FE map with scale

So you now have a scale which goes from -10 to +10. You invent a different scale for every eventuality? Interesting. Why am I not surprised.

No, it is a difference depending on if there is an opposite.

If there is no opposite, the scale stops at 0.
If there is, an opposite, then the scale also has a negative side.

So when you take it from something which doesn't have an opposite and instead go to something that does, you shouldn't be surprised that the scale is different.
If you don't want it to be, then separate love and hate.
Then 0 is simply that I don't love it. It wouldn't then imply that I hate it.
And then separately, 0 is simply that I don't hate it, with no implication that I love it.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 04, 2021, 04:36:35 AM

And if they declare that isn't a map?

I'll be open to a rethink.

And that just shows how ridiculous your position is.
What the creator/owner calls it has no bearing on if it is that thing or not.

The creator calling it X does not mean it is X; and likewise the creator saying it isn't X doesn't mean it isn't X.

Or are you just saying that you would be

Sure, layers. Layers put on top of a map.

No, layers which make up the map.

Well that's kind of the point, isn't it. You are now calling this process "making"

My bad, I meant to say display, not make.

I don't know. Neither do you. You are reaching again.

But according to you, that is crucial.
If they use a database your claim is wrong, you need to know that they don't.

And no, I'm not reaching. While I don't know for certain exactly how they do it, I know that it wouldn't simply be a disorganised mess of images as that wouldn't allow them to determine what image goes where.
Instead it order to make it easy to determine what image to display, this has be stored in a structured way to quickly find it and give it to you.

Here is a definition of a database:
a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways.

So because they have a set of images, i.e. a set of data, which is stored in a computer (so it is accessible on the internet), which is almost certainly structured (it would be a very big reach to try claiming it isn't), it constitutes a database.

So no, I'm not reaching.

Searching and routing are independent of maps as already explained.

No, they aren't.
Showing where something is is a quite important function of a map.
Again, humans would search it visually, or need to use a text based index that went along with a map.
And like always, you just cherry pick which parts to actually focus on. I see you ignored traffic. That is unarguably a map, a map of traffic.

So we have a collection of 256x256 PNG tiles

Yes, and where do you think those tiles came from?
It sure seems to be a structured set of data, i.e. a database.
Notice that you don't just get a random collection of images which you then need to place.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 04, 2021, 04:36:35 AM

So it seems Google is quite happy generating images on the fly. Almost as if it has a massive server farm that can handle generating it when the user requests it.

No, it doesn't. Google is far too opaque to make that conclusion. Reaching again.

No, it isn't reaching. It is an obvious conclusion based upon the evidence I presented which you chose to ignore.
I provided an image from Google, which had that route on it.

So your options are:
1 - Google progenerated this long before I asked it for the route
2 - Google generated this image when I requested it.

The former would be insane, with Google making up so many images it isn't funny due to all the different possible routes you could ask for.
This leaves option 2 as the only sane option, that Google generates images on the fly.

So no, it isn't reaching by me. It is you dishonestly dismissing anything that shows you are wrong.

Completely missing the point.

No, it doesn't miss the point, it entirely addresses the point.
Images are data.
If you are storing images as part of a structured set of data such that you can present a few images for a particular location, you have a database.
In order to avoid having that database, you need a single image, or you need a disorganised collection of images, so the user would get them all and need to put them together themselves.

The fact that these images are stored in a structured way so you can just get the ones you need means it is a database, with the data being stored being those images.

But the point remains that your map consists of an array of PNG tiles.

You mean a database, not just an array.

The only way out now would be to try claiming that OSM is not a map, the Google Maps is not a map, and that instead the only map is when you browser renders it, that every time you visit the website, or change location you are making a map. As that is where you have a single coherent image, an image which is in the memory of your computer.

So that means you can forget all that GeoNames crap, way to complicated. You want to make a map? Just go to Google maps and load the page. Done.

Then 0 is simply that I don't love it. It wouldn't then imply that I hate it.
And then separately, 0 is simply that I don't hate it, with no implication that I love it.

Your one sided scale leaves you with zero - not a map, not zero - a map. A binary choice, no room for uncertainty. Your 1-10 numbers are nothing to do with it being a map, that's now a given, it's all about how good a map it is. You can't change your mind, if you take away all uncertainty.

My scale includes probably a map, probably not a map and no opinion either way, allowing me to shift my position based on new evidence. Or a compelling argument.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 04, 2021, 04:36:35 AM

And if they declare that isn't a map?

I'll be open to a rethink.

And that just shows how ridiculous your position is.
What the creator/owner calls it has no bearing on if it is that thing or not.

Of course it does. They know the thing inside out, top to bottom, they are the world experts. You can't just wade in, in total ignorance of how it was constructed and how it works and just ignore what they say, you need to consider what they say, even if you eventually rule it out.

The creator calling it X does not mean it is X; and likewise the creator saying it isn't X doesn't mean it isn't X.

And we're back to a binary position again. It either is or it isn't, zero or not zero. No room for doubt, don't need to take into account evidence, no sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty, no possibility of changing your mind.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Sure, layers. Layers put on top of a map.

No, layers which make up the map.

Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Well that's kind of the point, isn't it. You are now calling this process "making"

My bad, I meant to say display, not make.

So you meant to say display (a tile) instead of make (a tile)? Ok then starting with no tile, if you don't make a tile first, how are you displaying a tile?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

I don't know. Neither do you. You are reaching again.

But according to you, that is crucial.
If they use a database your claim is wrong, you need to know that they don't.

Not at all, I'm quite happy with your wording here, use a database. The central pillar of your argument is they they specifically don't use a database to make a map, they don't need to because a (spatial) database is a map. If you want to argue use and make, then I'm in agreement with you. I use flour to make a cake. Flour is not cake. These are both undeniably true.

And no, I'm not reaching. While I don't know for certain exactly how they do it, I know that it wouldn't simply be a disorganised mess of images as that wouldn't allow them to determine what image goes where.
Instead it order to make it easy to determine what image to display, this has be stored in a structured way to quickly find it and give it to you.

Here is a definition of a database:
a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways.

So because they have a set of images, i.e. a set of data, which is stored in a computer (so it is accessible on the internet), which is almost certainly structured (it would be a very big reach to try claiming it isn't), it constitutes a database.

So no, I'm not reaching.

Your weak definition of database is effectively any data which is not a disorganised mess. It pretty much covers anything really with any structure to it, no matter how simple, including this sentence.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Searching and routing are independent of maps as already explained.

No, they aren't.
Showing where something is is a quite important function of a map.
Again, humans would search it visually, or need to use a text based index that went along with a map.
And like always, you just cherry pick which parts to actually focus on. I see you ignored traffic. That is unarguably a map, a map of traffic.

In the days before I had GPS in my car or a smartphone, I often used Google maps to work out a route, printed out just the instructions in large font and took them with me. I had no trouble following my route as I drove, without a map. They are independent. Sure they can and do work well together, but one is not necessary for the other.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

So we have a collection of 256x256 PNG tiles

Yes, and where do you think those tiles came from?

I think some thing or someone made them. From something else. From something that isn't a map. From several things actually.

It sure seems to be a structured set of data, i.e. a database.
Notice that you don't just get a random collection of images which you then need to place.

Again, if you insist on using a weak definition of database, you can make almost anything fit. An old fashioned celluloid film is a highly structured set of 24 images per second. It is therefore a database by your reasoning.

TBC....

...

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 04, 2021, 04:36:35 AM

So it seems Google is quite happy generating images on the fly. Almost as if it has a massive server farm that can handle generating it when the user requests it.

No, it doesn't. Google is far too opaque to make that conclusion. Reaching again.

No, it isn't reaching. It is an obvious conclusion based upon the evidence I presented which you chose to ignore.
I provided an image from Google, which had that route on it.

And you jumped to the conclusion that the tile with embedded route was generated on the fly direct from data in a spatial database. However as I showed, OSM doesn't work that way. OSM sends you clean tiles and a separate block of data which defines a route and software on the client side then layers one on top of the other. If you have tiles and a separate route layer you have two choices, you can either combine the layers server side and deliver a tile with a route already on it, or you can deliver them separately and let the client do the work. OSM clearly does the latter.

The problem with Google is that it's opaque. You get a tile with a route embedded, was that generated on the server from a static tile image and a temporary route layer simply merged together or was the whole thing generated from a database on the fly? You can't tell, so don't jump to conclusions. I suspect the former.

This explains how Google tiles are actually structured: https://www.microimages.com/documentation/TechGuides/78googleMapsStruc.pdf

So your options are:
1 - Google progenerated this long before I asked it for the route
2 - Google generated this image when I requested it.

The former would be insane, with Google making up so many images it isn't funny due to all the different possible routes you could ask for.
This leaves option 2 as the only sane option, that Google generates images on the fly.

Yes, by generating a simple route layer with just a segmented line, some markers and labels and then merging this layer with a pre-generated static tile before shipping it. Effectively doing in the server what OSM clearly does in the client. The basemap is a set of pre-generated static tiles, generated long before you asked for anything. Based on what I've read, that's how I think it works. Making tiles is likely to be a costly operation (processing time) and can be done separately, well in advance.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Completely missing the point.

No, it doesn't miss the point, it entirely addresses the point.
Images are data.
If you are storing images as part of a structured set of data such that you can present a few images for a particular location, you have a database.

