Smart Cartography: representing complex geographical reality of 21st century

ABSTRACT

This article delves into the essence of “Smart Cartography”, a focal point in the international cartographic and geospatial information arena. Rather than the “smart”, the paper concentrates on unpacking the meaning of “cartography” and “map”, by drawing on the ICA 2003 definitions, distilling it to “representation and use of geographical reality”. It posits that the geographical reality, recognized as the “object of mapping” in literature, is the core element needing further investigation. The study further explores historical and contemporary terminology for geographical reality (object of mappings) since the mid-nineteenth century. asserting the reflection of each era's geographical knowledge in its object of mapping. In the constantly evolving, complex world, the paper advocates for a new paradigm capable of encapsulating these characteristics in the representation of geographical reality. Hence, the notion of Smart Cartography must embrace an understanding of temporal changes and spatial dynamism, integrating causally aware systems to comprehend not just the changes but their causes, in turn enhancing the decision-making process. The author concludes that Smart Cartography of the 2030s should adeptly represent the dynamism and complexities of our geographical reality, highlighting its adaptability in line with technological advancements and evolving spatial representation needs.

RÉSUMÉ

L'objectif principal de cet article est de réfléchir sur l'expression ‘smart cartographie' (ou cartographie intelligente) en tant que phénomène indispensable du 21e siècle, un concept qui occupe désormais une place centrale dans l'agenda de la communauté internationale de la cartographie et de l'information géographique. Dans cet article, nous nous concentrons sur le terme cartographie plutôt que sur celui ‘intelligent'. Ici ‘intelligent' est défini comme ‘bien adapté à l'objectif' et sert de catalyseur pour permettre à la cartographie de remplir sa mission au cours de ce siècle et au-delà. Après avoir écarté ‘smart' du débat, nous nous attaquons à la définition de la cartographie. En nous inspirant des dernières définitions de cartographie et de cartes, données par l'ACI en 2003, nous revenons à la définition à son essence – ‘représentation et utilisation de la réalité géographique'. Cette étude part du principe que la réalité géographique, reconnue comme ‘objet de cartographie' dans la littérature, est l'élément central qui nécessite une représentation – une tâche qui incombe aux cartographes, aux géographes ou à toute personne désirant comprendre son environnement. Cet article n'a pas pour objectif de déclencher des débats métaphysiques sur les définitions, mais a pour objectif d’analyser la terminologie historique et contemporaine des réalités géographiques (objets de cartographies) du milieu du 19^ème siècle à nos jours. Cette recherche atteste du fait que les connaissances géographiques de chaque époque, telles que reconnues par de nombreux géomaticiens, reflètent le véritable objectif de la cartographie à chaque époque. A l'époque actuelle, caractérisée par une évolution et une complexité constantes, il y a un besoin urgent d'un nouveau paradigme, capable d'encapsuler ces caractéristiques dans la représentation de la réalité géographique. Comme évolution de ce concept, la notion de cartographie intelligente doit inclure une compréhension des évolutions temporelles et de la dynamique des phénomènes spatiaux, en intégrant les systèmes de causalité pour comprendre non seulement les changements mais aussi leurs causes, améliorant ainsi les processus de décision. L'auteur conclut que la ‘cartographie intelligente' adaptée aux années 2030 est une cartographie capable de remplir habillement sa mission de représenter les dynamiques et les complexités de notre réalité (géographique) du 21^ème siècle. Cette conclusion repose sur l'idée que la ‘cartographie intelligente' n'est pas un concept statique, mais un concept adaptable, capable de s'adapter au rythme rapide des avancées technologiques et à l’évolution des besoins de la communauté de la représentation spatiale.

KEYWORDS:

• Smart Cartography
• geographical knowledge
• geographical reality
• dynamic mapping

Smart Cartography definition

The term ‘Smart Cartography’ was used by many scholars and researcher in the last few years, however the term itself has not been clearly defined. Indeed, there is still an open-ended discussion around the ‘Smart Cartography’ definition in which the International Cartographic Association (ICC, 2023) acknowledged the inevitability of this emergence and opened up the room for debate on the ICA 31st International Conference webpage (ICC, 2023);

By 2023 we will be immersed in the 4IR with new ways in which to represent geospatial information, and new ways in which humans interact with and use cartography and geospatial information. This has given rise to new cartography and geospatial information science and management. The topic of ‘smart cartography’ will be ready for discussion and debate. In 2023 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and will be at the half-way stage.

Having the history of the ‘smart cartography’ in perspective, Malinverni and Tassetti (2013) are among the first who used the term ‘Smart Cartography’ to promote the benefits of 3D City Models and structures in planning, simulation, analysis, documentation and heritage management. Hence in their research the word ‘Smart’ was referred mainly to GIS-Based 3D modeling tools. Cirillo et al. (2021) utilized the ‘Smart Cartography’ for urban decision-making processes of cultural heritage sites. They described the term as ‘ … the advanced tools and aid for urban decision-making processes, in particular in planning, simulation, analysis, documentation and management of cultural heritage, … ’. Panchaud and Hurni (2019) employed the ‘Smart Cartographic’ for a completely different purpose. They had it as ‘Rules, well-thought assumptions, and sensible default values are defined from the collected principles to construct smart cartographic functions’. In the scope of this paper, the author does not aim to question any of these definitions or application, rather than to point out to the need for a standard definition of ‘Smart Cartography’ as suggested on the Agenda of ICA 31st International Conference. The author encapsulates the term smart cartography into its building components; the ‘smart’ and the ‘cartography’. In the following section, the definition of being ‘smart’ will be discovered.

