-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Upside down maps
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:49:26 -0700
From: Frank Stieber <[log in to unmask]>
------------------
What's all this upside-down talk? Is this the same FLAT earth that we
are all talking about?
Frank L. Stieber
ASU-Map Collection
Tempe, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Johnnie D. Sutherland
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Upside down maps
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Upside down maps]]]
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:38:23 -0600
From: Angie Cope <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: American Geographical Society Library
I completely agree that there is no "right side up" to the Earth. The
whole idea behind putting the words "upside-down" or "turn around" in
the title of a map is to invite the viewer to consider the map's
alternate perspective. That is what I'd like to get at by standardizing
language via a subject heading or note. It seems the consensus is to
include the note "Map oriented with north to the bottom."
But, you see don't you, that by relying on this version we're continuing
to feed into the north-centric, this-way-up mind set. Why don't we say
"this is a south-oriented map" or "east-oriented map" or whatever. But,
we have to be careful how many different terms we use because if one
cataloger says, "Map oriented with south to the top" and another
cataloger says, "Map oriented with north to the bottom," how the heck
will our reference librarians find the item in the catalog. (I realize
that many map catalogers are also the map reference librarians, but still).
Honestly, I'm not trying to start a riot, but I believe that because
some of these maps are produced to be unique in this way, we should give
them credit for such. I understand and appreciate the concept behind
why other maps are oriented according to the maps purpose (toward a
peak, or direction of travel), but I think the orientation of an
upside-down map is a primary focus of the item. No?
I happen to like subject headings because once they're set, they're set
(mostly) - but I'm still open to using some kind of note. I'm just
wondering if there is a good set of words to describe this "invitation
to consider an unique and alternative perspective of the Earth."
Angie
P.S. Thanks all for your input.
Johnnie D. Sutherland wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Upside down maps]]
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:17:28 EST
> From: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------
> I thought Paige Andrew's suggestion noting 'orientation' was a logical
> descriptor for maps that are not North-up. Many historical maps are
> 'direction of
> travel' oriented, with or without a compass rose to clarify.
>
> I'd like to see more cartographers design modern maps that allow the
> reader
> to understand a region in a different light by drawing maps in
> non-north-up
> direction. I've done a few book maps that way of Hudson Bay and the
> Chesapeake
> Bay. Invariably they come under attack by editors because they are
> different,
> but if it illustrates a concept well, I feel it is justified.
>
> I have done a few modern maps in a non-north-up design, usually to
> orient
> with a geographical feature like a peak, valley or river.
>
> I agree the 'upside-down' term implies a mistake, or oddity, when
> really we
> are a bit trapped by a convention that should be challenged when
> possible.
>
> Mike Hermann
> www.purplelizard.com
--
**************************************************
Angie Cope, Cartographic Materials Catalog Librarian
American Geographical Society Library
UW Milwaukee Libraries
2311 E. Hartford
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL/index.html
[log in to unmask]
(414) 229-6282
(800) 558-8993 (toll free)
(414) 229-3624 (fax)
**************************************************
|
