Map Critique

This week's task finds us reviewing examples of "good" and "bad" maps, and evaluating them using Edward Tufte's 20 points from his The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. The maps below are my choices of quintessential good, and bad, according to those criteria.

(map produced by Medford District BLM)

I feel the above map embodies Tufte's calls for both simple design with lack of clutter, and clear depiction of the data it intends to convey.  The viewer can immediately and easily identify the content pictured in the legend, and draw whatever conclusions necessary about the relationship between land ownership and watershed boundaries.  The inset map on the side is an elegant and simple way to convey to the viewer the map extent within the larger context of the state, without using unnecessary space within the mapped area's extent.

 (map produced by R. Reed)

The above appears to be a bus map of central London, which becomes evident upon inspection of the labeled roads and parks.  The map conspicuously lacks a title, an important piece of information that, along with a scale bar, Tufte logically advises be present.  London is an ancient and densely populated urban center, which lacks any kind of large-scale planning or grid pattern in its roads, and anyone attempting to produce a simple and easy-to-read map of the city faces a formidable challenge.  The author of the above appears to give in to the temptation to include many possible details, and in doing so creates a map that is busy, cluttered and visually unappealing.  Tufte advises avoiding this, as the cluttered picture obscures the main points the data is meant to convey- which, in this instance, are central London bus routes.