The Cartographic Journal

Vol. 45 No. 1
# The British Cartographic Society 2008

pp. 6267

February 2008

OBSERVATIONS

Point Symbols: Investigating Principles and Originality in

Cartographic Design
Beata Medynska-Gulij
Institute of Physical Geography and Environmental Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Dziegielowa 27,
61-680 Poznan, Poland
Email: bmg@amu.edu.pl

To what extent do non-cartographers demonstrate cartographic creativity? In this paper, an experiment is described which
aimed to investigate this by examining how 100 non-cartographers designed a set of point symbols for a tourist map. In
addition, the research aimed to explore the minimum amount of cartographic theory that needs to be imparted to noncartographers in order to inspire their creativity.

INTRODUCTION

Research into cartographic design tends to focus on the

process of map-reading rather than the creation of maps.
There are few practical guidelines for the preparation of
good design, and cartographers have still not found a
simple answer to the fundamental question posed by
Muehrcke (1996) among others, i.e., How do we
distinguish well-designed maps from poorly designed
ones?.
Following Wood and Keller (1996), cartographic design
can be treated as a synonym of cartographic communication, or, learning about reality through maps. It is claimed
(ibid.: 4) that the most essential roles in map design are
played by graphics software, the digital environment, and
computer support. The emphasis on automation in the
activity of todays cartographer puts them in an awkward
position as a designer. In comparison with the former
analogue methods, computer software facilitates the creation and development of maps. Each graphical object may
be first copied, then pasted, and processed further as the
map-maker wishes. However, as ready-made symbol sets are
easily available, often the map-maker is not stimulated to
create his or her original cartographic solutions.
Keates (1989: 26) stresses the combination of design and
creativity, pointing to the difficulty involved in their
definition and measurement, while emphasising that maps
should be highly informative yet easy to read. Keates (1996:
300) also identifies three types of design: accidental design,
design by imitation, and creative design. He associates
accidental design with books, newspapers, and other media,
since they are produced by people who are ignorant of
cartographic principles of any sort. Design by imitation is
exemplified by topographic maps and commercial products
in general, which tend to develop a house style to make
DOI: 10.1179/000870408X276602

their products easily identifiable. Creative design is the

generation of original and unique objects in art. Keates
(1996: 301) maintains that it is not easy to find convincing
examples of truly original design in cartography, with one
of the major reasons being the limited number of methods
of cartographic representation.
This investigation evaluates the degree of cartographic
creativity demonstrated by non-cartographers by examining
the originality and correctness of their work. The subject is
one of the more important elements of a map point
symbols. Robinson et al. (1984: 286) divide point symbols
into pictorial, associative, and geometric, while
MacEachren (2004: 258) determines their relative abstractness in terms of iconicity: from low for geometric to high
for pictorial (although these categories do overlap). In
addition, pictorial or geometric symbols that tend to be
more naturally associated with the attributes of the
particular feature they describe are called mimetic
(Robinson et al., 1995: 479).
Point symbols are particularly significant on tourist maps
because they usually carry the thematic content, indicating
objects that should attract the attention of the user. Lloyd
(2005: 29) regards visual attention as an important concept
in cartographic design and map-reading. In his opinion,
the earliest visual processes generally used when reading
maps are discriminations of figures from backgrounds.
Dent (1996: 245) goes on to state that the user has a
perceptual tendency to organise the visual field into two
categories: figures (important objects) and grounds (less
important objects). Another closely connected notion is
contrast, which Dent (1996: 246) regards as a major
consideration for the map-maker.
However, can one still create original but also cartographically correct symbols, given the multitude devised
by commercial map-makers? Furthermore, what level of

63

Principles and Originality of Point Symbols

Figure 2. Cartographic parameters for designing point symbols

that were given to the participants
Figure 1. Map composition in A4 format prepared for the experiment participants

cartographic creativity do non-cartographers demonstrate?

In order to investigate these questions, an experiment was
devised in which non-cartographers were asked to design a
set of point symbols for a tourist map. This study also aims
to explore the minimum amount of cartographic theory
that needs to be imparted to non-cartographers in order to
inspire their creativity in designing these cartographic
symbols.

METHODOLOGY

The experiment was carried out in the following five stages:

(i) Selection of participants

The experiment involved 100 fourth-year Tourism and

Recreation students enrolled at the Adam Mickiewicz
University in Poznan, Poland. Each member of the group
would have some knowledge of cartography and would be
very familiar with tourist maps and their use.
(ii) Determining the cartographic task

The author prepared the composition of the map in A4

format, comprising the following elements: a base map to
be digitised by the students (a fragment of a road map at
the scale of 1:700 000), along with spaces for the title, scale
bar, and legend (Figure 1). The students were first asked to
digitise the base content in accordance with some visual
variables imposed by the experimentalist, e.g. the width and
colour of the roads. Individual work consisted of mapping a
bus route with sightseeing features (requiring the design of
at least eight point symbols), and creating a title (i.e. the
name of the route), a scale bar, and a legend. Finally, the
map was to be printed out on A4 paper. The students
prepared the tourist maps after receiving three hours of
lectures and undertaking ten hours of classes in a computer
laboratory. The experiment was supervised by a tutor and
the maps themselves were produced individually by the
students outside classes.
(iii) Selection of cartographic principles

Cartographic principles were taught in conjunction with a

series of practical sessions. The theoretical framework was

based on the idea that the tourist map should be designed

to work as a whole, according to Gestalt laws, where the
essence of creating a successful cartographic design lies in
the perception of the map as a whole, even though its
elements are produced separately. Belbin (1996) emphasises the German origin of Gestalt as a notion for a pattern
or shape, but in its preferred meaning, it denotes the
principles of visual organisation. The students were told
that the maps theme should be visually enhanced in
relation to the other content; the point being to convey
that certain symbols should be noticeable at first-sight,
encouraging the map-user to take an initial interest in these
objects.
Before designing any individual symbols, the students
were introduced to the necessity of achieving and maintaining consistency in cartographic style. Such consistency,
for example, would be established when the following
conditions have been fulfilled:

N
N
N
N

the symbols employ a linework of consistent width (e.g.

