Occasionally I'm asked to come into a project to introduce some cartographic thinking into work that ordinarily might not have much. I spent most of last week with some folks who know water utility GIS. I helped by designing a status map, and took some of that work to make some improvements to an editing map and a mobile map. The status map needed to be a multi-scale base map that showed the water network data (mains, valves, meters, etc.), and the status of assets and water service.  Many different people within a water department, local government, or even the public might see the map. This map had to be functional, attractive, and free of obvious  errors and awkward symbol or labeling choices.

The main issue I faced was one of unfit data.  This made the task of producing an attractive and functional map quite a challenge. The quality of the geometry of the street centerlines was not so good-streets strayed over parcel boundaries and curb lines. At small scales this data looked like it had been produced in less than five minutes by a decidedly unskilled draftsman. At large scales the data was useless; street labels needed to be on the streets (not on parcel lines or water mains).

That is a showstopper. Unfit data will never work to make a good map.  It's a fact. 

My colleagues on this project, beyond being very good at their jobs, were undeterred realists.  They knew the data wasn't perfect; it's all we had. In their view it was more important to get our work done than to fret over not having a beautiful map. Further, if I, the cartographer, couldn't fix it, then that was an even better excuse than any of them not being able to fix it.

Instead of arguing that cartography is the answer and can fix everything, I listened. I heard how most water departments don't make their own street centerline data; they get most of their base map data from other departments or their county. They have no budget to fix the data. It's a frustrating story, and one I've heard too many times over the past dozen plus years.

I've come to understand this is a problem of organizational culture.  Here's why:

  • Having to make maps with unfit data isn't fun and erodes the motivation of the people making the maps. If you know you're going to make a poor map because of circumstances beyond your control, you may learn to merely be happy with your paycheck rather than your job.
  • Produce less than stellar maps on a consistent basis and there is a danger of getting a reputation for not being brilliant, or worse, incompetent.
  • Business cycles, political winds, or pointy-haired bosses; it doesn't really matter why, but eventually organizations seek to rid themselves of incompetence or their less than brilliant workers. But since water departments (and others) need maps an inward focus often results:  "We don't have to show the other departments our maps..." becomes the mantra.
  • Inwardly focused departments equate to interdepartmental dysfunction. Did you ever wonder why the water department doesn't know about the street department's repaving projects?

So, that's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I bet some parts hit close to home. What should be done about this?  Experience has shown me that most local government departments have shared requirements with other departments. But I don't hear many stories about how the map makers in the water department called the planning department with their requirements for street centerlines and maybe hint that resources could be shared to get the job done.  The job needs to get done-there is no excuse for a bad map to be produced in a professional setting. There is nothing professional about a bad map.

Good looking maps convey a sense of competence, create trust, and are the basis for confidence.  Show me an organization that doesn't want those things. Google and Microsoft have proved good looking maps are valuable.  Sure the data in those maps isn't quite perfect, but if it's presented sufficiently well, people clearly don't mind using it.

Infrastructure mapping doesn't have to be ugly or be bound by a Rapidograph pen and CAD legacy.

 

Too many water department maps look like this

 

The original water department maps could look more like the modified version by taking advantage of concepts like visual hierarchy and applying standards for legibility.

One last bit of wisdom gained was in presenting our project, we saw that just having the well designed map at the core of what we were doing made a huge positive difference. A little sadly, from my perspective, nobody cared how it got made. C'est la vie.