FE map with scale

  • 159 Replies
  • 19578 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #150 on: August 11, 2021, 04:02:56 AM »
You've accused me of cherry picking my definition of map to suit my personal opinions.
And I also point out that you are just continually running away from the issue at hand, as you are doing yet again.
Are you capable of staying on point for 2 posts?

Again, this little tangent of your tangent was about who was devaluing what a map is. Where you think a hap-hazard plotting of points without labels and with large sections of countries missing, qualifies as a map, while I think a database containing a logical mapping between locations and what is at that location is a map.

When your only objection is that it isn't a pretty picture, that is very poor standard.
Likewise, I also point out how you strawman my position to try to ridicule it, as you have done yet again.
Quote
You've gone further than that, ignored all known definitions of map and invented your own standard.
No I haven't. I provided a definition that you could easily find.
If I recall correctly, after you provided the cherry picked first definition from wiktionary, which requires it to be a pretty picture, I provided the second:
"A graphical or logical representation of any structure or system, showing the positions of or relationships between its components."
But that isn't the only one.
You can also use this one from Google:
"a diagram or collection of data showing the spatial arrangement or distribution of something over an area."
Notice how it is a diagram OR COLLECTION OF DATA?

Quote
where a collection of cat photos is a map.
That is your strawman, not what I have actually said.
And with this strawman, you again leave out the critical information that actually shows it is a map.
That would be just as honest as if I said that you think any pretty picture is a map, and thus a photo of a cat is a map.

And considering how much of a prick you want to be, lets compare that to your standard shall we?

Here is your most recent one:
"A key element for me is that it has to be visual and represent real features on the ground/surface."
The photo of the cat you provided is visual, it represents real features, and these features are on the ground surface...

Quote
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.
Good, now take the pretty picture off as well.
As for off-topic debate, that is basically all you have been doing.

Quote
My subset is terrestrial rather than extra-terrestrial and surface rather than sub-surface, that's all.
No, not all.
And also pretty picture, rather than a logical representation.
You know, that key part you keep on trying to pretend

Quote
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.
Now prove that all they do is learn how to use GIS with data already in it to produce pretty pictures.

Or should I do the work for you?
Here is a link to their website:
https://www.gla.ac.uk/postgraduate/taught/geoinformationtechnologyandcartography/

"focuses on understanding and managing the locational data required to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS)"
Notice how it includes managing the data?
That sure doesn't sound like they just use a database with all the data already provided.

"You will benefit from access to our extensive computer laboratories and the latest software, including ArcGIS and MapInfo for GIS, graphic design packages and remote sensing processing software."
If it is just about using data already there, why the need for remote sensing?

We can also look at the programme structure, here is a key part you may have overlooked:
"LAND SURVEYING I (10 credits)"
So what were you saying about surveying being entirely separate?

Quote
Which according to you means cartographers only do trivial stuff.
No, it doesn't. That depends entirely upon what data the surveyors provide.

Quote
No, don't play that game
You are the one playing games here.

You are the one claiming a map must be a pretty picture, that GeoNames is not, because it is not a pretty picture.
I objecting, saying it doesn't need to be a pretty picture to be a map.

I don't really care if you used the words "pretty picture" or not. That is the point of disagreement, regardless of how you want to word it.

When you tried to ask if all spatial databases are maps, I gave the counter example of a hypothetical database with only a single point.
And you decided to play games and use one with 2 points.
Logically the games will follow until you reach an arbitrary line where suddenly it switches.
I'm not playing that game.

This is not getting to the heart of the disagreement. It has nothing to do with if it is visual or not. Instead it is to do with how many locations are there.
The question is not if a spatial base with 2 points is a map. If you want to play this game the question is how many locations are required for it to be a map?
So if you want to try playing this game, tell me how many points from the GeoNames database needs to be plotted for it to be a map.

Quote
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?
No, not clear.
What makes it a graph instead of map?
How does this differ with your plotting of points from GeoNames?
After all, that is effectively a graph where you have plotted the points based upon their latitude and longitude.
I did the same thing, plotting the points, based upon their latitude and longitude.

So why is your one a map, but mine is not?
Notice that mine has grid lines and labels.

So really, what is the difference between this:

Your original map of the UK and Ireland, and this:

The same methodology, but with far fewer points.
Why is one a map and the other not?

Likewise, what is the difference between this:

Your updated version with grid lines and labels, and this:

An version with grid lines and labels?
Why is one a map, and the other not?