Smart definition

The word ‘smart’ is one of the mostly used and sometimes mis-used word in all range if disciplines; smart phones, smart maps, smart mobility, smart technology, smart energy, and smart transportation to name a few. Indeed, these are just a few of these terms coined by the word ‘smart’ during last decades. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines smart as ‘having or showing a quick-witted intelligence’, where intelligence is described as ‘the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things, the ability to do this well’.

Although this research does not aim to redefine the word ‘smart’ in the broader sense; the author believes a more specific and refined definition of ‘smart’ is needed for the term ‘Smart Cartography’. By reviewing several of terms coined using the word ‘smart’ such as examples above, two general conclusions can be made.

• Different people use the same term differently and mean different things, which is coming mainly from the lack of a standard definition for these ‘smart’ terms such as for the term ‘Smart Cartography’

• The word ‘smart’ is most commonly used to emphasize the ‘fitness’ and ‘well-suitedness’ of the word which is following the word ‘smart’ to ‘serve a specific purpose’. For instance, the term ‘Smart’ commonly used to say: ‘fitness and well-suitedness of the to serve the core purpose’.

As a more specific and more refined definition of the word ‘smart’ will be also more useful to clarify the term ‘smart cartography’, the author applies the proposed definition for smart following short definition for the word ‘smart’ as ‘something that is very fit and well-suited to fulfil its original core purpose’.

This definition allows us to refocus the load of the term ‘Smart Cartography’ on the word ‘Cartography’ rather than on the word ‘Smart’. If we go with this proposed definition for the word ‘Smart’; we will read ‘smart cartography is a cartography which is very well-suited to serve best its core cartographic purpose’. Following this line of thought, we may re-write the theme of the ICC 2023 International Conference ‘Smart Cartography for Sustainable Development’ as a following (ICC 2023): ‘What is the most well-suited “Cartography” to best support achieving Sustainable Development Goals?’.

In the rest of this article, the author follows the proposed definition for ‘smart’, hence focusing the full scope of the article on decomposing and understanding the word ‘Cartography’ in its core.

Cartography definition

There are numerous definitions for the words Cartography and Map in almost every textbook and many research articles on cartography and mapping. De Brommer defined the term Cartography in 1959 as

The art, science and technology of making maps, together with their study as scientific documents and works of arts. In this context, maps may be regarded as including all types of maps, plans, charts and sections, three-dimensional models and globes representing the earth or any heavenly body at any scale. (Ormeling, 1987)

This definition appeared in 1973 in the Multilingual dictionary of technical terms in cartography (Meynen, 1973) and persisted very well through decades to date with only minor changes in its essence; although not without debates (Krygier, 1995). Undoubtedly one of the most important words in the definition of Cartography is the word ‘Map’.

Unlike the term Cartography, the word Map has seen numerous definitions in the last almost four centuries and is still heavily debated by geographers, cartographers and GI-scientists. Andrews (1996) presents analysis of 321 definitions of the word ‘map’ drawn from dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, monographs, and learned journals for the period of 1649–1996. Most of these definitions include the following phrase: ‘[the] map is a representation of [object of mapping]’, where object of mapping is most commonly ‘surface of the earth’. In the face of technological developments in recent decades, cartography and meaning of Map has undergone significant changes, that is fundamental to not only cartography but GIScience in broader sense. Hence, the continues debate on the definition of Map has been even more intensified in the resent years. Lapaine et al. (2021), Gotlib et al. (2021), and Kraak and Fabrikant (2017) are some of the latest publications attending this debate and proposing new definitions for the terms ‘Cartography’ and ‘Map’.

In this article for the terms the ‘Cartography’ and ‘Map’ we start the investigation with the 2003 definitions provided by the International Cartographic Association (ICA) as authoritative body of the cartographic discipline (ICA, 2022). ICA most recent 2003 definition of cartography reads as ‘Cartography is the discipline dealing with the art, science and technology of making and using maps’, where a map is defined as ‘A symbolised representation of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance’ (ICA, 2022).

By boiling down these two definitions to their cores, we reach the essence of Cartography which is ‘making and using maps, where maps are symbolised representation of geographical reality’ or in other words ‘making and using symbolised representation of geographical reality’. To make this definition of cartography even more condense, we can say that the aim of Cartography is to ‘represent and use geographical reality’. This super condensed definition of Cartography has exactly three main aspects: ‘Representation’, ‘Use’, and ‘Geographical Reality’, which is indeed the ‘object of mapping’. In the next section we will first enquiry the object of mapping ‘Geographical Reality’. A proper exploration of the ‘Representation’ and ‘Use’ aspects of Cartography deserves a separate comprehensive study, which cannot be covered in the scope of this article.

Object of mapping

‘Geographical Reality’ or ‘Surface of the Earth’ as object of mapping

In both official definitions of Map provided by ICA in 1995 and 2003, the term ‘Geographic Reality’ is a focal point of attention which should be ‘represented’ (ICA, 2022) by a ‘Map’. This term first appeared in 1989 in ICA Working Group on Cartographic Definitions of Map as ‘A holistic representation and intellectual abstraction of geographic reality intended to be communicated for a purpose or purposes, transforming relevant geographical data into an end-product which is visual, digital or tactile’ (ICA, 1989). Even earlier Guptill and Starr (1984) proposed; a Map is

the information transfer that is centered about a spatial data base which can be considered in itself a multifaceted model of geographic reality. Such a spatial database then serves as the central core of an entire sequence of cartographic processes, receiving various data inputs and dispersing various types of information products. … .