By your weak definition of database, yes. So you have some image files in a set of folders. This is your map, it is also a database. Fine. Search this database for "Eiffel Tower". Use this database to tell me how many people live in Yorkshire. Plot me a route from A to B avoiding motorways and traffic. Spatial database and map are the same thing right? The terms are interchangeable. So you go ahead use your "spatial database" of images in folders and answer these questions. Should be easy right?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

But the point remains that your map consists of an array of PNG tiles.

You mean a database, not just an array.

The only way out now would be to try claiming that OSM is not a map, the Google Maps is not a map, and that instead the only map is when you browser renders it, that every time you visit the website, or change location you are making a map. As that is where you have a single coherent image, an image which is in the memory of your computer.

So that means you can forget all that GeoNames crap, way to complicated. You want to make a map? Just go to Google maps and load the page. Done.

Google maps and OSM are complex applications. They include a map (or maps), search capability, routing and the ability add additional layers. I don't need a way out of anything. Your weak definition of database to include almost anything which takes your fancy has led you down a rabbit hole where Gone With the Wind is now defined as a database and not a film.

Your one sided scale leaves you with zero - not a map, not zero - a map. A binary choice, no room for uncertainty. Your 1-10 numbers are nothing to do with it being a map

Like I said, it is as if having a single number is not very effective. It is almost as if you need multiple numbers to represent the various facets of what makes it a map.

Of course it does.

No, it doesn't.

You can't just wade in, in total ignorance of how it was constructed and how it works and just ignore what they say, you need to consider what they say, even if you eventually rule it out.

If they just say it isn't a map, I can ignore it.
There is a fundamental difference between them simply saying it isn't a map and them providing a rational justification for why it isn't a map.
Notice the difference? One is them just saying it isn't X. The other is providing a justification for why it isn't X. One can safely be ignored as a baseless assertion, one can't.

And we're back to a binary position again. It either is or it isn't, zero or not zero. No room for doubt, don't need to take into account evidence, no sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty, no possibility of changing your mind.

It being a map or not is distinct from knowing it is a map or not.

If you want to change my mind, you will need a rational argument.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 04, 2021, 07:45:35 AM

Sure, layers. Layers put on top of a map.

No, layers which make up the map.

Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
[/quote]
If you really thought of it like that, we wouldn't be going down this path.

So you meant to say display (a tile) instead of make (a tile)? Ok then starting with no tile, if you don't make a tile first, how are you displaying a tile?

No, I meant display the components of a map.
Are you trying to claim making a tile is making a map, or just making a tile?

Not at all, I'm quite happy with your wording here, use a database.

USE, in the same sense that an image viewer USES a .png file to MAKE an image.
The central pillar of my argument is that all the information is there.
That arguments trying to claim it isn't a map because it doesn't look like a pretty picture, then applies to almost everything, including things like a png file which is USED to make a pretty picture by your computer.
Like I have said before, the database is a way to store the information, just like a .png file. And just like a png file, it is useless without software to interact with it.

Your weak definition of database is effectively any data which is not a disorganised mess.

No, it specifically requires it to be stored on a computer, and a set of data.
But that isn't my definition.

In the days before I had GPS in my car or a smartphone, I often used Google maps to work out a route, printed out just the instructions in large font and took them with me. I had no trouble following my route as I drove, without a map. They are independent. Sure they can and do work well together, but one is not necessary for the other.

So you used a map to get directions, and then printed those directions out.
Try it without any map and see how well you go.

And yet again you ignore the display of traffic as part of the map, which is mapping traffic.

Again, if you insist on using a weak definition of database, you can make almost anything fit. An old fashioned celluloid film is a highly structured set of 24 images per second. It is therefore a database by your reasoning.

As it isn't on a computer, it isn't.
Again, it uses a highly organised set of images to be able to rapidly send and display just the ones you need.

Your choices are either that means a database is a map, or the map only exists in your computers memory, that it is made by you when you access the site.

And you jumped to the conclusion that the tile with embedded route was generated on the fly direct from data in a spatial database.

Again, what alternative are you suggesting?
That they have them all premade just in case someone asks for those directions?

However as I showed, OSM doesn't work that way.

No, you didn't.
You didn't prove that those tiles exist before you request them.
And regardless, that in no way deals with the issue. The point of showing it was to show that Google is quite happy to generate images on the fly.

And just how do you think they got that route information without a spatial database?
Do you think the images just magically appear with no connection to a spatial database? Or do you think they are just a cache?
A temporary store to optimise performance? Kind of like how an image viewer/editor will cache the image, rather than continually referring to the file. Does that mean the png file isn't the actual image because the computer caches it?

The basemap is a set of pre-generated static tiles,

Which is part of a database. And notice, basemap, not map.
The actual map has more than just that base.

By your weak definition of database, yes. So you have some image files in a set of folders. This is your map, it is also a database. Fine. Search this database for "Eiffel Tower". Use this database to tell me how many people live in Yorkshire. Plot me a route from A to B avoiding motorways and traffic.

Just what point do you think you are making?
Different maps are used for different things.
You wouldn't use a population map to find a street, and you wouldn't use a street map to find the size of a population.

And as I have said before, if you want it easy for a computer to use, store it in a form suitable for a computer.

Spatial database and map are the same thing right? The terms are interchangeable.

No, I have never said that. I have repeatedly object to you strawmanning my position like that.
The terms are not interchangeable, just like medicine and drug.

Google maps and OSM are complex applications.

That's right, they are complex. But the issue here is just what part is the map?
Does it need to be a pretty image like you want to pretend?
If so, the map only exists in the memory of your computer.
A collection of images is not an image.

If they just say it isn't a map, I can ignore it.

Well you are free to ignore anything you like, of course. In the meantime, I'll listen to the experts and take account of what they say.

There is a fundamental difference between them simply saying it isn't a map and them providing a rational justification for why it isn't a map.

Of course. The problem is "map" is ill defined, so there is no accepted litmus test for what is or is not a map. If there were we could have applied it already and ended this discussion. You cannot know that something is a map if you cannot point to a universally accepted definition for a map. You can cherry pick a definition and demonstrate that according to that definition, something is a map. I can cherry pick a different definition and demonstrate it is not. A hundred years ago, things were simpler. We didn't have digital maps. If we stick to paper only, could we agree what is a map and what isn't? Perhaps.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:10:42 AM

So you meant to say display (a tile) instead of make (a tile)? Ok then starting with no tile, if you don't make a tile first, how are you displaying a tile?

No, I meant display the components of a map.

OK, fair enough, I misunderstood.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:10:42 AM

Your weak definition of database is effectively any data which is not a disorganised mess.

No, it specifically requires it to be stored on a computer, and a set of data.
But that isn't my definition.

No, but you complained when I "cherry picked" a definition out of many possibles, so...

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:10:42 AM

In the days before I had GPS in my car or a smartphone, I often used Google maps to work out a route, printed out just the instructions in large font and took them with me. I had no trouble following my route as I drove, without a map. They are independent. Sure they can and do work well together, but one is not necessary for the other.

So you used a map to get directions, and then printed those directions out.
Try it without any map and see how well you go.

For obvious reasons, route finding is normally used in conjunction with a map. But I could, if I wanted to, use something like https://openrouteservice.org/. They have an API which will return a route. Just the route, no map involved.

https://openrouteservice.org/dev/#/api-docs/v2/directions/{profile}/get

However you would need to register for the service to get an API key, which I haven't bothered to do, so I get an error. The point is, you don't need a map to get a route.

And yet again you ignore the display of traffic as part of the map, which is mapping traffic.

Back then, I don't think it dealt with traffic, that's another level of sophistication which is useful, but not essential. When we planned routes on paper maps, before the internet, we didn't account for traffic.

Your choices are either that means a database is a map, or the map only exists in your computers memory, that it is made by you when you access the site.

No, they are not my choices. They are just what you claim my choices are.

My choice is a database is a database, a map is a map, a database is not a map. I have my own informal definition of database and it doesn't include folders full of images and nothing else. I have my own informal definition of map, it is visual.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

And you jumped to the conclusion that the tile with embedded route was generated on the fly direct from data in a spatial database.

Again, what alternative are you suggesting?
That they have them all premade just in case someone asks for those directions?

The alternative is to pre-make a set of clean tiles, then, when the user requests a map with a route, take an in-memory copy of a tile (trivial, fast). Generate another in-memory layer with just a segmented line, some markers and some text (simple, some processing required), merge the two layers (trivial, fast) and ship the result. The same set of pre-made tiles are used for every request.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

However as I showed, OSM doesn't work that way.

No, you didn't.
You didn't prove that those tiles exist before you request them.

It demonstrated that clean tiles and a route layer were shipped separately to the client and then combined, in the client. The clean tiles can potentially be generated weeks, months, even years ahead, since they rarely need to change. The documentation for Google I provided you with and the online documentation for OSM discusses storage requirements for pre-made tiles. The obvious conclusion is that both almost certainly make use of pre-made tiles.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

The basemap is a set of pre-generated static tiles,

Which is part of a database. And notice, basemap, not map.
The actual map has more than just that base.

Certainly. I'm using standard GIS terminology here. Start with a basemap (from Google, OSM, wherever) then add additional information such as contour lines, property boundaries, POIs, routes, scales, compass points, a grid etc. etc. from a variety of different sources. They call this mapmaking. So do I, but really I suppose you are making a value added map from an existing map, because the basemap is a map in its own right.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

By your weak definition of database, yes. So you have some image files in a set of folders. This is your map, it is also a database. Fine. Search this database for "Eiffel Tower". Use this database to tell me how many people live in Yorkshire. Plot me a route from A to B avoiding motorways and traffic.

