each
case, the differences resulting purely from symbolisation will be more
evident (Kinninment, 1997: 27)

Any attempt to compare styles by replicating symbol specifications for the

creation of maps of a landscape (hypothetical or otherwise) is insufficient
152 A. Kent

for any rigorous examination of the differences in topographic maps. Differ-

ent societies map their landscape according to the needs and values of that
society, and these affect the choices over what to show and how to show it.
A plausible comparison of this type would therefore need to involve a situ-
ation where different NMOs were involved in mapping the same land at the
same time. Variations in symbology and style would therefore result from
the choices made in symbolizing the landscape. In other words, not only
would the representation of features be different but so would the survey of
features and the basis for their inclusion or omission. Such differences are ev-
ident when comparing topographic maps of border regions where territories
overlap to some extent, but also over wider areas, for example in the case
of Luxembourg and some parts of the Alps. It should be stressed, however,
that smaller scale topographic maps are derived from larger scale products
and so the choices affecting map design accumulate as scale decreases.
The approach taken here, therefore, is not to offer a means for de-
scribing how NMOs encounter similar problems of representation in their
symbolization of landscape, but to provide a means of comparing similarity
and difference in their symbologies through which a deeper investigation
can be built. The basis for such a methodology lies in the classification of
the state classification of landscape—a typology. But classification has limi-
tations. As Inkpen (2005: 56) states, “Classification is a research tool like any
other; it is an aid to interpretation rather than an absolute statement about
the nature of reality.” Such a typology must therefore aim to be objective in
the sense that a classification of the same set of symbologies by the same
sequence of methods will produce the same analysis. This provides the basis
for more rigorous analyses of the symbology, which in turn allows a more
feasible assessment of the influences affecting the cartographic design of
topographic maps. The selection of features, their symbolization, and em-
phasis are all influenced by factors beyond the empirical observations of the
surveyor, and any methodology should acknowledge this.
The strategy, therefore, calls for the construction of a typology of car-
tographic style, through which the symbology of topographic maps can be
compared and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Given
the effects on symbolization suggested by scale, it would be necessary to
choose maps at similar (if not identical) scales and, to preserve the choices
made by the NMO, involve paper maps rather than digital counterparts. As
legend symbols are presented to the user as the vocabulary necessary for
understanding the map (Figure 6), these would need to be the main source
for compiling the typology because it is the symbolization of the wider
landscape under scrutiny, not the individual map sheet. Through a classifi-
cation of these symbols according to the features they represent, it should be
possible to generate quantitative data and enable the relative proportions of
symbolized features to be examined, allowing multivariate analysis to be per-
formed. These data could also be used for performing bivariate analysis with
 Topographic Maps 153

FIGURE 6 Extract from a Landranger 1:50,000 map sheet showing part of the legend through
which users become familiar with the vocabulary of symbols (Ordnance Survey, 2004)
© Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

national conditions, such as population density and structure of the economy.

Moreover, if topographic maps involved in this typology are those produced
by NMOs, these are the smallest entities with which particular styles might
be associated, and it may therefore seem plausible to define these as national
styles. Such a definition, however, would require a thorough investigation
154 A. Kent

into the heritage and evolution of cartographic symbology. The development

of a particular symbol (let alone a whole symbology) and its use over time
would involve a substantial amount of detailed research in itself.
Other aspects of the map’s appearance could also form part of the ty-
pology, perhaps based on visual variables such as color and visual hierarchy.
Lettering and background colors such as “white” space also affect the visual
appearance of topographic maps and would complement the quantitative
analyses afforded by the classification of the legend symbologies to provide
a fuller understanding of their cartographic style. Using these criteria as a
foundation, it should therefore be possible to analyze the style and content
of topographic maps to compare their designs more rigorously, discover any
links with national conditions, and explore their evolving relationship with
society.

CONCLUSIONS

Topographic maps present a particular view of the land—a socially con-

structed landscape—as the result of choices surrounding the way their sub-
ject is classified and symbolized. Although previous attempts to identify and
explore cartographic style have tended to focus on thematic cartography, it
is possible to devise a methodology for the stylistic analysis of topographic
maps that draws from the analysis of transport maps, country maps, and
national atlases to investigate the selection and representation of features.
While some studies have examined the differences in topographic map sym-
bology, none has considered maps as socially constructed texts, in which
different cultural values, power relations, and interests influence (and to
some extent, control) map design, rather than simple records of spatial vari-
ations in geophysical characteristics such as terrain, climate, and vegetation.
The next stage would be to derive a method based on this approach for
analyzing and comparing the cartographic styles of topographic maps at
various scales. The limitations of paper as a static medium lends itself to
the preservation of choices and would therefore be the preferred—though
not exclusive—medium, while including maps at similar (ideally, identical)
scales would help ensure a systematic and rigorous approach. It is hoped
that such a method would offer a vehicle for identifying supranational styles
in state topographical mapping, comparing colonial with indigenous carto-
graphic styles, and possibly for exploring the evolution of national styles of
cartography.

REFERENCES

Black, J. 1997. Maps and politics. London: Reaktion Books.