Earlier than 1984, literature is full of definitions using terms such as ‘Surface of the Earth’ in their definitions of Map for instance the proposed definition by ICA Commission II (1973): ‘A representation normally to scale and on a flat medium of a selection of material or abstract features on, or in relation to, the surface of the earth or of a celestial body’. Stamp (1961) reads a Map as

A representation of the earth’s surface or a part of it, its physical and political features, etc., or of the heavens, delineated on a flat surface of paper or other material, each point in the drawing corresponding to a geographical or celestial position according to a definite scale or projection.

Similar terms can be seen also in several glossaries such as US Department of Defense, Glossary of Mapping, Charting and Geodetic Terms (US Department of Defense, 1969):

A graphic representation, usually on a plane surface and at an established scale, of natural and artificial features on the surface of a part or the whole of the earth or other planetary body. The features are positioned as accurately as possible, usually relative to a coordinate reference system. Also, a graphic representation of a part or the whole of the celestial sphere.

Going back to mid or even beginning of the twentieth century, Map has been defined as a mean to represent or portray ‘surface of the earth’. American Society of Civil Engineers (1954) defined a Map as:

A representation on a plane surface, at an established scale, of the physical features, (natural, artificial or both) of a part or the whole of the earth’s surface, by the use of signs and symbols, and with the method of orientation indicated. Also, a similar representation of the heavenly bodies.

Eckert and Joerg (1908) say: ‘Undoubtedly the most important object of maps is to portray on a plane the surface of the earth or some larger or smaller portion of it’. Eckert (1907) has emphasized this term in his famous article ‘Die Kartographie als Wissenschaft’ as¹:

A geographical map is a ground layout of a larger or smaller part of the earth's surface, which, in addition to the locational relationships, illustrates area and spatial relationships as well as geophysical, cultural and natural-historical facts in a graphically clear manner, so that it is possible to read and measure the represented objects.

Woodward and Woodward (1987) in the highly respected book series ‘The History of Cartography’ describe Maps as much more than how to get from A to B but as ‘one of the oldest forms of human communication, they ultimately express the many ways we attempt to understand the world’. According to Andrews (1996), who analysed 321 map definitions from the mid-seventeenth century to 1996; ‘the most common lexicographical approach is to treat maps as representations of the surface of the earth, but for many writers this simple formula has been too general and too crude’. The prevalence of terms such as ‘surface of the earth’, ‘geographic reality’, ‘geographic area’, ‘real world space or area’, ‘geographic environment’, ‘geographic area’ and similar derivations is clearly reflected in the results of a crowdsourcing survey done with 120 cartographers in the 2013 Dresden ICC (Kraak and Fabrikant (2017) and Kraak, 2014). Survey results presented in Figure 3 of their work shows two outstanding conclusions in summary:

• A map is a ‘representation’ of the ‘object of mapping’

• ‘Object of mapping’ is (some aspects or features) of surface of earth, geographical reality, environment, geographic area, etc.

Indeed, the dominance definition for Map in the mainstream cartography in more than a century has been about ‘representing’ (some aspects) of ‘geographical reality’ or ‘earth surface’. We will come back to the ‘representation’ aspect in a separate writing, but first it is essential to enquiry: what cartographers and GIScience community understand and understood under terms such as ‘Geographic Reality’, ‘Environment’, or ‘Surface of Earth’, indeed the ‘object of mapping’?

‘Physical and Metaphysical world’ as object of mapping: in the pre-renaissance time

Pre-Renaissance cartography, as explored in detail in the four books of first two volumes of renowned ‘The History of Cartography’, (Woodward & Woodward, 1987, 1992, 1994; and Woodward & Lewis, 1998) offers a fascinating look at the diverse ways in which societies have conceptualized, used, and represented space. Spanning from prehistoric times to the medieval period, these cartographic traditions reflect not only geographic and navigational knowledge, but also the cultural, religious, and political contexts in which these societies operated. Maps were not seen merely as practical tools for spatial orientation going from here to there but carried symbolic and to great extend metaphysical meanings, often serving as powerful instruments of cultural expression, political control, and religious devotion to deities.

The meaning of a map during these times, therefore, goes far beyond its modern connotations. A map was not merely a scaled representation of geographical features; it was a complex symbol system that communicated a society's understanding of the world around and its place in it. From the cosmological depictions of the universe in ancient cultures to the intricate Mappa-mundi of the Middle Ages, these maps embodied a combination of observation, myth, and belief. They often represented both the physical world and spiritual or mythical realms, and their production was imbued with ritual and ceremonial significance. Maps from these periods can be seen as cultural artifacts that reflect their creators’ understanding of the universe, their spiritual beliefs, and their societal structures. Thrower (1972) considers Maps much broader as a ‘sensitive indicator of the changing thought of man, and . . . an excellent mirror of culture and civilisation’. Maps have significantly influenced human understanding of our relationship with the natural world, not only as practical navigational tools but also as ideological and religious symbols, encapsulating sacred cosmologies and real-world landscapes from prehistoric times (Woodward & Woodward, 1987; Tuan, 1974 and 1977; Eliade, 1978). Recognizing these multiple roles, along with the conventional political and practical functions, asserts the significance of cartography as a unique graphical language.