Just what point do you think you are making?
Different maps are used for different things.

No, different things are used for different things. Ignoring traffic for the moment, a comprehensive spatial database which contains ways in addition to point nodes (with additional data such as population) can answer this type of question and many others, you don't need other sources or lots of different spatial databases, just the one. A map which is just a collection of images in file folders cannot by itself answer any of these questions. They are two different things.

You claim they are the same, map = spatial database. Interchangeable terms. Yet the capabilities are completely different. Each one fulfils it's own role. Sure, if you build an application that combines the two, you can do all of these things.

If the spatial database is the map, then what are all these tiles for?

You wouldn't use a population map to find a street, and you wouldn't use a street map to find the size of a population.

No, if you had any sense, you'd use a single spatial database to answer both questions.

And as I have said before, if you want it easy for a computer to use, store it in a form suitable for a computer.

As a set of image tiles in some folders then.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

Spatial database and map are the same thing right? The terms are interchangeable.

No, I have never said that. I have repeatedly object to you strawmanning my position like that.
The terms are not interchangeable, just like medicine and drug.

So a spatial database is not a map then?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 02:12:27 AM

Google maps and OSM are complex applications.

That's right, they are complex. But the issue here is just what part is the map?
Does it need to be a pretty image like you want to pretend?
If so, the map only exists in the memory of your computer.
A collection of images is not an image.

Yes the map part is visual. I don't care if it is technically a set of tiles or a single image.

listen to the experts and take account of what they say.

If all an "expert" can do is just assert that it is a map, I see no reason to take them as an "expert".

You also need to recognise what they are an expert on. They would be experts on that particular thing, not an expert on deciding what is and isn't a map.

Of course. The problem is "map" is ill defined, so there is no accepted litmus test for what is or is not a map. If there were we could have applied it already and ended this discussion.

Likewise, if there was, you could have applied it and ended this discussion.
This whole discussion was based upon you rejecting GeoNames as a map so you can claim to have made a map, rather than just using an existing one, so you can claim map making is easy, so you can object to FEers claiming map making is hard.

And yes, bringing computers into it does make it a lot harder. Without them, we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of maps for computers, with complex systems, such as databases to store them. Instead we would just be focusing on a paper based map. Likewise, we wouldn't have discussed the complication of what is actually the image for a PNG file, is it the file itself, or is that merely a file which your computer uses to make the image?

No, but you complained when I "cherry picked" a definition out of many possibles, so...

Would you like some other definitions?
a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways.
a usually large collection of data organized especially for rapid search and retrieval (as by a computer)
(general) A collection of (usually) organized information in a regular structure, usually but not necessarily in a machine-readable format accessible by a computer.
(computing) A set of tables in a database(1).
(computing) A software program for storing, retrieving and manipulating a database(1)
a collection of pieces of information that is organized and used on a computer
In computing, a database is an organized collection of data stored and accessed electronically from a computer system.
A database is an organized collection of structured information, or data, typically stored electronically in a computer system.

They pretty much all seem to agree that organising a set of tiles into a highly structured format for rapid retrieval of specific tiles, on a computer system, constitutes a database. One also includes the software programming for doing so would be included as part of the definition of a database. The only one which appears to differ is "a set of tables in a database". But that refers specifically to something in a database so cannot exclude other things, or else you would have to have the tables inside themselves. It is also complicated by modern file systems (and by that it actually goes quite far back) that have random access with a file allocation table (or several) of some sort to identify where the data is physically stored on the disk (or logically for some solid state storage that then has to go through another to get the physical location). This means the file system itself is a database.

https://openrouteservice.org/. They have an API which will return a route. Just the route, no map involved.

This presupposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.
How do they get their directions? By using a map made for computers.
The computer uses this map to determine an optimal route and give it to you as a bunch of text.

Just because you don't see a map doesn't mean it isn't used.

If you would like a simple example, without using computers, you could go to someone and ask them for directions. They then go and consult the maps they have access to to determine the best route, and then write down a list of instructions. They then bring this list of instructions to you.
Does the fact you didn't see a map mean that one wasn't used? No.

Back then, I don't think it dealt with traffic, that's another level of sophistication which is useful, but not essential. When we planned routes on paper maps, before the internet, we didn't account for traffic.

Which in no way negates the fact that it is currently capable of mapping traffic.

And it isn't just traffic that needs to be ignored.
For example, switch to satellite view.
Consider this image here:

This is a screenshot of what appears on Google Maps over central park when you are in satellite view.
The only image tiles I can find being sent are those for the satellite image. This lacks the streets shown as an additional layer on top of the satellite image.

So do you dismiss those streets as just another irrelevant layer and not actually part of the map? Because I think most people would say the streets are part of the map.

My choice is a database is a database, a map is a map, a database is not a map.

The choice to discuss here is what is the map for Google maps.
That "choice" of yours in no way addresses that.

The alternative is to pre-make a set of clean tiles, then, when the user requests a map with a route, take an in-memory copy of a tile (trivial, fast). Generate another in-memory layer with just a segmented line, some markers and some text

i.e. by using that spatial database. Unless you want to suggest an alternative for where that "segmented line, some markers and some text" are coming from.

It demonstrated that clean tiles and a route layer were shipped separately to the client

Which wasn't the issue.

The clean tiles can potentially be generated weeks, months, even years ahead, since they rarely need to change.

That is called caching.

Certainly. I'm using standard GIS terminology here. Start with a basemap (from Google, OSM, wherever) then add additional information such as contour lines, property boundaries, POIs, routes, scales, compass points, a grid etc. etc. from a variety of different sources. They call this mapmaking. So do I, but really I suppose you are making a value added map from an existing map, because the basemap is a map in its own right.

Yet previously you were effectively claiming that basemap IS the map and that extra stuff you put on top is just extra, and isn't part of the actual map.

No, different things are used for different things.

And different maps are different things.
Being different doesn't mean they can't both be maps.

Ignoring traffic for the moment, a comprehensive spatial database which contains ways in addition to point nodes (with additional data such as population) can answer this type of question and many others, you don't need other sources or lots of different spatial databases, just the one.

Yes, a comprehensive map is capable of answering lots of things.
A much simpler map, with much less information, is not.
The big issue is that when you try to have a pretty picture for people to look at, you are quite limited with just what information you can display without it being overwhelming.

You claim they are the same, map = spatial database. Interchangeable terms.

No, I don't.
Just like I don't claim drug = medicine with the 2 being interchangable.

That is your strawman so you can pretend there is a problem.
Different maps have different capabilities.
Ignoring that so you can pretend a map with different capabilities to another map is magically not a map doesn't change that fact.

If the spatial database is the map, then what are all these tiles for?

The tiles serve as a cache and are part of the database.

No, if you had any sense, you'd use a single spatial database to answer both questions.

And there you go ignoring the point yet again.

Does the fact that a street map and a population map give different information and have different uses mean that only one of them is a map as they cannot be used interchangeably?

So a spatial database is not a map then?

Do you understand what the word interchangeable means?
Do you want to bother actually trying to read what I said instead of continually misrepresenting it?
Do you think that medicines are not drugs, because the words are not interchangeable?
Do you think that cats are not animals because the words are not interchangeable?

Yes the map part is visual. I don't care if it is technically a set of tiles or a single image.

You should, as a set of tiles is not simply a pretty picture.
If it needs to be a pretty picture, it needs to be a single pretty picture, not a collection of pictures which need to be stitched together to form a single coherent image.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 05:09:41 AM

Of course. The problem is "map" is ill defined, so there is no accepted litmus test for what is or is not a map. If there were we could have applied it already and ended this discussion.

Likewise, if there was, you could have applied it and ended this discussion.
This whole discussion was based upon you rejecting GeoNames as a map so you can claim to have made a map, rather than just using an existing one, so you can claim map making is easy, so you can object to FEers claiming map making is hard.

No, you said:

Conversely, what you did was obtain a list of point with their latitude and longitude already specified and displayed them.
That is not making a map.

That is effectively the same as going to Google maps, and taking a screenshot and claiming I made the map.

Is this or is this not you equating a list of points with a map? Specifically a screenshot of Google maps is "effectively the same as" a list of points?

That's your original claim right there. I reject this claim.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 05, 2021, 03:56:10 AM

https://openrouteservice.org/. They have an API which will return a route. Just the route, no map involved.

This presupposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.
How do they get their directions? By using a map made for computers.
The computer uses this map to determine an optimal route and give it to you as a bunch of text.

And your reply pre-supposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.

My point here is that if I go to Google Maps and ask for a route, I can hardly ignore the obvious, that there is a map right in front of me, by any sensible definition, a map. I think it's a map, you think it's a map, most people I'm sure, would agree. It's even called "Google Maps".

However I can instead use the Openrouteservice API to get my route and in this case, there is no obvious map to be seen and the clue in the name is no longer present. You can claim this is a map/uses a map, but you don't know this, so this is now just your opinion and nothing else.

Just because you don't see a map doesn't mean it isn't used.

Just because you think it uses a map doesn't mean it does.

If you would like a simple example, without using computers, you could go to someone and ask them for directions. They then go and consult the maps they have access to to determine the best route, and then write down a list of instructions. They then bring this list of instructions to you.
Does the fact you didn't see a map mean that one wasn't used? No.