Does it have anything at all to do with if they are visual? Clearly not, as all are .png files.

The only significant distinction between them is the one set has far more points than the other.
But that is not an argument that spatial databases are not maps (in the sense that you want it where NO spatial database is a map).
Instead it is an argument that you need a certain number of points for it to be a map.

Quote
So now answer the question, is my two element example (the second one, with A and B in) a spatial database?
You first. Are they maps, if not, why?
I fail to see how you can deny it, since it passes all your stated key requirements for a map - A and B are features, they are both geotagged (and there are more than one of them).

Quote
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.
Or, the number points wasn't the issue.

Quote
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.
So it is back to your useless, subjective, biased test.
A person noticing something is superficially similar to something else they have seen doesn't mean it is that, and something not being noticed as that doesn't mean it isn't.

Quote
But you are just deflecting again aren't you
No, you are deflecting because I'm not playing your stupid game.
You can't deal with the examples I gave you, so you run away and play a stupid of how many points are needed for it to be a map.
I'm not playing your stupid game.

Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #151 on: August 11, 2021, 07:23:16 AM »
And considering how much of a prick you want to be, lets compare that to your standard shall we?

And having run out of anything sensible to say, you are just left with puerile insults. Well done.

Quote
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.
Now prove that all they do is learn how to use GIS with data already in it to produce pretty pictures.


What part of AND in that course title are you struggling with. Cartography uses data from computers. End of story. Cartographers don't collect this data, surveyors do.

Quote
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?
No, not clear.
What makes it a graph instead of map?


It instantly fails my man on the Clapham omnibus test. It has one and only one feature in common with a proper map and that is, it is visual.

Quote
So now answer the question, is my two element example (the second one, with A and B in) a spatial database?
You first. Are they maps, if not, why?


Asked and answered. Your turn.

I'm not playing your stupid game.

No, you're avoiding again and again answering my perfectly simple question. You've asked me to judge your graph/"map". I have and I pronounce it a graph, not a map and I've given my reasons.

You however are incapable of honestly answering my questions, because you know full well you can't without admitting your position is untenable, so you are left with one and only one option, personal insult.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #152 on: August 11, 2021, 02:43:30 PM »
And having run out of anything sensible to say, you are just left with puerile insults. Well done.
No, I just called you out on your behaviour, while providing plenty of sensible things, which you just ignore outright as you can't actually defend your position.

What part of AND in that course title are you struggling with.
Nothing.
What part of your original claim are you struggling with?
You indicated that all the cartographers do is use GIS with existing data to make pretty pictures, which I stated quite rightly is a trivial process.
You responded by claiming there are graduate courses in this, yet all you provided was this.
So where is the course in learning how to use a GIS to make a pretty picture?

It instantly fails my man on the Clapham omnibus test.
Which, as already been explained, is entirely useless.
Try providing a rational justification.

Asked and answered. Your turn.
No, I want you to provide a rational justification based upon key criteria to being a map.
Just saying you, or other people, don't recognise it as a map, is not telling me WHY it isn't a map.

You however are incapable of honestly answering my questions
No, you are incapable of honestly answering mine, because you are so desperate to cling to the idea that making maps is a trivial process that any moron should be capable of doing; while contradicting that by indicating there are post-grad courses on it and indicating it isn't trivial at all.
So you are left with only very few options, playing games, ridicule, strawmanning, and deflection.

If you weren't, you wouldn't be playing games of "how many points are needed to be a map"
And instead focus on the other examples, of the visual representation of the data.

Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #153 on: August 12, 2021, 02:59:04 AM »
It instantly fails my man on the Clapham omnibus test.
Which, as already been explained, is entirely useless.
Try providing a rational justification.

OK, let's go back to your idea of using a sentient computer to decide. The nearest thing I can think of which might fit the bill for this is Google. So let's see shall we.

Choose either my world map or UK map images. I'm using Chrome, so I can do this - right click. Choose "Search Google for image". If you have that feature in your browser, tell me what you see under "Visually similar images". Better still, let me help you out.



So Google has no problem whatsoever recognising these images as maps now does it.

Try that with your graph "map". I won't embarrass you further by posting that result.

That will do for me. Google image search is my new criteria for independently judging whether something is a map or not. I'd call that a rational justification, wouldn't you?

Now back to you and your continued evasion.

45.7,20.1,A
48.4,23.6,B

A database of two geotagged features, A and B. Is this a spatial database yes or no?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #154 on: August 12, 2021, 04:17:33 AM »
"Search Google for image"
And with that you are restricting your search to only be pretty images for people.
So that is still a completely useless test.