Maps have historically served as memory banks for spatial data and mnemonics in societies without printing (Woodward & Woodward, 1987). The eloquence and expressive power of maps transcend language barriers, allowing diverse societies to express their relationship with their geographic environment. Moreover, maps are not just static snapshots of their content; they are dynamic entities shaped by complex interactions between their use and their creation. A thorough understanding of maps demands a multifaceted knowledge of the world being mapped, its explorers or observers, the mapmaker, the physical map itself, and its users (Woodward & Woodward, 1987).

For a comprehensive study of Cartography among indigenous people and also pre-renaissance periods, the Author suggest reading the renowned book series of ‘The History of Cartography’, where the meaning of cartography and mapping in different cultures such as Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, traditional Islamic countries, South Asian, East and Southeast Asian Societies, and finally traditional African, American, Arctic and Australian societies is extensively elaborated and discussed.

‘Geographical Knowledge’ as object of mapping: Eckert and his contemporaries’ perspective

Eckert (1907) describes the object of mapping namely ‘surface of the earth’ in his definition as:

The most general definition of the map's purpose is to represent the Earth's surface or its parts in a scaled-down way. The surface of the earth is the product of indigenous and exogenous forces. … The earth's surface is not thinkable without the traces of the organic world. Particularly the human beings engrave more intensively with every year the traces of their existence in the face of the earth. All these compelling terrestrial facts must not be kept away from a map. As a result, the special maps of economic and transportation geography would appear to be the graphic representation of our current overall knowledge of a region. If it would be otherwise doubtful to exclude the human being from the geographical observation, just the best of our maps must remove these doubts.

Eckert and Joerg (1908) follow almost identical understanding of what the object of mapping should be and what the surface of earth means for them as:

Just as, furthermore, a good portrait of a person gives us a clue to his past life, so maps should, to a certain extent, give an insight into the genetic history of our earth. But this alone is not sufficient; for the surface of the earth is not only a resultant of inner and outer physical forces: it is also modified by organic agencies. To reproduce the traces which organic life and, particularly, man leave upon it should form one of the main aims of map-making. One might almost say that maps showing the economic and commercial phenomena of any given region constitute a graphic epitome of our geographic knowledge concerning that region.

In both aforementioned elaborations about the ‘object of mapping’, we see that the ‘surface of earth’ is considered beyond merely spatial positioning of physical world, but cultural, economic, commercial, political, ethnic, and other human factors are included, indeed the real world of the time is the object of mapping. This is confirmed by Eckert (1907) saying²:

The map is to be considered (more or less) as accomplished and elucidated representation of the geographical knowledge of any period of time. The antique map with its fantastic accessories is often presented as a child of its time, but also today's map is by no means less a child of its time.

Eckert (1907) furthermore emphasizes that, the main rules for a map are that (a) there is no point or line in it that is not justified, and (b) that maps should reflect the state of geographic knowledge as much as possible. This explanation for the ‘object of mapping’ by Eckert is a rather brilliant effort to broaden and generalize the scope of a Map’s Definition into territories unknown by him at the time of writing.

This view on maps as being the carrier and representor of geographic knowledge is shared with many of Eckert’s contemporaries. Petermann (1866) coined the phrase³ ‘The map is the basis of geography’ in 1866, a phrase that recurs in different variations in journals and textbooks afterward. Wolkenhauer (1880) repeats this phrase as⁴: ‘The map is the basis of geography and the most important carrier of all geographic knowledge’. According to Wharton (1905) ‘Good Maps are the foundation of geographical knowledge’. Vogel (1887) continues⁵: ‘It - the map - should not need an explanatory statement, but on the contrary, it should be the basis for the observer, the teacher and geographic writer, from which they form their views and communicate them to others’. Eichfeld (1879) says⁶: ‘Wherever we inquiry into the purpose of the map and its importance in geographical science, it is evidence that is the most concentrated summary of geographical knowledge’.

Maps representing ‘the deposit of geographic knowledge for any given period’ and being ‘the basis of geography’ are the sayings of eminent geographers and thinkers in late 19^th and early twentieth century, who ‘have greatly stimulated geographic thought and have raise maps to a higher position than that usually occupied by illustrative material in other sciences’. They are no longer merely as aids to portray geographic phenomena, ‘but as products of scientific research which, being complete in themselves, convey their message by means of their own signs and symbols and through these furnish the basis for further geographic deduction’ (Eckert & Joerg, 1908).

Finally in his books ‘Die Kartenwissenschaft’ in two volumes, which marked cartography’s birth as an independent discipline and science (Kainz, 2020), Eckert describes the map as the philosopher's stone (Stein der Weisen) in geography and reemphasizes his previous claims even more as⁷: ‘The map is the most indispensable tool and armamentarium of geographical science’ and the map ‘is at all times the true reflection of the state of geographical knowledge’ (Eckert, 1921 and 1925). In the eyes of Eckert and his contemporaries, geographical knowledge was mainly related to three facets of the real world around them: natural and geophysical, cultural and historical, and economic, commercial, political, ethnic, and other human facets.

As the reality in eyes of scientists is somehow the captured and formalized knowledge about the reality. This is in-line with Ludwig Wittgenstein thoughts, who considers language as a model of reality and container of knowledge, and reality is comprehended by us through language (Wittgenstein, 2009). For a geographer and GI-Scientist, who concerns about the geographical world, we may use the term ‘geographical knowledge’ or ‘cartography’ as a mean to represent that knowledge and ‘reality’ interchangeable. Based on Wittgenstein’s thoughts a similar conclusion for cartography is made by Fernández et al. (2014): ‘There is a connection among “map language”, natural language, and knowledge of the world or reality’ and Krukowski (2021) as ‘ … Similarly, if these observations are to be considered decisive, cartography is understood as a sphere of science dealing with modelling reality and is also significant epistemologically’.