Böhme, R. 1993. Inventory of world topographic mapping, Vol. 3. Eastern Europe,
Asia, Oceania and Antarctica. Oxford: Elsevier Science Publishers.
 Topographic Maps 155

Collier, P., Forrest, D. and Pearson, A. 2003. The representation of topographic infor-
mation on maps: The depiction of relief. The Cartographic Journal. 40(1):17–26.
Collier, P., Pearson, A. and Forrest, D. 1998. The representation of topographic
information on maps: Vegetation and rural land use. The Cartographic Journal.
35(2):191–197.
Department of the Army. 1963. Technical manual TM 5-248: Foreign maps. Wash-
ington, D.C.: United States War Office.
EuroGeographics. 2005. EuroRegionalMap. Pan-European database at medium scale:
Specification and data catalogue. Available at: http://www.eurogeographics.
org/eng/03 projects erm deliverable.asp (Accessed September 27, 2006).
EuroGeographics. 2008. EuroRegionalMap. Available at: http://www.eurogeo-
graphics.org/eng/03 projects euroregionalmap.asp (Accessed April 25, 2009).
Forrest, D., Pearson, A. and Collier, P. 1996. The representation of topographic
information on maps—A new series. The Cartographic Journal. 33(1): 57–58.
Forrest, D., Pearson, A. and Collier, P. 1997. The representation of topographic
information on maps–The coastal environment. The Cartographic Journal. 34(2):
77–85.
Inkpen, R. 2005. Science, philosophy and physical geography. London: Routledge.
Kazemi, S. and Lim, S. 2007. Deriving multi-scale GEODATA from TOPO-250K road
network data. Journal of Spatial Science. 52(1):165–176.
Keates, J.S. 1996. Understanding maps. 2nd ed. Harlow, U.K.: Longman.
Kent, A.J. 2008. Cartographic blandscapes and the new noise: Finding the good view
in a topographical mashup. The Bulletin of the Society of Cartographers. 42(1,
2): 29–37.
Kent, R.B. 1986. National atlases: The influence of wealth and political orientation
on content. Geography. 71(2): 122–130.
Kinninment, E. 1997. “A proposal for a 1:100,000 scale topographic map series of
Great Britain: A comparative study” M.Sc. thesis. Glasgow, U.K.: University of
Glasgow.
Knowles, R. and Stowe, P.W.E. 1982. Western Europe in maps: Topographical map
studies Harlow, U.K.: Longman.
Kretschmer, I. 1991. The mapping of Austria in the twentieth century. Imago Mundi.
43: 9–20.
Lawrence, V. 2004. The role of national mapping organizations. The Cartographic
Journal. 41(2): 117–122.
Leppert, R. 1996. Art and the committed eye: The cultural functions of imagery.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Monmonier, M. 1994. The rise of the national atlas. Cartographica. 31(1): 1–15.
Morrison, A. 1994. Why are French transport maps so distinctive compared with
those of Germany and Spain?. The Cartographic Journal. 31(2): 113–122.
Morrison, A. 1996. “Public transport maps in western European cities.” The Carto-
graphic Journal. 33(2): 93–110.
Nicholson, T. 2004. Cycling and motoring maps in Western Europe 1885–1960. The
Cartographic Journal. 41(3): 181–215.
Olson, E.C. and Whitmarsh, A. 1944. Foreign maps. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Ordnance Survey. 2004. 189: Ashford & Romney Marsh. Ed. D1. From Landranger
1:50 000 Southampton: Ordnance Survey.
 156 A. Kent

Pacione, M., ed. 1999. Applied geography: Principles and practice. London: Rout-
ledge.
Piket, J.J.C. 1972. Five European topographic maps: A contribution to the classifi-
cation of topographic maps and their relation to other map types. Geografisch
Tijdschrift. 6(3): 266–276.
Revell, P. 2005 (July 7–8). Seeing the wood from the trees: Generalising OS


R
Mastermap Tree Coverage Polygons to Woodland at 1:50 000 Scale. Paper
presented at the 8th ICA Workshop on Generalization and Multiple Represen-
tation, A Coruña, Spain. http://ica.ign.fr/Acoruna/Papers/Revell.pdf (Accessed
October 3, 2006).
Robinson, A.H., Morrison, J.L., Muehrcke, P.C., Kimerling, A.J. and Guptill, S.C. 1995.
Elements of cartography. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rose, G. 2001. Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual
materials. London: Sage.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1949. “N.K-10: Mt Shasta” From Interna-
tional Map of the World 1:1 000 000. Washington, D.C.: USGS.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1982. “Christiansted Quadrangle” From Vir-
gin Islands—Municipality of St. Croix. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). Reston,
Virginia: USGS.
Vujakovic, P. 1995. The Sleeping Beauty complex: Maps as text in the construction
of national identity. In Hill, T. and Hughes, W., eds. Contemporary Writing and
National Identity. Bath, U.K.: Sulis Press.
Wood, D. 1992. The power of maps. New York: Guilford Press.
Wood, M. 1963. Map studies and landscape types. London: George G. Harrap & Co.
Wood, M. 1968. Foreign maps and landscapes. London: George G. Harrap & Co.
Wrenn, C.L. 1949. The English language. London: Methuen.
Yonge, E.L. 1957. National atlases: A summary. Geographical Review 47(4): 570–578.
Zeigler, D.J. 2002. Post-Communist eastern Europe and the cartography of indepen-
dence. Political Geography 21(5): 671–686.

View publication stats