Why re-define cartography?
There are two reasons for seeking a new definition of cartography. Even if we limited ourselves to traditional cartography, the current definition is an inadequate and incomplete description of the subject. Also, it does not accommodate modern developments effectively. At the Conference open forum, some participants were of the opinion that many of these modern developments were outside the remit and scope of cartography. We will reconsider this point of view later. The current definition of cartography is inadequate largely because it does not define clearly the focus of the subject, namely maps. The description of maps is circular – “maps may be regarded as including all types of maps, charts, sections … “. This implies two types of maps, namely a subclass of specific forms, called maps, and a superclass of generic forms also called maps. The subclass of maps is defined as a “representation, normally to scale and on a flat medium, of a selection of material or abstract features on,