Hence, if we consider geographical knowledge as captured and formalized knowledge about the reality, we may even say the object of mapping for Eckert and his contemporaries has been the whole known real world (at least geographical) of their time. Although requiring further scientific explorations, we may even claim, maps of the Eckert’s time were to a good extend true to their promise of representing geographical knowledge of the real world of their time.

Due to significant developments in the field of geography and exponential growth of geographic knowledge about the real world of today, we need to evaluate how well today’s maps represent the geographical knowledge of today’s time and ask the question if at all the maps of today can claim to remain true to the promises made in 19^th and early twentieth century to represent geographic knowledge of their time. For this, in the next section we will first investigate briefly how the ‘object of mapping’ and its representation in a map is seen by more resent cartographers and GI-scientists of our era.

‘Geographical Knowledge’ as object of mapping: today’ perspective

In the post Eckert Era of Cartography and Map making, different scientists have held very different viewpoints on the object of mapping – surface of the earth or geographical reality – , ranging from selected ‘spatial features’ of earth’s surface to the whole reality and ‘exact real world’. This difference in views is very well reflected in 199 definitions for the word Map made only between 1941 and 1996 comparing to just 122 definitions for Map being made between 1649 and –1940 (Andrews, 1996). This debate on Map and its definition continues till today even more intensified due to significant technological advancements (e.g. Lapaine et al. (2021), Gotlib et al. (2021), and Kraak and Fabrikant (2017)).

Papp-Vary (1989) belongs to the camp of scientists with the broadest viewpoint on the object of mapping, namely the real world, where Eckert and many of his contemporaries also belong. According to Papp-Vary (1989) ‘The essential purpose of map-making has always been the creation of the most exact reflection of reality or the graphically true representation of space’. He continues:

The basic purpose of the maps, however, was still to reflect reality as perfectly as was possible given the knowledge of the time. The scientific problems of the exact representation of the real world have always been the primary and determining factor in the process of map-making, while the artistic work has only been of secondary importance. (Papp-Vary, 1989, p. 106).

Fernández et al. (2014) considers cartography as ‘a solid body of knowledge to understand our world with all its different facets’ and the map is ‘a representation of reality’. Ostrowski (2008) considers a map – besides spoken language and writing – as the most important tool for learning about reality, communication between people, as well as understanding spatial aspects of reality (Ostrowski, 2008). According to Robinson (1995) ‘all maps are abstractions of reality’. Woodward and Lewis (1998) define the maps in the History of Cartography Encyclopedia as: ‘graphic representations that facilitate a spatial understanding of things, concepts, conditions, processes, or events in the human world’. Interestingly, the emphasis of this definition for map is to facilitate human understanding of reality. According to Baranowski et al. (2017) ‘A map is a model-based representation of reality’, furthermore they state, ‘cartography is more concerned with discovering and communicating the quintessence of reality, rather than with achieving a photographic record of the real thing’.

The second camp of scientists, consider a more limited scope for the object of mapping. This group sees the focus of maps on rather representing the spatial reality, geographical reality, or even on very limited aspects and features of the environment and spatial world around us. Visvalingam (1989) sees maps as ‘holistic representations of spatial reality’ and also a ‘précis of reality’. Guptill and Starr (1984) defines cartography as ‘an information transfer process that is centered about a spatial database which can be considered, in itself, a multifaceted model of geographic reality’. Krukowski (2021) propose a definition for Map elaborating features and clarifications: ‘A map is a model of reality representing space in the geometrical sense, i.e. objects, phenomena and theories that may be related to space. Representing reality in an idealised and scaled fashion, a map may exist in a physical form or be imagined … ’. On the other hand, a very short definition for Map is proposed by Kraak and Fabrikant (2017): ‘A map is a visual representation of environment’. This is similar to the brief definition provided by Robinson and Petchenik (1976) who suggest the map to be ‘a graphic representation of the milieu’. In this context the word ‘milieu’ is considered broader: ‘milieu is best connotes one’s surroundings or environment in addition to its meaning of place’.

The current 2003 definition of ICA (ICA, 2022) for Map – namely ‘A symbolised representation of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, … when spatial relationships are of primary relevance’ – belongs to the second camp of definitions. Lapaine et al. (2021) see the main weakness of ICA 2003 definition for Map in the term ‘geographical reality’, as apart from geographical reality there are many other elements on maps. Lapaine et al. (2021) propose a new definition for map as ‘a medium designed for communication of generalized spatial information and relationships’. Unlike the first camp, this second group of scientists does not see the object of mapping as the reality or real world but some aspects of spatial reality.

A comprehensive evaluation of all Map definitions and the object of their mapping in the recent history of Cartography and GIScience deserves several voluminous books and goes far beyond the scope of this article. In this section, the Author aimed to briefly present some perspectives and definitions from the viewpoints of different camps of GI-scientists and cartographers. If we consolidate all definitions on maps and different viewpoints, we see two key areas of debate:

• What is the ‘right representation’ approach for the object of mapping, ranging from visual, non-visual, model-based, etc. This field of debate has been especially intensified in the last few decades of information era as many new technologies for spatial information modeling and representation has been emerged.

• What is the ‘right object of mapping’, ranging from the whole real world to only the spatial real world, or just even selected features of the spatial reality.

