Crampton revisits the “map is everything means map means nothing” issue that emerges with oh so many things. Maps are representations. Maps are producers and conveyors of knowledge. Maps are xenophobic. Maps are simply how we get around.
I very much like that Crampton raises the issue of the positivism of GIS. This issue is one for which I have not articulated a good response: If we are literally dealing with pictures, with satellite images, how do we adequately critique? We can critique decisions about the collection of the images, but we can’t refute the images themselves.
I argue that maps are not true or false, and yet a Google map is “right” –and therefore “true”?–except for errors that can then be fixed. Interesting idea here too: What is the relationship of truth to error? Do what extent does intentionality and/or agenda (again, relationship is interesting!) matter?
By