How do you know they went away and consulted a map? You are just assuming they did, just the same as you assume Openrouteservice uses a map. If however you know for certain that they used a map (maybe you saw them?) then the two situations are not comparable.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 05:45:40 AM

The alternative is to pre-make a set of clean tiles, then, when the user requests a map with a route, take an in-memory copy of a tile (trivial, fast). Generate another in-memory layer with just a segmented line, some markers and some text

i.e. by using that spatial database. Unless you want to suggest an alternative for where that "segmented line, some markers and some text" are coming from.

I don't know where the source data to make the original tile came from, neither do you. It could be the raw data collected from a survey. Is a survey a map?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment you are correct and it came from a spatial database. Someone then made a tile from the data in a spatial database. So what, I claim I made a map from data from a spatial database. All that means is we're back to the beginning and whether this constitutes making something or not. I say it does. You say it doesn't. These are just two different opinions, as always.

Yet previously you were effectively claiming that basemap IS the map and that extra stuff you put on top is just extra, and isn't part of the actual map.

I'm saying that people who use GIS commonly refer to the process of starting with a basemap (which is a map in its own right) and adding additional layers and styling, as making a map. I'd say that is arguably a lower standard of map-making than if you didn't start with a basemap.

People who make yoghurt often start with yoghurt. They still call what they do making yoghurt.

The big issue is that when you try to have a pretty picture for people to look at, you are quite limited with just what information you can display without it being overwhelming.

And anything I'm calling a map has to be visual, so the pretty picture is required and as you rightly say, that limits what you can show on any given map.

A spatial database doesn't have that limitation at all does it? One big spatial database can do everything, answer any answerable question.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 05:45:40 AM

You claim they are the same, map = spatial database. Interchangeable terms.

No, I don't.
Just like I don't claim drug = medicine with the 2 being interchangable.

That is your strawman so you can pretend there is a problem.

To be honest, I never did understand what you were trying to say with drug and medicine. The clearest explanation for the relationship between map and spatial database seems to be:

They are 2 overlapping sets. Not all maps are spatial databases.

Now when I read that, I'm picturing the classic Venn diagram with two circles A and B which overlap, so there are three parts A and not B, A and B, B and not A. Is that what you are getting at?

So there are 1) things which are spatial databases but not maps, 2) things which are both spatial databases and maps and 3) things which are maps but not spatial databases. Is that what you mean?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 05, 2021, 03:59:15 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 05, 2021, 05:09:41 AM

Of course. The problem is "map" is ill defined, so there is no accepted litmus test for what is or is not a map. If there were we could have applied it already and ended this discussion.

Likewise, if there was, you could have applied it and ended this discussion.
This whole discussion was based upon you rejecting GeoNames as a map so you can claim to have made a map, rather than just using an existing one, so you can claim map making is easy, so you can object to FEers claiming map making is hard.

No, you said:

Sure, just quote what I said and completely ignore the context it was made in, because that is totally honest.

But the point is, this is a home made map, something in principle anyone can do. Not especially complicated.

I objected to that:

Sure, just like buying a premade cake-base and premade icing, and then putting the icing on the cake is a "home-made" cake.

The point is, you are effectively taking an existing map of the world, and making it again.

And why did you post that statement of yours?
Well it actually came from back and forth about a prior claim:

Making maps is a hugely complex process. Making accurate maps from scratch or from a new data set is a total impossibility for a few flat earthers.
Let’s make it quite clear, the creation of an accurate flat earth map is a complete impossibility and is not something open for debate.

Which you responded with this:

I hear this quite a lot and I disagree. These days, you can make a very reasonable, fairly accurate map for yourself, it doesn't take that long.

That's what kicked this all of. Not a discussion of if something constitutes a map, but if merely transforming data from one form to another can constitute making a map.
I reject that claim of yours, that what you did constitutes making a map, as it is really no better than just going to Google Maps and taking a screenshot.

And your reply pre-supposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.

No it doesn't, by how I specifically removed computers from the equation to avoid that complication and gave an example of how maps are still used.
Regardless, you are claiming a map was not involved, simply because you can't see one.

However I can instead use the Openrouteservice API to get my route and in this case, there is no obvious map to be seen

And that doesn't mean there isn't one.

How do you know they went away and consulted a map? You are just assuming they did

I am providing an example, where they do use a map, and get directions using that map, to show how just because you can't see a map doesn't mean it isn't there.

Try getting a list of directions from point A to point B, with no possibility of a map, and no computers to avoid the possibility of one of us saying it is a map and the other saying it isn't. And also without people with local knowledge that would have mental maps of the area (which is another type of map you reject as not a map, as it is in your mind rather than a pretty picture).

Someone then made a tile from the data in a spatial database.

Not someone, a computer. A computer which likely did that to cache the visual presentation of the logical data. Just it caches when it sticks the route information on top.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 05, 2021, 03:59:15 PM

Yet previously you were effectively claiming that basemap IS the map and that extra stuff you put on top is just extra, and isn't part of the actual map.

I'm saying that people who use GIS commonly refer to the process of starting with a basemap (which is a map in its own right) and adding additional layers and styling, as making a map. I'd say that is arguably a lower standard of map-making than if you didn't start with a basemap.

The objection here is more if the resulting product is a map, or if it a map with extra layers added which are not actually part of the map.

A spatial database doesn't have that limitation at all does it?

It has limitations depending on the computer running it as it takes time to process the data to get results, but it can typically handle vastly more information than a map made for people can.

And it should already be quite apparent that I don't care about your requirement for it to be visual. If you want to follow that attempted path at pedantry, follow it properly and dismiss the PNG file, as that is not visual. A computer just USES that png file to MAKE an image. You can even show that the image is not the png file by deleting the png file and having the image remain.
And that means you didn't make a map, my computer did.

To be honest, I never did understand what you were trying to say with drug and medicine.

The words "drug" and "medicine" are not interchangeable.
You can't simply take a sentence which has one of the words, replace it with the other and expect it to have the same meaning.
You can't simply expect that just because this particular drug does something this medicine will do the same, or vice versa.

Yet you completely ignore that and pretend that I am claiming spatial databases and maps are entirely equivalent and interchangeable, that because you can do X with a spatial database, you should be able to do X with any map. That is like saying because this medicine reduces inflammation, any drug should do that.

Understand now?

Now when I read that, I'm picturing the classic Venn diagram with two circles A and B which overlap, so there are three parts A and not B, A and B, B and not A. Is that what you are getting at?

The classic Venn diagram has 4 regions, but most people seem to ignore the 4th, that is the region which is neither A nor B. I am leaving open the possibility of there potential being a spatial database which isn't a map, for example, if you have a bunch of data, for a single location. Because there is a lot of data, and it is organised, and it uses location, it can be argued to be a spatial database. But because it is only a single location, I wouldn't call it a map, just like I wouldn't call a "pretty picture" with a single point a map.

But as that is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence, that region of the Venn diagram corresponding to spatial and not map would be basically nothing, and I'm not sure if it even exists in reality.

But the far more important part is that region which corresponds to maps, but not spatial databases.
Just because a spatial database can do something, doesn't mean every spatial database can nor does it mean every map can.

Because I can get a map of traffic on Google Maps does that mean Google Maps isn't a map because I can't get that traffic information on other maps? No.
So stop pretending that a spatial database isn't a map because you can use it to get some information that you can't get from a different map.

Sure, just quote what I said and completely ignore the context it was made in, because that is totally honest.

I claimed I made a map. You rejected my claim and that's fair enough. You then made a counter claim, which sounded to me very much like: Google maps is "effectively the same as" a list of points. I reject your counter claim.

That's what kicked this all of. Not a discussion of if something constitutes a map, but if merely transforming data from one form to another can constitute making a map.
I reject that claim of yours, that what you did constitutes making a map, as it is really no better than just going to Google Maps and taking a screenshot.

By all means reject that claim, you have every right to do so. But if you then go on to make a counter claim, rather than just leaving it at that, then there are two claims to consider, not one, and I reject your counter claim and I have every right to do so.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 06, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

And your reply pre-supposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.

No it doesn't, by how I specifically removed computers from the equation to avoid that complication and gave an example of how maps are still used.

I know you object to me quoting your words back to you, but let's just remind ourselves:

This presupposes your idea of what is and isn't a map.
How do they get their directions? By using a map made for computers.
The computer uses this map to determine an optimal route and give it to you as a bunch of text.

I can see the words computer and map there and you seem pretty certain about the whole thing. Does your response not presuppose your idea of what is or isn't a map?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 06, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

How do you know they went away and consulted a map? You are just assuming they did

I am providing an example, where they do use a map, and get directions using that map, to show how just because you can't see a map doesn't mean it isn't there.

Try getting a list of directions from point A to point B, with no possibility of a map, and no computers to avoid the possibility of one of us saying it is a map and the other saying it isn't. And also without people with local knowledge that would have mental maps of the area (which is another type of map you reject as not a map, as it is in your mind rather than a pretty picture).

So now, some sentient creature which has never seen a map in its life, doesn't have a concept of map, they have a "mental map" of their surroundings and that is supposed to be a bona fide map now is it? So basically the first sentient creature which became aware of its local environment invented the map, hundreds of millions of years ago.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 06, 2021, 02:39:15 AM

Now when I read that, I'm picturing the classic Venn diagram with two circles A and B which overlap, so there are three parts A and not B, A and B, B and not A. Is that what you are getting at?