Unlike the last section where we concluded that the object of mapping for late 19^th and early 20^th for many GI-Scientists, geographers and cartographers has been the Geographical Knowledge of the time or in other words the real world of their time, this deduction cannot be made in this section about GI-Scientists and Cartographers of our today’s time. We can however claim that the (spatial) reality – in other words the geographical knowledge – has been the partially the object of mapping in the recent history. This lack of fulfilling a promise. which was to a good extend true a century ago, might be either due to the insufficient progress of mapping tools, technologies and knowledge compared to the explosion of geographical knowledge in the same period of time. Or it might be a deliberate decision by GI-Scientists and cartographers not to follow the vision broadly promoted in the early part of twentieth century. To properly explore this, we need to understand the meaning of ‘reality’ and its formalization closer. Hence, in the next section we elaborate on the term ‘reality’ and how it can be formalized and captured to be represented in our maps.

‘Reality’ as object of mapping

Fernández et al. (2014) replaced all terms like ‘geographical space, Earth surface, terrain, landscape, and so on’, by the ‘concept of reality’ to enquiry object of maps. Similarly, the Authors uses only the term ‘(geographical) reality’ as object of mapping instead of many different objects of mapping used in several hundreds of definitions for map. Debates about reality and its nature is perhaps the oldest and most longstanding among philosophers and thinkers of the world since millennia and there are hundreds if not thousands of textbooks and scientific articles attending this debate (few examples: Ritchie (1892), Durston and Baggerman (2017), Davies and Gregersen (2014), and Raper (2000)). In this short section, we engage merely with questions about the nature of reality under the rubric of ontology and see the epistemological aspect of it as it allows the formalization and capturing of (geographical) reality into formalized knowledge.

We are typically considering the globe as some entirety of things. Things or objects are separate well-defined pieces of reality. Explaining the world with objects and things is very normal for us, since our language and our technical tools are extremely object-oriented (Galton, 2005). In the real world, objects are defined as conceptual spatial entities with a variety of characteristics and a set of relations with other things, every one of which may alter separately and in different ways (Galton, 2005). ‘The common-sense view of objects’ persistence is in accordance with the technical metaphysical view referred to as endurantism in philosophical discussions’ (Polous, 2016). Physical objects according to endurantism are: (a) three-dimensional, (b) persist through time by being ‘wholly present’ at all times as numerically the same entity, and (c) changing essentially over time (Wahlberg, 2009). On the other hand, most of ontologies sharply differentiate object-based views and event-based ontologies about the reality in three key aspects (Galton & Mizoguchi, 2009):

1. Relation to time: ‘an object is present as a whole at each moment of its existence; an event only exists as a whole across the interval over which it occurs’.

2. Part nature: ‘an object can have spatial parts, but does not have temporal parts; an event has temporal parts and may or may not have spatial parts’.

3. Change: ‘an object can have different properties at different times and is therefore able to undergo change; it does not make sense to speak of an event changing’.

In event-based ontologies, change is the main concept that is modeled and change units are the primary items for analysis and evaluation. In this approach the spatial dimension is dominated by the time dimension, because the sequence of events in time is essential (Beard, 2006). The main objective of event-based approaches is to model changes explicitly to facilitate the analysis and evaluation of changes, their patterns or occurrence through time (Worboys, 2005). Claramunt and Thériault (1995) define events as things which occur. Particularly they explain that processes cause changes in the state of objects, these changes reveal the outcome of the process and create events. Peuquet (1994) defines an event as indicator of changes in a place or an object. Peuquet and Duan (1995) refer to an event as a way to represent spatiotemporal manifestation of processes. Similarly process-centered philosophies is based on the premise that ‘being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it’ (Seibt, 2023). Even though humans experience in today’s world is more and more continuously changing, ‘Western metaphysics has long been obsessed with describing reality as an assembly of static individuals whose dynamic features are either taken to be mere appearances or ontologically secondary and derivative’ (Seibt, 2023).

In the object-centered view, matter and objects are considered prior to processes and events. The ‘object-priority’ view claims that essentially matter and objects are all that exists in the world; hence the existence of events and processes is entirely because of the distribution of matter in time and space. In the ‘process-priority’ view ‘processes and events are prior to matter and objects’. This view is presented as an ontological claim that only processes and events exist in the world and objects and matter are constructed or emergent from processes and events (Galton & Mizoguchi, 2009).

Today, it is becoming readily obvious for everyone that the dynamic aspect of the reality is more prominent than centuries or even few decades ago. This is mainly due to the rapid technological changes that are affecting almost every aspect of our life and our environment. In parallel, our knowledge about this dynamic ever-changing world is exponentially increased. Today, we understand well processes and forces of change in the world and the environment. In the previous section we discussed that the object of mapping is indeed the ‘(geographical) reality’ or in other words captured ‘geographical knowledge’. Now the question arises; does the object of mapping in our world today is as dynamic as it should to serve-well the purpose of cartography and to represent the geographical knowledge of today?

Smart Cartography: new mapping paradigm

In the first section, we discussed the term smart cartography as ‘a cartography which is very well-suited to serve best its core cartographic purpose’. If we remain with the argument that the purpose of cartography is best represent the ‘(geographical) reality’ and ‘geographical knowledge’ of the day, we may easily conclude that the cartography of today is not fully representing the dynamic nature of the reality in the twenty-first century. One of the key reasons is that the depiction of the real world within available cartographic representations and Geo Information Systems presumes the world as some successive and static snapshots rather than a very dynamic system that is populated by various open-ended phenomena (Galton and Worboys 2005, Polous, 2016). This highlights the necessity of transforming our perception of modern cartography and the notion of ‘geographical reality as object of mapping’ to address the exponentially growing complexities of the world around us.

