Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

New Paradigm in Mapping: A Critique on Cartography and GIS

Version 1 : Received: 16 January 2019 / Approved: 17 January 2019 / Online: 17 January 2019 (03:30:08 CET)

How to cite: Jiang, B. New Paradigm in Mapping: A Critique on Cartography and GIS. Preprints 2019, 2019010173 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0173.v1). Jiang, B. New Paradigm in Mapping: A Critique on Cartography and GIS. Preprints 2019, 2019010173 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0173.v1).

Abstract

As noted in the introductory quotation, an ideal map was long ago seen as the map of the map, the map of the map, of the map, and so on endlessly. This recursive perspective on maps, however, has received little attention in cartography. Cartography, as a scientific discipline, is essentially founded on Euclidean geometry and Gaussian statistics, which deal with respectively regular shapes, and more or less similar things. It is commonly accepted that geographic features – such as rivers, cities, streets and building – are not regular and that the Earth’s surface is full of fractal or scaling or living phenomena with far more small things than large ones at different levels of scale. This paper argues for a new paradigm in mapping, based on fractal or living geometry and Paretian statistics, and – more critically – on the new conception of space, conceived and developed by Christopher Alexander, that space is neither lifeless nor neutral, but a living structure capable of being more living or less living. The fractal geometry is not limited to Benoit Mandelbrot’s framework, but is extended towards Christopher Alexander’s living geometry and based upon the third definition of fractal: A set or pattern is fractal if the scaling of far more small things than large ones recurs multiple times. Paretian statistics deals with far more small things than large ones, so it differs fundamentally from Gaussian statistics, which deals with more or less similar things. Under the new paradigm, I make several claims about maps and mapping: (1) Topology of geometrically coherent things – in addition to that of geometric primitives – enables us to see a scaling or fractal or living structure; (2) Under the third definition, all geographic features are fractal or living, given the right perspective and scope; (3) Exactitude is not truth – to paraphrase Henri Matisse – but the living structure is; and (4) Töpfer’s law is not universal, but scaling law is. All these assertions are supported by evidence, drawn from a series of previous studies. This paper demands a monumental shift in perspective and thinking from what we are used to on the legacy of cartography and GIS.

Supplementary and Associated Material

Subject Areas

third definition of fractal; fractal or living geometry; wholeness; head/tail breaks (ht-index); scaling law

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 19 January 2019
Commenter: Bin Jiang
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am the author.
Comment: I leave a set of related presentations on which this paper is substantially based:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326250247_Challenging_the_Establishment_of_Cartography_and_GIS https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326304703_A_Geospatial_Perspective_on_Sustainable_Urban_Mobility_in_the_Era_of_BIG_Data
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319527592_Why_Topology_Matters_in_Spatial_Cognition_and_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317615403_Why_Should_Spatial_Heterogeneity_Be_Formulated_as_a_Scaling_Law
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311509530_Why_should_scaling_be_the_first_law_of_geography
I welcome your comments and discussions.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.