The classic Venn diagram has 4 regions, but most people seem to ignore the 4th, that is the region which is neither A nor B. I am leaving open the possibility of there potential being a spatial database which isn't a map, for example, if you have a bunch of data, for a single location. Because there is a lot of data, and it is organised, and it uses location, it can be argued to be a spatial database. But because it is only a single location, I wouldn't call it a map, just like I wouldn't call a "pretty picture" with a single point a map.

But as that is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence, that region of the Venn diagram corresponding to spatial and not map would be basically nothing, and I'm not sure if it even exists in reality.

But the far more important part is that region which corresponds to maps, but not spatial databases.
Just because a spatial database can do something, doesn't mean every spatial database can nor does it mean every map can.

Because I can get a map of traffic on Google Maps does that mean Google Maps isn't a map because I can't get that traffic information on other maps? No.
So stop pretending that a spatial database isn't a map because you can use it to get some information that you can't get from a different map.

I have no idea what this all means. Can you express this as a Venn diagram or is this concept of yours so fuzzy and ill defined that even after 4 paragraphs, 10 sentences and over 230 words, you still can't explain coherently the relationship between "map" and "spatial database".

I claimed I made a map. You rejected my claim and that's fair enough. You then made a counter claim, which sounded to me very much like: Google maps is "effectively the same as" a list of points. I reject your counter claim.

No, it sounded nothing like that.
What it sounded like was that you claiming to have made a map is like someone taking a screenshot of Google Maps and claiming to have made a map; and you claiming to have made a home-made map is just like someone buying a premade cake-base and icing, taking it home and sticking it together and then claiming to have made a home-made map.

I know you object to me quoting your words back to you, but let's just remind ourselves:

No, I object to you quoting things back to me after taking me entirely out of context.

I can see the words computer and map there and you seem pretty certain about the whole thing. Does your response not presuppose your idea of what is or isn't a map?

You are right that it may imply that level of certainty.
But again, this was not sated in a vacuum. It was stated in the context that because you didn't see a map it must mean there was no map involved.

And yet again you ignore that key issue, and you ignore the hypothetical example I have provided.

Again, how can you get directions without using anything that could be considered a map? That means no computers at all, and no using mental maps either.
The typical way people would get directions, without using computers, would be to either consult a local that has a mental map of the area, or consult a physical map to find where they are and where they want to go and then find a path between the 2.

So getting directions is very much tied to a map.

Converting that map to a form suitable for use by a computer (or making a new one for such use), such that a computer can very quickly churn through it and produce a list of directions doesn't magically you no longer use a map.

So now, some sentient creature which has never seen a map in its life, doesn't have a concept of map, they have a "mental map" of their surroundings and that is supposed to be a bona fide map now is it?

I thought you would likely reject the idea of a mental map being a map, considering it isn't a pretty visual and you have really dug yourself a hole here.
But it is even in the name, mental MAP. Not mental idea of what is around me.

You don't need to understand the concept of what something is in order to have it.

And again, if you really want to stick to the idea that it must be a pretty picture, you didn't make a map. You made a PNG file which a computer can USE to MAKE a map (and that is assuming that the image actually constitutes a map).

I have no idea what this all means.

Then you should try learning English, it's quite clear.
The vast majority of spatial databases are maps. The only ones which wouldn't be are those with a single location, which I doubt exist.
But not all maps are spatial databases.

Just because a spatial database is a map does not mean that you being able to do something with that spatial database should mean you could do it with any map.
Just like you can't even do it with any spatial database.
You continually appealing to crap like that to pretend that a spatial database isn't a map is extremely dishonest.

No, it sounded nothing like that.
What it sounded like was that you claiming to have made a map is like someone taking a screenshot of Google Maps and claiming to have made a map; and you claiming to have made a home-made map is just like someone buying a premade cake-base and icing, taking it home and sticking it together and then claiming to have made a home-made map.

It sounded exactly like that and you used the phrase "effectively the same as". Notice that you are talking about my claim, whereas my point, the one you are supposedly challenging here ("no, it sounded nothing like that") is nothing to do with my claim, it's specifically about your counter-claim.

And yet again you ignore that key issue, and you ignore the hypothetical example I have provided.

And yet, here is me in the very next paragraph, directly addressing your hypothetical example....

So now, some sentient creature which has never seen a map in its life, doesn't have a concept of map, they have a "mental map" of their surroundings and that is supposed to be a bona fide map now is it?

I thought you would likely reject the idea of a mental map being a map, considering it isn't a pretty visual and you have really dug yourself a hole here.
But it is even in the name, mental MAP. Not mental idea of what is around me.

Sure it's in the name, so what. I have never claimed that everything with map in the name is a map in the sense relevant to this discussion. Colour map, genetic map, mind map and heat map for example.

You are basically insisting nobody can simply tell me the way to the nearest supermarket without using a map. That next door's cat is following a map when it walks round our garden. You've devalued the term map to the point of meaningless just to prop up your failed argument.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 06, 2021, 07:10:32 AM

I have no idea what this all means.

Then you should try learning English, it's quite clear.

I've repeatedly said your worldview, where prehistoric creatures carry maps, where photo's aren't photos, where spreadsheets aren't spreadsheets, where cat pictures are maps, where quantum mechanics is easy and digging holes is hard etc. etc. make no sense to me at all. I know you are writing in English, I can read the words, but quite clear? I hardly think so.

My best guess at your position is this:

let A = { maps } and B = { spatial databases } then B ⊂ A. (i.e. the set of all spatial databases is a strict subset of the set of all maps)

My position is A ⋂ B = Ø. (i.e. the set of all maps and the set of all spatial databases have no common members)

With the caveat that we're disregarding the theoretical possibility of a spatial database with a single location. I don't regard that as a spatial database, I don't think you do either, so lets rule that out.

With that in mind, simple yes or no, is that your position?

It sounded exactly like that and you used the phrase "effectively the same as".

No, it sounded nothing like that. While I did use that phrase, it was not saying Google Maps is effectively the same as GeoNames.
Instead the process is effectively the same, that process of taking an existing map, and transforming it in some way to claim to have made a map.

And yet, here is me in the very next paragraph, directly addressing your hypothetical example....

No, you aren't.
You are not addressing it, you are deflecting from it.
Actually addressing it would be explaining how to get directions, without using a map, and that includes things you don't want to agree are maps.

That is why I changed it to be no using computers, and no using anyone with local knowledge of the area. Because that rules out computer based maps you want to claim are not maps, and it rules out mental maps you want to claim aren't maps.

Sure it's in the name, so what. I have never claimed that everything with map in the name is a map in the sense relevant to this discussion. Colour map, genetic map, mind map and heat map for example.

Yet none of those are examples of spatial information, with the exception of a heatmap, which can be presenting spatial information, and you had already accepted is a map.

Like I said, if you want to demand it needs to be a pretty picture in order to be a map, that doesn't just rule out mind maps and spatial databases, it also rules out your PNG file, and declares that that isn't a map, it just something my computer uses to make a map.

You are basically insisting nobody can simply tell me the way to the nearest supermarket without using a map.

Unless it is within eyeshot, they can't.
And that is the point.
When people try to determine directions to things, they use maps. That can be a mental map in their head, it can be a pretty picture that you will happily accept as a map, or it could be a map for a computer, leaving the computer to do all the hard work.

With that in mind, simple yes or no, is that your position?

With the caveat of excluding that hypothetical possibility, yes, as far as I know all spatial databases are maps.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 07, 2021, 05:13:53 AM

And yet, here is me in the very next paragraph, directly addressing your hypothetical example....

No, you aren't.
You are not addressing it, you are deflecting from it.
Actually addressing it would be explaining how to get directions, without using a map, and that includes things you don't want to agree are maps.

You've degraded the word map so it is now utterly meaningless. Suppose I want to get to my neighbours house, to tell them to keep their cat out of my garden. I know who they are, but not where they live. I can simply follow the cat and hopefully it will lead me there. The cat has a map in its head, so even this route is based on a map. Your all encompassing definition of map means it is impossible for any route not to be based on a map, because you've basically made a map into pretty much anything to cover all your bases. I need a map to type on the keyboard, because I need the keyboard layout and that's a map - in my head.

I don't accept your definition of a map, so your question is moot.

Like I said, if you want to demand it needs to be a pretty picture in order to be a map, that doesn't just rule out mind maps and spatial databases, it also rules out your PNG file, and declares that that isn't a map, it just something my computer uses to make a map.

A PNG or a JPEG is just as much a pretty picture as a photo in an album. I have to fetch the album from a bookshelf and open it to see the picture. Similarly I have to open the PNG to see the image. If someone says "can you send me that picture" and I send them a PNG/JPEG, they will be quite happy to agree I've done what I said. You know this, it would be dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 07, 2021, 05:13:53 AM

With that in mind, simple yes or no, is that your position?

With the caveat of excluding that hypothetical possibility, yes, as far as I know all spatial databases are maps.

So can you give me an example of a spatial database that I would recognise as a map? Something I can hang on my wall and people will point at and say "nice map".

If I have a comma separated text file for example:

45.7,20.1
48.4,23.6

Is this a spatial database? Is it a map?

You've degraded the word map so it is now utterly meaningless.

No, it  isn't.

If either of us is degrading it, it would be you, with your idea that a bunch of points plotted as a picture with no identifying information is a map.

Your all encompassing definition of map means it is impossible for any route not to be based on a map

Nope. You could just aimlessly wander, or try a systematic search

I don't accept your definition of a map, so your question is moot.

So because you reject my definition of a map, so you can pretend that map making is easy, you ignore questions which show that you get directions from maps by ruling out things which have their status as a map disputed. Remember, this little tangent from the main tangent started with you claiming that directions are independent of maps.