Building on this, our definition of smart cartography should also evolve to encompass not just the representation of dynamic realities, but also an understanding of the causal relationships within these dynamics. This is critical as we move towards the world of 2030s, where the dynamic and interconnected nature of events would be increasingly evident. In this new notion proposed by the Author, the concept of ‘mapping’ goes beyond the principle of mapping objects which have distinct spatial, temporal and attributive identities conventionally recognized in any object-oriented perspective. Instead, this understanding evolves towards an event-centric view, where objects in space and time are considered merely as information elements of the events, which are connected to other event elements through internal or external processes (Polous, 2016).

In order to fully capture the dynamism of our world, it's crucial that these events and their causal relationships are central to our mapping paradigm. This approach allows us to understand and represent the world as a complex system, rather than just a collection of isolated parts. The event here is defined and classified as an entity that causes or induces any kind of changes which apply to each spatial and/or none-spatial characteristic of object(s); the happening which are bound to a location at a certain point of time or during a specific period of time.

To conclude the ‘smart cartography’ definition, Author proposes that a ‘smart cartography’ for 2030s decade is not just ‘a cartography which can best represent the dynamism of our twenty-first century (geographical) reality’ but also one that is causally aware, able to capture and represent the complex web of relationships and interconnections that make up our dynamic world. This will be a new paradigm in mapping and GI-Science, not only because we need to see the world different from an object-oriented viewpoint, but there are significant technical implications on the way to realize this new paradigm.

Suggested next steps toward achieving Smart Cartography

Throughout our extensive review and reflection on the term ‘Smart Cartography’, we seek to contribute to a broadened understanding of the complexities and the nuances inherent in this concept. But this understanding is not merely for the sake of theoretical comprehension. We aspire to create tangible and practical contributions for the field of cartography, offering insight that can significantly enhance the work of professionals, researchers, and academics in the field.

Our key contribution is multifaceted. In the first instance, our purpose is to provide an all-encompassing understanding of ‘Smart Cartography’. To achieve this, we have constructed a theoretical framework that synthesizes historical perspectives, scrutinizes the contemporary landscape, and projects potential future trajectories. We consider this holistic perspective crucial to future-oriented decision-making about the evolution of cartography. This evolutionary perspective allows us to develop an appreciation of how ‘Smart Cartography’ has come to be and gives us the intellectual tools to navigate its future. The concept of Smart Cartography, while firmly rooted in our current understanding, is intended to be adaptable and evolutionary. It should serve as a guiding framework, capable of accommodating unforeseen technological advancements and shifts in our understanding of spatial data representation. This adaptability is crucial for enabling cartographers to optimally leverage future technological developments.

Furthermore, we stress the paramount importance of ‘Smart Cartography’ for present and future generations of cartographers, urban planners, environmentalists, decision-makers, and policymakers. Our current era is marked by an unprecedented surge in spatial data, driven by advancements in technology and digital tools. ‘Smart Cartography’ offers an innovative perspective for managing this data influx, transforming it into meaningful and actionable knowledge and insights.

A crucial future line of research lies in how we can better represent the dynamic aspect of reality in our cartographic representations. As discussed in Section 2.1 dominance definition for Map in the mainstream cartography in more than a century has been about ‘representing’ (some aspects) of ‘geographical reality’ or ‘earth surface’. In this paper we extensively discussed the ‘geographical reality’ or ‘earth surface’ as object of mapping. The Author aims to elaborate the importance of ‘Representation’ for ‘Smart Cartography’ in a separate writing. Indeed as we envision the future of cartography, the focus on dynamic representations of reality becomes central. While traditional cartography has served well for static representations of geographical reality, our world today is defined by dynamism and constant flux. Event-Based models, which prioritize temporality and dynamics in spatial representations, can serve as a significant shift in our cartographic approaches. Incorporating an event-based approach means integrating the time dimension in our cartographic representations, capturing the evolution of spatial phenomena over time. For instance, the growth of a city, traditionally depicted as a static snapshot, could be effectively illustrated through an Event-Based model, revealing patterns and trends in its expansion, and providing valuable insights into urbanization processes.

But to optimally represent this dynamic reality, we need to navigate beyond capturing temporal changes. We need to adopt a causally aware approach, understanding not just that changes are occurring, but why they are happening. These causally aware systems can incorporate cause–effect relationships in their representations, providing a much more nuanced and comprehensive view of spatial phenomena. Consider monitoring deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. A causally aware system would not only map the areas of deforestation over time, but it would also incorporate data on various causal factors like human activity, climate change impacts, government policies, etc. This approach provides a more profound understanding of deforestation trends, enabling the creation of more effective strategies for forest conservation.

The journey toward Smart Cartography thus requires an embrace of dynamic representations and causality, providing a more profound understanding of our ever-changing world. By integrating these aspects, Smart Cartography can significantly enhance our ability to understand, interpret, and respond to spatial phenomena, forming the bedrock of our future research and application in the field.

A vital embodiment of Smart Cartography is its inherent causal awareness. This means a system is not merely tasked with capturing and representing spatial changes over time, but it also attempts to comprehend the underpinning causes stimulating these changes. For instance, in observing deforestation patterns, a causally aware Smart Cartography system would integrate diverse data points to uncover the reasons behind the deforestation, be it due to climatic factors, human activity, or policy alterations. This integration allows the system to be informed and able to suggest plausible solutions for mitigating such issues.