"Visually similar images"
And all that does is show that your image is visually similar to some maps.
It doesn't show that it is a map.

But if you do that with your map of UK et al, Google seems to think it is "dot", not map.
With visually similar images, you get things like this:

Just what is that?
But don't worry, if you take that and dump it into google images and look at visually similar images, you can still get maps.
You also get images of Japan and New Zealand (and other places). Does that mean the UK is Japan?

That is less useful and more devaluing than your prior "standard".

That will do for me. Google image search is my new criteria for independently judging whether something is a map or not. I'd call that a rational justification, wouldn't you?
No. All you are doing is showing that there are some visual similarities, and it excludes anything that isn't an image format.
Specifically:
"The image must be in one of the following formats: .jpg, .gif, .png, .bmp, .tif or .webp."
So you have any other format, by your completely useless standard, it isn't a map.

So according to you, this is not a map:

But then again, as an svg file, it really is a plain text file listing various shapes and bits of text.

What would be rational is providing a list of criteria that it needs to meet, even if it is in the form of a definition, which can then be applied to the thing in question.
Remember, the reason we went down this particular path was your attempt to ridicule my position by providing 2 points, and I chose not to play your game, and turn that ridicule back against you.
And that path started with you trying to claim my definition of a spatial database is ill defined, again, to try to ridicule my position, and it seems you have been planning for this pathetic game for quite some time, right back when you decided to try "clarifying" if all spatial databases are maps.
And that is truly pathetic.

And yet it is so easy to turn it against you, with your definition of a map ill defined. But you don't seem to like that as it shows your position is ridiculous.
You only want to accept things that you want to be maps as maps, and want to reject everything else.

So again, why are those 2 points not a map, but the much larger collection of points is a map?
How many points does it need to be a map?

I'm not going to play your game of 2 points until you either accept it as a map, or provide a clear, rational justification of why it isn't, noting that that rational justification can then be used for those some points in a form other than a pretty picture.
And all that will do is change it from "all spatial databases, except those with only 1 point, are maps" to "all spatial databases, except those [insert justification here], are maps".
And then we will be right back where we started with the only distinction being the form, where you accept it if it is a pretty picture (according to your idea of picture), and not if it is something else.

Now back to you and your continued evasion.
I'm not the one evading here.
You are the one still trying to play games by asking how many points are required to be a map.

Again, that was never the point of disagreement. The closest you got was when I suggested that if you go out and measure enough points to be able to be confident in the data, you have got enough points and don't need the rest of the data.

The disagreement was on if it needed to be a pretty picture like you claim, or if what matters is the information.

If you are going to provided pathetic examples of 2 points, which you wouldn't accept as a map as a pretty picture, then it is just a deflection from the actual issue.
If you aren't going to accept that it is a map if it is a pretty picture, don't bother asking me if it is a map or a spatial database.

And again, deal with the examples I have presented, such as Google satellite view which puts the roads on as a layer above the photos, and OSM, which you can get to show without styling.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2021, 04:22:28 AM by JackBlack »

Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #155 on: August 12, 2021, 04:45:48 AM »
"Search Google for image"
And with that you are restricting your search to only be pretty images for people.
So that is still a completely useless test.

You mean if I use Google as the independent arbiter, it will instantly recognise what I've produced as a map and reject all your attempts, so your only way out is to call it useless.

It was your idea, don't forget. You wanted to defer to a sentient computer. This is the next best thing.

"Visually similar images"
And all that does is show that your image is visually similar to some maps.
It doesn't show that it is a map.

So literally dozens of matches of my world map with 100% (or close to) of the results being maps as far as I can see and probably a 90% match of my UK map with - maps of the UK.

And to you, that is "Visually similar to some maps" - That's hilarious.

I'm not going to play your game of 2 points until you either accept it as a map, or provide a clear, rational justification of why it isn't, noting that that rational justification can then be used for those some points in a form other than a pretty picture.

Well we are done then, because I've given you a rational independent methodology to determine if any image is a map. I can't give you a rational independent method to determine if something which isn't an image is a map, because they aren't maps.