Just what was wrong with my question which restricted the use of computers and people with local knowledge of the area?
Is it just that the only way you can think of getting directions in that case is to use a map, defeating yourself?
That the only way you can try to claim that you don't need a map is to use a map and just pretend it isn't one?

A PNG or a JPEG is just as much a pretty picture as a photo in an album.

Nope, they are just files on a computer, not pretty pictures.
Again, a computer USES these files to MAKE a pretty picture, but the file itself isn't the pretty picture, it is used to make one.

It is quite incomparable to a photo in an album. I can take the photo out of the album and it is still a pretty picture. I can walk around with that photo and show people it, with nothing else, and they accept that it is a pretty picture.

But a PNG file? I can't do that. Without a computer to USE the file to MAKE an image (and that means the computer needs a graphical interface), it isn't a picture. I can't go up to someone with the PNG file and say "hey look at this pretty picture". The first question is how I would take it around in the first place, as it is a file on a computer rather than something physical and tangible. I could print it out, but that would be taking the pretty picture that was MADE by USING the png file, not the png file itself. You likely can't even reconstruct the PNG file from that print out.
The best option would be to take a USB drive with the png file on. But now when I show it to someone, they would say it is a USB drive, not a pretty picture.

If you want to go down the path of pedantry after cherry picking a definition to require a map to be a picture, do it properly, and only allow actual pictures, rather than png files.

It is no more dishonest of me to claim it isn't a picture than it is of you to claim that maps MUST be visual and exclude everything else, and then claim map making is easy.

Especially with you dishonestly rejecting any possible interface for the database. If you don't want to be able to access a database using software to display the information visually, then why should you be able to use software to display the PNG visually?

So can you give me an example of a spatial database that I would recognise as a map? Something I can hang on my wall and people will point at and say "nice map".

So in order for you to accept it as a map, you need to be able to hang it on your wall and point at it?

Can you give me an example of a PNG file I can hang on my wall to have people point at and say "nice picture"?
Not one which I can USE with a printer to MAKE a picture to hang up, but the actual file itself?

As for an example, I already gave you the OSM export. You were quite happy to accept that, but then when I showed how the very same arguments you were using against GeoNames can be applied just as well against that (i.e. not well at all), you then decided to reject it.
Sure, you can't hang it on your wall and have people point and say nice map.

I also provided examples of Google Maps and OSM, which you want to pretend aren't spatial databases for the purpose of deciding if it is a map and want to pretend the tiles aren't part of the spatial database, and that they are the map.

I even provided an example of Google Maps where the streets are overlaid on a satellite image. And unless you can find a pre-made tile, as far as I can tell that overlaying is done locally, which means it is just displaying the information in the spatial database, with the browser being an interface.

OSM even allows you to see the map data that goes into tile generation:

Or is it just a coincidence that they match so well?

You can even use adblock or the like to prevent the tiles from loading.

Is this a map?

Because this is the map data, not a tileset, and it is even a pretty picture like you demand. Or is this still just something USING that database to MAKE a pretty picture? Like how a computer USES a .png file to MAKE a pretty picture?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 07, 2021, 07:48:42 AM

You've degraded the word map so it is now utterly meaningless.

No, it  isn't.

If either of us is degrading it, it would be you, with your idea that a bunch of points plotted as a picture with no identifying information is a map.

So here's a map I didn't make. It's a world map, the country boundaries are clearly defined and each country is named. My latest map has all of these properties and in addition has a grid, which this one lacks. What makes this a map and mine not a map?

Oh and by the way, I have printed both out so I have paper maps now.



Ah sorry, just realised my mistake. This map is a JPEG, so it isn't a map. It isn't a picture, it isn't an image, you can't see it, it's just this to you isn't it Neo?



Ah but of course, the irony is you can't even see that image either, because that's also a JPEG. Get someone sensible to take a look and describe it to you, I can't be bothered.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 07, 2021, 07:48:42 AM

Your all encompassing definition of map means it is impossible for any route not to be based on a map

Nope. You could just aimlessly wander, or try a systematic search

After 5 minutes of this, I end up where I started or reach a dead end. Now there are two choices, I either recognise fact this and avoid this particular pathway in my next attempt (in which case, I'm now using a mental map to direct my search), or I'm a goldfish and my memories all disappear after a few seconds, so I don't have a mental map, or I'm a goldfish and my memories all disappear after a few seconds, so I don't have a mental map,  but now, I won't even recognise my destination and have no idea I'm even looking for something.

This is the absolutely absurd logical conclusion of the position you have put yourself in with this nonsense. You are in a very big hole and you keep digging.

And now, can you answer my previous question:

If I have a comma separated text file for example:

45.7,20.1
48.4,23.6

Is this a spatial database? Is it a map?

So here's a map I didn't make. It's a world map, the country boundaries are clearly defined and each country is named. My latest map has all of these properties and in addition has a grid, which this one lacks. What makes this a map and mine not a map?

Your latest one does. Your first one does not. You have already highlighted what your first one lacks.

Ah but of course, the irony is you can't even see that image either

You are the one wanting the ridiculous standard of it must be a pretty picture, not me.
I am quite happy accepting the underlying information.
I am quite happy to accept using software to access that information to have it presented in various ways and not pretending that you are making something entirely new like you are pretending.

This is the absolutely absurd logical conclusion of the position you have put yourself in with this nonsense. You are in a very big hole and you keep digging.

No, that is the absolutely absurd position you have got yourself into.

I'm quite happy using a map for directions. But you wanted to claim they are entirely independent and that you don't need a map to get directions.
All while running off on this tangent regarding directions to ignore the far more significant issue of the traffic map, and the roads being displayed on top of the satellite imagery.

All so you can pretend that it is just the tile set which is the map, and so you can pretend the tile set is not a database and is entirely separate from the database, all so you can pretend that map making is easy and anyone can do it.

If you were in such a situation as described, the logical way to determine directions to a destination is to use a map. But now that we have computers, that can be abstracted and you can easily miss the map that is being used by the computer.

If I have a comma separated text file for example:
45.7,20.1
48.4,23.6

Is this a spatial database? Is it a map?

This example is not, just like a list of numbers corresponding to a primary key in a database is not a database.

Now care to deal with the examples I gave?
For example, the .osm file, you were happy to accept as a map, until it was shown that the arguments you were using against GeoNames would work just as well against it or against your first example?

If you were so dead set on requiring it to be visual, you would have never accepted the .osm format.

Your latest one does. Your first one does not. You have already highlighted what your first one lacks.

Oh of course, so when you complained...

If either of us is degrading it, it would be you, with your idea that a bunch of points plotted as a picture with no identifying information is a map.

You were talking about my original map, not the improved one, which I made to address your legitimate complaints. I thought we'd moved on. Apparently not.

And your response to my improved map was...

And with that, it is more convincingly  a map. Not a great map, with massive holes in countries, but still a map. But it still fails with several of your arguments; and it still has the question of if you made it, or merely converted an existing map.

So you still didn't sound very convinced at the time. Are you now OK with keeping things simple and just calling this a map, no ifs, buts and maybes, just call it a map and we know where we are? And no going back to something I've already acknowledged was lacking and has been replaced?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 08, 2021, 03:02:29 AM

Ah but of course, the irony is you can't even see that image either

You are the one wanting the ridiculous standard of it must be a pretty picture, not me.

And you are the one doggedly insisting that a PNG/JPEG is not a picture, it's a stream of bits or bytes.

So I'm telling you I have printed off my map. It's on paper. I could send you a picture, but then that means "converting" it to a JPEG with my camera and then you "converting" it so you can see it, so it's no longer what it was and won't count.

I'm quite happy using a map for directions. But you wanted to claim they are entirely independent and that you don't need a map to get directions.

And I'm quite happy asking a local with some local knowledge for directions and that doesn't involve a map. The only way you can make that fit your narrative is to just declare that local knowledge is stored as a fully fledged map in someone's head and that it's impossible for anyone to ever give directions without a map.

So I assume, when you are at someone's house and they say "help yourself to a beer", you say "sure, I just need your map so I know where to go".

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 08, 2021, 03:02:29 AM

If I have a comma separated text file for example:
45.7,20.1
48.4,23.6

Is this a spatial database? Is it a map?

This example is not, just like a list of numbers corresponding to a primary key in a database is not a database.

OK, so what is it lacking then. What is the minimum I need to add to this example so it qualifies as a spatial database? It is already geotagged and there are multiple entries.

You were talking about my original map, not the improved one, which I made to address your legitimate complaints.

You only addressed one of the main complaints after quite some time.
And I don't recall you stating that your original was not a map.

So you still didn't sound very convinced at the time. Are you now OK with keeping things simple and just calling this a map, no ifs, buts and maybes, just call it a map and we know where we are?

I expressed that it is a quite poor map, especially with such large holes in the countries, and that several of your arguments against GeoNames being a map still work against it. And that latter point is far more significant. The arguments you were trying to use to dismiss GeoNames worked against your own map.

But as I expressed that it was a poor map, it should be clear that I will accept it as a map. It was your standards that don't. So can we agree, when your arguments indicate it isn't?

And you are the one doggedly insisting that a PNG/JPEG is not a picture, it's a stream of bits or bytes.

In response to you claiming the database is not a map.
In response to you claiming that the database is USED to MAKE a map.