Furthermore, Smart Cartography is required to exhibit dynamic adaptability, characterized by continual learning and adjustment in response to new data inputs. Consider a sophisticated traffic management system. This system wouldn't just delineate real-time traffic conditions, but also utilize historical data, current weather conditions, special events, and other variable factors to predict potential congestion points. Such a system could then suggest efficient rerouting options to mitigate traffic congestion. These crucial elements of causal awareness, dynamic adaptability, and decision-making capabilities embody the concept of Smart Cartography as defined in this paper, making it aptly suited for the dynamic world of the twenty-first century.

We urge researchers and practitioners alike to approach this frontier with a sense of adventure and an openness to the unexpected insights that are sure to arise on the journey toward truly Smart Cartography.

Conclusion

In this essay, the term ‘Smart Cartography’ has been critically examined, placing emphasis on the term ‘cartography’ and interpreting the term ‘smart’ as ‘fit and well-suited’. The most condensed essence of cartography, based on the latest ICA 2003 definition, is to ‘represent and use geographical reality’. In this writing the main focus was made on understanding and discussing the ‘geographical reality’, hence the ‘representation’ terms should be intensively elaborated in a separate publication. The object of mapping – here ‘geographical reality’ – has been extensively debated over the last few centuries by geographers, cartographers and GI-scientists. Numerous scholars, including pioneer Max Eckert, have perceived the ‘object of mapping’ as the ‘geographical knowledge’ of the time. Comparing our understanding and knowledge of ‘reality’, which is exponentially more complex, very dynamic, and rapidly changing, with the ‘reality’ of the mid-twentieth century or even the 70s and 80s, makes it clear that we are living in a markedly different world. In the dynamic world of today where change is a central component of reality, the representation of this dynamism in our maps has not yet been fully realized. Therefore, there is an urgent call for a new paradigm that considers the world in terms of events and processes rather than merely static objects. In terms of future-oriented cartography, ‘Smart Cartography’ must not only capture the dynamic nature of geographical reality but also be causally aware. It should understand the why behind changes, adding a layer of depth to the depiction of spatial phenomena. This integration of dynamic representation and causal awareness into cartography will significantly improve our ability to understand, interpret, and respond to spatial changes, ultimately enhancing decision-making processes. This new paradigm shift in GI-Science is critical for developing a ‘smart cartography’ suitable for the world of the 2030s, one that can best represent the dynamism of our twenty-first century (geographical) reality. Realizing this new dynamic paradigm in GI-Science will have substantial implications both technically and culturally for map makers and map users. Further research is needed to investigate not only the ontological aspects, as presented by Polous (2016), but also the theoretical and technological prerequisites for representing it in potentially new IT systems. Moreover, as the number of machines using maps is expected to soon surpass the number of human users, diverse aspects such as the accuracy and timeliness of maps need to be re-examined for these new users, namely machines. Recognizing this, we propose that the ‘Smart Cartography’ of the future should be adaptable, prepared to respond to technological advancements, and designed to suit the evolving needs of the spatial representation community.

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the financial support by the University of Graz.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nina Polous

Nina Polous is a multidisciplinary research scientist at the Geospatial Technologies group, Institute of Geography and Regional science, University of Graz, Austria. She has a solid background in Geo-information science and obtained her PhD degree in the field of cartography and knowledge representation at the Cartography Department, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany. In her dissertation entitled “Event cartography: a new perspective in mapping”, she introduced a generic framework adequately designed for collecting, storing and managing spatio-temporal semantic information to map the dynamic aspect of the globe. She currently focuses on leveraging Machine Learning techniques and semantic technologies for knowledge-driven decisions in real-time services.

Notes

1 Original text: ‘Die geographische Karte ist der Grundriss eines größeren oder kleineren Teils der Erdoberfläche, der neben den Lagerverhältnisse auch Flächen- und Raumverhältnisse und sodann geophysische, kultur- und naturhistorische Tatsachen graphisch übersichtlich so zur Veranschaulichung bringt, dass das Ablesen und Ausmessen der darstellten Objekte ermöglicht wird’

2 Original text: ‘Die Karte ist als der mehr oder minder gelungene oder abgeklärte Niederschlag des geographischen Wissens irgendeiner Zeitperiode anzusehen. Die alte Karte mit ihrem phantastischen Beiwerk wird gern als ein Kind ihrer Zeit hingestellt, doch auch die heutige Karte ist nicht minder ein Kind ihrer Zeit.’

3 Original text: ‘Die Karte ist die Basis der Geographie.’

4 Original text: ‘Die Karte ist die Basis der Geographie und der wichtigste Träger aller erdkundlichen Erkenntnisse’

5 Original German text: ‘Sie - die Karte - soll nicht des erklärenden Wortes bedürfen, sondern umgekehrt dem Betrachtenden, dem Lehrer und geographischen Schriftsteller die Basis sein, von welcher außer seine Ansichten bildet und sie andern mitteilt.’

6 Original text: ‘Wo wir auch die Untersuchung über den Zweck der Karte und ihre Bedeutung für die geographische Wissenschaft anschneiden, überall zeigt sich, daß sie die konzentrierteste Zusammenfassung des geographischen Wissens ist.’

7 Original text: ‘Die Karte ist das unentbehrlichste Werk- und Rüstzeug der geographischen Wissenschaft. … die Karte jederzeit das treue Spiegelbild vom Stande des geographischen Wissens ist.’