You and I and anyone else reading this thread knows perfectly well why you are refusing to answer my very simple yes/no question and it's very clear that no matter how many nonsensical hoops I jump through to address your questions, you will duck and deflect and evade answering mine. So, one last chance to answer and if you don't I'm done.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #156 on: August 12, 2021, 03:20:09 PM »
You mean if I use Google as the independent arbiter, it will instantly recognise what I've produced as a map and reject all your attempts
No, I mean specifically that you are not actually using Google, you are still throwing in your requirement that it MUST be an image.
And as pointed out, it also requires specific image formats, and it will happily pick things which are not maps, but are visually similar to maps, and give you images of maps.

As such, it is useless as an arbiter. It will return plenty of false positives and plenty of false negatives.

It is not better than just saying you will flip a coin, if its heads its a map if its tails it isn't.

It was your idea, don't forget. You wanted to defer to a sentient computer. This is the next best thing.
No, I wanted to use a rational standard rather than trying to just go based entirely upon first impressions.
I pointed out that your test was useless for a map for a computer in the same way presenting what you produced to blind people would be useless.

That if you wanted your test to be in any way fair, you would need to present it to a sentient computer rather than people, to evaluate if it is a map for a computer.

And no, this is not the next best thing, it may be slightly better than giving it to a person, but far worse. You aren't even asking it if it is a map.
That would be looking at what it describes the image as.
Instead you are asking it for what is visually similar to this.

If you wanted to make it more like asking a sentient computer what it is, that would be looking at the text it chooses to label the image with.
In that case, your "map" of the UK is actually dot.
Google doesn't "think" it is a map, it thinks it is dot (possibly a collection of dots?).

It thinks your second one is a China and Morocco map (not a world map), and thinks the 2 dots with grid and so on is cyclo noodles & rice.
How wonderful a test.

And again, that is still just limited to images.

To make it comparable to a sentient computer you need to be able to give it anything and ask what it is.

So literally dozens of matches of my world map with 100% (or close to) of the results being maps as far as I can see and probably a 90% match of my UK map with - maps of the UK.
You sure do love just cherry picking things that support you and ignoring all that which doesn't, and making baseless assumptions.
In the screenshot you provided, there are a total of 33 images. Only 18 are the same region. That is ~55 %, not 90.
You then have others which are only show a part of the UK, and others showing Ireland.
But then, far more importantly, you also have completely different areas, like Italy and japan, and that accounts for 8 out of the 33 images, or 24%, so hardly that 90% you claim.

Again, I provided an example of something I get when searching with your image, and it does not appear to be a map. I do notice that you just completely ignored that.
When I place this back into Google, the first result is something quite like a map, as are quite a few other results. And again, you ignored that.

So do you claim that this is a map:

If not, why? It seems to pass your test quite well.
If you do think it is a map, please tell me what it is meant to be a map of.

Likewise, I provide an example, that any sane person would accept as a map, yet fails your test.
Do you claim that this is not a map:

When I try putting that into Google Image search I get this:
"The URL doesn't refer to an image or the image is not publicly accessible."
If I download it and then use the file, instead I get this:
"The image must be in one of the following formats: .jpg, .gif, .png, .bmp, .tif or .webp."

So by your allegedly rational, independent test, it is NOT a map.

But because this shows just how wrong and useless your test is, you just ignore it, like you ignore so much that shows you are wrong.
How about you stop ignoring it and start actually trying to deal with all this that shows you are wrong.

So unless you are willing to state that the first example is a map and the second example is not, your test is entirely useless, declaring not-maps as maps, and declaring maps as not-maps.

Well we are done then, because I've given you a rational independent methodology to determine if any image is a map.
No, you haven't.
That would require providing a list of criteria it needs to meet.
Putting it into Google images and seeing if you get maps as visually similar images, is not a rational independent methodology, and it is a complete failure, as already demonstrated.

It is also hardly independent as it is based upon what other things you have searched for, and your location.
When I use an incognito window and search, I get this:
Quite different to what you got.
It's as if you being in the UK biases it to produce more things which look like the UK.
Of my 33, only 15 are the UK. Less than 50%.


You and I and anyone else reading this thread knows perfectly well why you are refusing to answer my very simple yes/no question
Because you are trying to play games and ridicule my position by trying to discuss a map with 2 points.
You want to ridicule that and claim it isn't a map, while you are completely incapable of providing any rational justification for why.

That is because you know you can't justify your position so you hope to just ridicule mine.

So again, why is your process to "make a map" with 2 points invalid and doesn't produce a map, while your process to "make a map" with lots more points valid, and does produce a map?

