Is it possible to create the "perfect" expression of data on a map?
William Rankin doesn't think so. While most mainstream maps that use a jigsaw-puzzle-like format - solid color shapes separated by crisp boundaries - may be accurate enough for what they seek to represent, there are countless other ways to represent the same geography and tell very different stories.
"A skeptical regard for precision goes hand in hand with a skepticism toward some of the most common features of everyday maps: sharp borders, highly aggregated statistics, a neutral background of roads or topography, a willful disregard for temporal change, and so on," Rankin writes in his new book, "Radical Cartography: How Changing Our Maps Can Change Our World" (Viking). "Radical cartography instead shows a geography that's messier and lumpier, with more overlaps and internal diversity, burdened by the weight of history, and defined as much by personal involvement as arm's-length detachment."
"At its best," he continues, "radical cartography shows a world that matches our understanding and our experience - not just our expectations of what a map should look like."