And again, this discussion is primarily about making a map, not strictly what constitutes a map.
If your standard is such that using a database to make a map counts, then the same applies with using a PNG file to make a map.
That means map making is trivial, as all it requires is having a computer use some file or site to generate a pretty picture.

Telling me you have printed it out doesn't address this trivial standard, where anyone can go to Google Maps or use a PNG file to generate the pretty picture (or even print it out) and claim to have made a map.

And I'm quite happy asking a local with some local knowledge for directions and that doesn't involve a map.

Again, it involves a mental map.
You are just trying to use any region of possible ambiguity to pretend you aren't using a map.
So anything which is not agreed upon by both of us as being a map or not being a map is excluded.

The only way you can make that fit your narrative is to just declare that local knowledge is stored as a fully fledged map in someone's head and that it's impossible for anyone to ever give directions without a map.

I wouldn't call it a fully fledged map. It is often a poor map with lots of holes.

OK, so what is it lacking then. What is the minimum I need to add to this example so it qualifies as a spatial database? It is already geotagged and there are multiple entries.

It isn't geotagged, it is just 2 locations. Geotagging is taking something and adding location information to it. You have geotagged nothing in that list.
Also notice that that GeoNames table isn't like that, it has things at those locations.

This in no way gets to the heart of the disagreement.
If I take those 2 points and plot them as a pretty picture, is that a map?
Is this a map:


If so, what is this a map of?

And again, I had already provided you with examples. One such example with the .osm file, that you were happy to accept as a map. But then when the arguments you were using against GeoNames also worked against that, you abandoned it. Not because it wasn't visual, but because you couldn't justify accepting it as a map but not GeoNames.
Why do you just keep on ignoring these examples?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 08, 2021, 09:24:46 AM

You were talking about my original map, not the improved one, which I made to address your legitimate complaints.

You only addressed one of the main complaints after quite some time.
And I don't recall you stating that your original was not a map.

Yes, I had to change the software to add the grid and labels, so sorry this took too long for you. Didn't realise I had a deadline to meet.

I still regard my original as a map, but to strengthen my case, I added the extra features, to address your (valid) points.

That means map making is trivial, as all it requires is having a computer use some file or site to generate a pretty picture.

Haven't you just trivialised all modern map making now? Surely all of them are based on some data in a computer these days.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 08, 2021, 09:24:46 AM

And I'm quite happy asking a local with some local knowledge for directions and that doesn't involve a map.

Again, it involves a mental map.

Which isn't really a map at all, it's just a phrase we use to describe the basic, essential trait we all possess, which is a sense of our familiar surroundings. You've just used this as an excuse to justify your assertion that a route requires a map. It doesn't.

It isn't geotagged, it is just 2 locations. Geotagging is taking something and adding location information to it. You have geotagged nothing in that list.

So to be legitimate it needs at least one more piece of information? OK then:

45.7,20.1,A
48.4,23.6,B

So two items, A and B and each are geotagged. Is this a spatial database. Is it a map?

And while I'm at it, do these 2 constitute a map and/or a spatial database?




Unfortunately I think the geotags have been lost in uploading, but here they are:

EXIF tags in 'cat1.jpg' ('Motorola' byte order):
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
Tag                 |Value
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
X-Resolution        | 1
Y-Resolution        | 1
Resolution Unit     |Internal error (unknown value 1)
YCbCr Positioning   |Centred
Exif Version        |Exif Version 2.1
FlashPixVersion     |FlashPix Version 1.0
Colour Space        |Internal error (unknown value 65535)
GPS Tag Version     |2.3.0.0
North or South Latit|N
Latitude            |45, 42,  0
East or West Longitu|E
Longitude           |20,  6,  0
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
EXIF tags in 'cat2.jpg' ('Motorola' byte order):
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
Tag                 |Value
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
X-Resolution        | 1
Y-Resolution        | 1
Resolution Unit     |Internal error (unknown value 1)
YCbCr Positioning   |Centred
Exif Version        |Exif Version 2.1
FlashPixVersion     |FlashPix Version 1.0
Colour Space        |Internal error (unknown value 65535)
GPS Tag Version     |2.3.0.0
North or South Latit|N
Latitude            |48, 23, 60
East or West Longitu|E
Longitude           |23, 36,  0
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------


I still regard my original as a map

Hence why I stated you are the one devaluing the word "map".
You seem to think a map is just a pretty picture which vaguely resembles some other map that has been seen.

And as you still regard it as a map, that devaluing remains valid. It isn't a case of a mistake you have admitted you have made and that you have rectified.

Haven't you just trivialised all modern map making now?

No, I haven't.
While loads of things are maps, including ones which are quite trivial to make, they are rarely accurate.
The accurate ones take a lot of effort to make, especially if you want it to cover the globe.
But you want to trivialise that and only have making a pretty picture count as making the map, treating all the work prior to that as separate.
I am including that effort, including if they choose to make it into a structured database, such as for easy editing. As that database is the map. The pretty picture is just one visualisation of it.

Which isn't really a map at all

You only say that because you want to pretend that directions are separate.

A mental map is a map that is stored in the mind.

So to be legitimate it needs at least one more piece of information? OK then:
45.7,20.1,A
48.4,23.6,B

Again, this is just a deflection from the actual issue.
Again, if these were plotted as a pretty picture with tags, is that a map?
If not, this exercise is pointless, and just you deflecting from you inability to address the actual issues.

How about you start trying to address the examples I provided?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 02:58:11 AM

I still regard my original as a map

Hence why I stated you are the one devaluing the word "map".

I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept my opinion. I fully accept your criticism of my original, it lacked a number of features common to many maps. That's why I revised it. That doesn't change my personal opinion however. I have lots of opinions about all sorts of things. I fail to see how my personal opinion devalues any of them. There are a number of genres of music I personally can't stand and barely accept as music. I don't think the multi-million selling artists involved are going to be losing any sleep over my opinion.

You seem to think a map is just a pretty picture which vaguely resembles some other map that has been seen.

(Excluding for the moment maps of other planets or the sky and just referring to maps of the earth)

A key element for me is that it has to be visual and represent real features on the ground/surface. For example there are a number of early mappa mundi maps which are inaccurate and lacking a lot of detail, but they fit my concept of a map. The London underground map, a world map on the wall of a school classroom, a page of an atlas, a screenshot of Google/OSM maps. Either the original, a reproduction or a PNG/JPEG whatever image that I'm looking at on a device. All maps.

A photo or reproduction of a mappa mundi on my computer, stored as a PNG, is a) a picture, b) pretty, c) (very) vaguely resembles some other map. And yes, it is a map.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 02:58:11 AM

Haven't you just trivialised all modern map making now?

But you want to trivialise that and only have making a pretty picture count as making the map, treating all the work prior to that as separate.
I am including that effort, including if they choose to make it into a structured database, such as for easy editing. As that database is the map. The pretty picture is just one visualisation of it.

I'm talking about modern cartography, using GIS software, where any data you need has already been collected. You have a vast selection of available basemaps and endless sources of data in different formats.

Is this trivial?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 02:58:11 AM

So to be legitimate it needs at least one more piece of information? OK then:
45.7,20.1,A
48.4,23.6,B

Again, this is just a deflection from the actual issue.
Again, if these were plotted as a pretty picture with tags, is that a map?
If not, this exercise is pointless, and just you deflecting from you inability to address the actual issues.

I'm trying to establish once and for all what your criteria for a map and a spatial database is.

I've given you two concrete examples, which both have a set of geotagged features. Are these maps. Are these spatial databases. If the answer is no, then why not? What is missing?

I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept my opinion.

Which in no way negates the fact that you are happy calling a pretty picture which vaguely resembles a map a map, devaluing the term.
This isn't about something subjective like if chocolate ice cream tastes good. It is about what constitutes a map.

A key element for me is that it has to be visual and represent real features on the ground/surface.

Which is so limited and excludes so many maps it isn't funny. That would include an example you just provided, the London underground map. That is under ground, it is not on the ground.
As well as excluding any map which isn't a pretty picture, it excludes any map of anything not on the ground, including underground tunnels and pipe networks, you have even had to exclude maps of other planets and the sky.

I'm talking about modern cartography, using GIS software, where any data you need has already been collected.

So not all modern map making and not modern catography.
Just the trivial stuff.

I'm trying to establish once and for all what your criteria for a map and a spatial database is.

No, you are trying to deflect from the real issue, giving pretend examples inentionally designed to try to make my position look ridiculous.

All while continually fleeing from the examples I provided.

Again, do you consider this a map:

If not, how about this one:


After all, you seem to be fine ignoring the fact it is data stored on a computer and treating it as a pretty picture.
So are they maps? If not, why not?

And while you are at such trivial, deflecting examples, tell me how many grains of sand are required in order to have a heap?

Ah sorry, just realised my mistake. This map is a JPEG, so it isn't a map. It isn't a picture, it isn't an image, you can't see it, it's just this to you isn't it Neo?

So matrix porn is ok in the upper fora?

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 04:41:17 AM

I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept my opinion.

Which in no way negates the fact that you are happy calling a pretty picture which vaguely resembles a map a map, devaluing the term.
This isn't about something subjective like if chocolate ice cream tastes good. It is about what constitutes a map.

Of course it's subjective. If it were objective, there would be a universally accepted unambiguous definition we could have applied at the outset. You have your opinion and your personal definition, I have mine. That's why we're still debating it.

One person might consider something a masterpiece and another deny that it even counts as art. Neither of them is wrong.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 04:41:17 AM

A key element for me is that it has to be visual and represent real features on the ground/surface.