And again, the point of disagreement was that you need it to be a pretty picture to accept it is a map, while I say it is the information that matters. So if you aren't willing to accept it as a map when it is a pretty picture, don't expect me to when it is the same information in a different form. That is just a pathetic deflection and an attempt at ridicule.

Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #157 on: August 13, 2021, 02:11:35 AM »
You utter coward.

You ask me how I would determine whether something is a map. I tell you I would ask the man in the street.

"What if they are blind" you say.

I then suggest a judge and jury.

You tell me we need a sentient computer as only computers can judge what's on a computer.

I suggest Google as the next best thing.

There are 24 Google matches of my world map image and every one is a map. 100%.

There are 33 matches of my UK map, 30 matches are maps. 91%. Of these, there are 5 which didn't match the UK, that leaves 83% which do.

You now say that's no better than tossing a coin. This is just pathetic.

You show an image, a Political Map of the World and tell me it fails my test because the image isn't publicly accessible or it's the wrong format and yet I can just right click "Search Google for Image", right there in your very own post and straight away it works. Pathetic.

Heres's my question, for the eighth and last time.

45.7,20.1,A
48.4,23.6,B

A database of two geotagged features, A and B. Is this a spatial database yes or no?

I have at the very least attempted an answer every time you have asked your question. You might say I haven't answered it properly, but I have given you my answer.

You however won't even do me the courtesy of attempting an answer. You have chosen to remain silent, to invoke the fifth amendment, to avoid incriminating yourself. Because you know no matter whether you answer yes or no, you are in trouble.

Answer no, not a spatial database and you are throwing out every sensible definition of a spatial database, including your own. You know this.

Answer yes, a spatial database and by your own logic, all spatial databases of two features or more are also maps. You cannot avoid this conclusion.

You are hiding behind fake outrage and this transparently false assertion that I'm playing games. You claim I haven't answered your question, so you don't need to answer mine. You really think nobody can see through this pathetic charade?

You utter coward.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 03:54:50 AM by robinofloxley »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #158 on: August 13, 2021, 06:16:13 PM »
You utter coward.
Projecting again I see.

Quote
You ask me how I would determine whether something is a map. I tell you I would ask the man in the street.
And I point out how that is quite biased, giving an example of asking a blind person.
As the map isn't map for a blind person, they aren't going to recognise it.
I also point out it depends on presentation, where you choose to present the png file in one particular way and the database in another.
As a result, the people see the visual similarities between one presentation and other maps they have seen and recognise it as a map, while they don't see the visual similarities between the others.

I provided an example of from OSM where it is visually presenting the nodes in a way most people would likely recognise as a map and you just ignore it because it damages your position.

Again, when you are asking people, presentation matters.

I pointed out that if you wanted a non-biased test similar to that you would need to ask a computer, and that doesn't mean go do a google image search, it means ask a computer. Which is obviously impossible until we get sentient computers (if that is even possible).

I also pointed out how trying to use first impressions is quite irrational as it is just going on superficial similarities.
You then tried to appeal to a jury to try to show that asking people is what is done, and I pointed out that is nothing like what you initially suggested because the jury doesn't just go on first impressions, instead they would use arguments, which would mean you should be trying to present arguments, not just say a random person on the street would or would not accept a particular presentation.

Quote
You now say that's no better than tossing a coin. This is just pathetic.
No, I say your overall methodology is no better.
This is because it is not reliable.
Showing it works for 1 particular case does not mean it is better than flipping a coin. You need to show it works for all cases.
That means you need to show that for anything that is not a map, including things visually similar to a map, it will not indicate it is a map.
Likewise, for things which are maps, including formats it does not support, will show that it is a map.

And currently it fails to do that.
Instead you can search for not maps and get maps. Likewise you can search for maps and either completely fail to have it actually search, or get not maps.

That is why it is no better than flipping a coin. Not so much because you didn't get a 100% result rate for maps or maps of the UK, but because it is not consistent.

Also I note you also completely ignored the bias you introduced by living in the UK, meaning the test is not independent; with my search of your image of the UK from outside the UK giving much worse results, less than a 50% match for the UK.

