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