Which is so limited and excludes so many maps it isn't funny. That would include an example you just provided, the London underground map. That is under ground, it is not on the ground.

Not really no, all the stations have locations above ground for access and it is a topological map rather then geographical, so the lines represent a connection between two stations rather than an actual path. And in reality, many of the "underground" lines have long sections above ground.

I'm not saying a star map isn't a type of map, just in the context of this discussion, these (and others) are not the types of map I'm referring to. I'm discussing a particular subset of maps.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 04:41:17 AM

I'm talking about modern cartography, using GIS software, where any data you need has already been collected.

Just the trivial stuff.

Interesting, so you do regard this as trivial. And yet there are undergraduate and graduate courses in this and it is a recognised job. You seem to believe that cartographers spend their time travelling around measuring things. They don't, that is a separate role, it's called surveying.

A cartographer doesn't need to be a qualified pilot so they can fly around taking aerial photos and collecting LIDAR data. Similarly the pilots who do this work don't need to be qualified cartographers either, because they won't be making any maps.

https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/surveyor-cartographer

"Surveyors are responsible for visiting the sites that need to be mapped and collecting necessary data by utilizing special measuring equipment. They often use stakes, flags, and other markers during the process as well. After collecting the data, they then punch it into a computer and allow the Cartographers to take over from there."

Flood risk mapping is a very common task for cartographers, there are plenty of tutorials about how to do this. It requires a basemap, spatial databases and LIDAR data. None of these tutorials say anything about collecting the information yourself. They all produce maps. The process is not trivial.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 09, 2021, 04:41:17 AM

I'm trying to establish once and for all what your criteria for a map and a spatial database is.

No, you are trying to deflect from the real issue, giving pretend examples inentionally designed to try to make my position look ridiculous.

All while continually fleeing from the examples I provided.

Again, do you consider this a map:

If not, how about this one:


After all, you seem to be fine ignoring the fact it is data stored on a computer and treating it as a pretty picture.
So are they maps? If not, why not?

And while you are at such trivial, deflecting examples, tell me how many grains of sand are required in order to have a heap?

So the answer is no to both. Are you surprised? You are the one who claims a spatial database is a map, not me. The data you have is a spatial database. I've repeatedly told you how spatial databases are used in GIS. You start with a basemap and then create a layer from your spatial database. A layer is not a map. Here's the data from this spatial database displayed as one of three layers on a map. Basemap + graticule (grid lines) + spatial data = map.

This is absolutely standard procedure for GIS map making. Basemap + other information + styling = new map.

I'm completely happy calling these 2 points a spatial database. It is a database of geotagged features, so it is a spatial database and works as such (as just demonstrated). You can't because according to you, all spatial databases are maps and two disconnected locations don't work as a map do they? My definition of spatial database is simple and testable. Yours is ill defined. One minute you call a set of geotagged cat photos a map and then when I present you with geotagged cat photos and ask you, you duck the question. You claim GeoNames is a map because it consists of geotagged features, yet when I present you with a database of geotagged features, again you duck the question and deflect, calling it a trivial, pretend example.

Of course it's subjective.

If you really thought it was subjective, you wouldn't be claiming I have devalued what a map is, nor having this massive discussion.
You would have just stated from the start that it is personal opinion and not given a damn.

It being objective doesn't mean there wont be debate or disagreement.

Not really no, all the stations have locations above ground

You mean they have access.
But all the connections (which are a key part of what the map shows) are underground.
If it was entirely underground, would you then say it isn't a map?

I'm discussing a particular subset of maps.

Then why not say that from the start? That you are discussing a particular subset that are pretty pictures?

Interesting, so you do regard this as trivial. And yet there are undergraduate and graduate courses in this and it is a recognised job.

I don't buy that for a second.
Do you have any evidence of that at all?
That there are courses in this completely trivial stuff?

So the answer is no to both.

And with that you show that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion we are having.
You are claiming it needs to be a pretty picture in order to be a map. I am calling BS on that, and saying it is the information that matters, not exactly how that information is presented.

You were even quite happily with simply plotting the points and claiming it is a map.
So if you aren't going to claim the pretty picture version is a map, don't bother asking me if it is a map.

Especially when I gave you the hypothetical example of a single point in a spatial database.
So you did the least mature thing possible and decided to make it 2 points.

Go find a collection of points, with appropriate labels, where YOU would be happy to accept it as a map if plotted as a pretty picture. Then trying asking if it is a map without being plotted as a pretty picture.

My definition of spatial database is simple and testable. Yours is ill defined.

No, it isn't. I included the example where there is a single point.

The problem now comes from your definition of a map.
How many points need to be there for it to be a map?
You have stated 2 isn't enough.
Is 3? How about 4? 5? 100? 1000?
Just how many points do you need for you to be happy to call it a map?
And why that arbitrary divide?

Again, this isn't about trying to rationally defend your position.
This is now about you doing whatever you can to ridicule my position while ignoring the key issue.

If you really thought it was subjective, you wouldn't be claiming I have devalued what a map is, nor having this massive discussion.
You would have just stated from the start that it is personal opinion and not given a damn.

You've accused me of cherry picking my definition of map to suit my personal opinions. You've gone further than that, ignored all known definitions of map and invented your own standard. A standard, let me remind you, where a collection of cat photos is a map. If that isn't you making a judgement based on personal opinions, I don't know what is. That's the polar opposite of objective.

Just because we have different opinions, doesn't mean I won't give a damn.

If it was entirely underground, would you then say it isn't a map?

I'm not going to get dragged into yet another pointless off-topic debate around what "underground" means, so I'll simply take that one off my list.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 10, 2021, 03:40:22 AM

I'm discussing a particular subset of maps.

Then why not say that from the start? That you are discussing a particular subset that are pretty pictures?

My subset is terrestrial rather than extra-terrestrial and surface rather than sub-surface, that's all. If you include every conceivable use of the word map, it makes for a stale discussion because any statement about an unqualified map won't apply to some map or other.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 10, 2021, 03:40:22 AM

Interesting, so you do regard this as trivial. And yet there are undergraduate and graduate courses in this and it is a recognised job.

I don't buy that for a second.
Do you have any evidence of that at all?
That there are courses in this completely trivial stuff?

Well you could just Google it, but how about an MSc (last I checked that was a postgraduate course) in Geoinformation Technology and Cartography from the University of Glasgow.

And just to remind you:

"Surveyors are responsible for visiting the sites that need to be mapped and collecting necessary data by utilizing special measuring equipment. They often use stakes, flags, and other markers during the process as well. After collecting the data, they then punch it into a computer and allow the Cartographers to take over from there."

Which according to you means cartographers only do trivial stuff.

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 10, 2021, 03:40:22 AM

So the answer is no to both.

And with that you show that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion we are having.
You are claiming it needs to be a pretty picture in order to be a map. I am calling BS on that, and saying it is the information that matters, not exactly how that information is presented.

You were even quite happily with simply plotting the points and claiming it is a map.
So if you aren't going to claim the pretty picture version is a map, don't bother asking me if it is a map.

Especially when I gave you the hypothetical example of a single point in a spatial database.
So you did the least mature thing possible and decided to make it 2 points.

Go find a collection of points, with appropriate labels, where YOU would be happy to accept it as a map if plotted as a pretty picture. Then trying asking if it is a map without being plotted as a pretty picture.

No, don't play that game, don't put words into my mouth. I've never once used the phrase "pretty picture", they are your words, never mine.

Nor have I ever claimed that something which is a "pretty picture" is therefore a map. That would be a completely ridiculous position to take. On that basis, photos of cats could be maps. How silly would that be. Oh, wait...

For a map to be a map, it has to have certain characteristic features and by my definition of map, it needs to be visual, so, not visual, not a map, but clearly not the other way around, not everything visual is a map.

Let A = { visual objects }, let B = { maps } B ⊂ A (B is a strict subset of A).

Your image (x) is clearly a graph. It is visual, it belongs to the set A (x ∈ A). It has nothing else to recommend it as a map, it is not a member of B (x ∉ B). Clear?

Yes, you gave the example of a one-element spatial database and suggested that might be the sole exception to your claim that all spatial databases are maps, so we agreed to exclude that one. The obvious conclusion is that a spatial database with two or more entries must also be a map. By your own logic, correct?

So now answer the question, is my two element example (the second one, with A and B in) a spatial database? I fail to see how you can deny it, since it passes all your stated tests for a spatial database - A and B are features, they are both geotagged (and there are more than one of them).

Quote from: robinofloxley on August 10, 2021, 03:40:22 AM

My definition of spatial database is simple and testable. Yours is ill defined.

No, it isn't. I included the example where there is a single point.

The problem now comes from your definition of a map.
How many points need to be there for it to be a map?
You have stated 2 isn't enough.
Is 3? How about 4? 5? 100? 1000?
Just how many points do you need for you to be happy to call it a map?

Well, since I produced an image (my original) from 11 million points and you wouldn't accept that as a map, I guess it needs to be a very large number. I can see lots of different maps on the internet and they are usually either JPEG or PNG format and therefore they all consist of points in different colours. My main criteria for recognising a map is nothing to do with the number of pixels, it's about whether or not, in my judgement, I could present it to an ordinary and reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus in English legal terminology) and they would recognise it as a map.

But you are just deflecting again aren't you, because you don't want to address the issue of whether my A, B example is a spatial database. It passes all your stated tests for a spatial database, but you are running away from it because it fatally punctures your assertion that all spatial databases with more then one entry are also maps.