Quote
yet I can just right click "Search Google for Image", right there in your very own post and straight away it works. Pathetic.
My bad, I didn't notice that is what you said.
Instead, I went to Google images and tried searching for the image.
Something which doesn't require chrome.
But of course, you are yet again ignoring the underlying issue.
It relies upon the format being supported by Google Images.
If I convert the svg file to a pdf, most people can still open and easily recognise it as a map. You can even use Chrome to do so.
But if you try to search Google Images with it, it fails.
And when you have it open on Chrome, there is no option to search Google Images for it.
So sure, you can make it work in a particular way with that svg file, but with a pdf file that results in a visually identical map, it fails.
So the actual issue pointed out is still valid. You try using it on a map and it fails.
So by your "rational independent methedology", a pdf file can't be a map.
So are you going to claim that that map, but as a pdf file, is not a map? That it being a pdf file means it can't be a map?

If you provide it with a map in a format that Google Images does not recognise, your method will fail to indicate it is a map.
So if you give it a map in the form of a spatial database, your method will fail to work.

That means your method is useless. Especially when this debate is on if a spatial database is a map.
And you have shown that if you convert that spatial database to a png file, it will be "recognised as a map".

Quote
Heres's my question, for the eighth and last time.
But last time you said:
So, one last chance to answer and if you don't I'm done.
So were you saying that the previous one was the last chance, or is this time the last chance?

Or even after this will you try again?

Regardless, I have told you what you need to do to get me to answer your question.
Tell me why the exact same information presented in the format of a pretty picture isn't a map; providing a rational criteria upon which to judge it.
That is because this was not about how many points it has, as you want to pretend the issue is now. It was about if the information was what mattered, or if needed to be a pretty picture.

If you are saying this is not a map, regardless of if it is in the form of a spatial database or a pretty picture, then it has nothing to do with the actual objection made, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is just you playing games.

Quote
I have at the very least attempted an answer every time you have asked your question.
No, you have repeatedly avoiding answering it, so you can continue to play pathetic games.
An actual answer would be providing a set of criteria that something has to match to be a map, such that it can be judged without any other map to determine if it is a map.

Otherwise, how can you tell if Google images is returning a bunch of maps, or a bunch of not maps?
For example, when I search my 2 dots, how do I know I'm not getting a bunch of maps? I seem to be getting a collection of maps with very few points
When I search your UK image, how do I know I am getting a bunch of maps?
Especially considering the search for the UK and the world return completely different results?

Again, this comes back to you accusing me of having an ill definition of a spatial database while ignoring your ill definition of a map, with you attempting to ridicule my position by presenting 2 points and trying to get me to say it is still a map; while ignoring the very same presented to you, or doing whatever you can to get out of it.

So if you want to try actually answering my question, rather than desperately trying to avoid it at all costs and having your games backfire on you, then provide a simple rational basis, based upon criteria for what a map is (rather than visual similarity to other maps) for why the UK image is a map, but the 2 points is not.
And really, the only actual distinction is that one has 2 points, while the other has a lot more.


Quote
You are hiding behind fake outrage and this transparently false assertion that I'm playing games. You claim I haven't answered your question, so you don't need to answer mine. You really think nobody can see through this pathetic charade?

You utter coward.
And there you go with more projection.

Do you really think no one can see through your games of trying to see if 2 points makes a map to try to dismiss spatial databases being a map, without having the same issue of dismissing pretty pictures?
Do you really think people can't see that I had been arguing that it is the information that is important, rather than the presentation, but now, instead of even attempting to focus on that issue, you instead want to try discussing if 2 points makes a map?
Do you really think people can't see that you are refusing any rational justification for why 2 points as a pretty picture doesn't make a map?
Do you really think no one can see you are hiding behind these insults and deflections to completely ignore the actual issue.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 06:19:39 PM by JackBlack »

Re: FE map with scale
« Reply #159 on: December 19, 2021, 06:28:22 PM »
A map of the whole earth would not have a usable scale, or it would have a very complicated one that required measuring across latitudes and longitudes for each measurement.

A map of a fairly small area - such as a city or even a country - might have a simple scale but the bigger the area covered by the map the more approximate the scale would be.

This is because the earth is NOT flat.  It is round and representing it on a flat page requires a projection using higher mathematics; invariably there will be distortion of distances, especially near the edges.   There are at least a thousand different projections that can be used when making maps; some are useful only for small areas such as cities, some for larger areas such as countries, and some are useful for the whole earth.  The closest earth map to distortion-less is the interrupted map that is printed flat, trimmed, and then glued to a sphere to make a globe; on paper it looks very odd with a narrow strip for the tropical zone and the rest of the earth, north and south of the tropics, in acute triangles that are eventually glued tio each other on a globe.  Measuring distances on the flat map cannot be done with a straight line but with a line broken up among the triangles with slight changes in direction from triangle to triangle.