0.2 mm);
objects within the symbols perimeter are filled figures
(e.g. black);
objects within the symbols perimeter have similar shapes
(e.g. geometric or irregular forms); and
objects within the symbols perimeter occupy a similar
area.

Crucially, the students were prohibited to copy symbols

from existing tourist maps, forcing them to take the
initiative and stimulate their graphic intuition. Subsequent
instructions covered the principles of designing point
symbols for tourist maps (optimum readability being the
goal), and their construction in a vector graphics program
(FreeHand v.10).
Figure 2 presents the parameters given to the participants
for the creation of their point symbols. The visual variables
included:

N
N
N

Shape a square (a symmetrical and simple shape, which

is optimal for the development of internal figures and
arranging symbols on the map);
Size a diameter of 57 mm (to make the symbols
visible at first sight and giving the possibility of creating
figures inside the square base);
Colour a 100% yellow fill bordered by a black 0.2 mm
stroke (a black line is most visible against a yellow
background, owing to the black outline, the contrast

64

The Cartographic Journal

Figure 3. Complete symbols sets from 15 maps

between the point symbol and the remaining map

content is enhanced);
The blank space between objects within the symbols is at
least 0.2 mm wide.

Technical directions were given for constructing the

geometric basis of three exemplary symbols: a museum, a
nature reserve, and a hotel.
(iv) Choice of functions from the graphics program and technical
preparation of the map

A particularly challenging element of the experiment was

the choice of a minimum number of operations permitted
in using the graphics program. It was important to prevent
the process of learning how to use the program from
overshadowing the goal of the research. Nevertheless, the
participants had to acquire the skills necessary to perform

their task independently. Thus, instead of supplying the

participants with an excess of technical detail, only the basic
operations employed in vector graphics programs were
provided as examples.
(v) Thematic listing of symbols

The symbols created by the participants may be regarded as

standard for tourist maps and can be grouped thematically,
as follows:

N
N
N

Architectural monuments: churches, monasteries, chapels, castles, town halls, palaces, mansions, fortresses,
defensive walls, windmills, and castle ruins;
Cultural objects: museums and theatres;
Tourist infrastructure: hotels, water sports centres, ski
centres, swimming pools, vantage points, marinas, spas,
and tourist information points; and

65

Principles and Originality of Point Symbols

Figure 4. Analysis of the symbol sets designed by the participants

Natural objects: nature reserves and zoological gardens.

RESULTS

Some of the resulting maps included objects that are usually

absent from standard tourist maps, e.g., jetties, band shells,
geological exposures, famous streets, and beer-houses.
When examining the list of complete symbol sets from
the 15 maps presented in Figure 3, one can note the
diversity in their design, especially the uniqueness of the
symbols denoting churches and castles that appeared on
almost every one of the 100 maps.
When comparing the symbol sets created by the
participants, it was possible to distinguish four separate
groups. Firstly, out of the 100 maps made by the
participants, 68 symbol sets were allocated to group A,
since they did not follow the parameters provided (i.e.
Fig. 2). The remaining 32 symbol sets were classified to
groups B, C, and D on the basis of common characteristics
and originality of their cartographic style.
The 15 symbol sets shown in Figure 3 have been divided
into four groups (A, B, C, and D) according to the
following criteria: internal graphic consistency; visual
association with objects presented (mimesis); regularity of
shape (geometricity); and originality. In order to facilitate
the analysis, the most representative sets were selected from
groups A, B and C, whereas in the case of group D, all the
three sets were presented. Figure 4 shows the percentage of
maps falling into each group, with each symbol graded as
follows: low, average or high. (The purpose of restricting
this to four criteria and the three subordinate grades was to
minimise the degree of subjectivity in analysing the
symbols.) Four symbol sets (9, 13, 14 and 15) were
considered to be highly original, which made them stand
out amongst the others.
Group A, which comprises the majority (68%), contains
symbols displaying a low or average level of graphic
consistency combined with low originality. Most of these
have been derived from the schematic symbols provided
(Fig. 2). In set 4, the following design errors may be found:
figures in the symbols are not accurately arranged and do
not have good proportions; the church, palace, and
museum are partly composed of lines and partly of filled
figures; the bird reserve and plant reserve symbols have an
accidental and irregular shape.
Group B (22% of all symbols) includes symbols displaying
a high graphic consistency and the symbol elements display
an average or high regularity of shape. They obey
cartographic principles closely enough to be employed on
professional tourist maps. Symbol perimeters relating to

Figure 5. Map extract using symbol set 6

architectural objects in set 5 may be regarded as standard,

however, the last two of them (the ski centre and the horsedriving centre) placed against the blue background
represent an original idea of display. Sets 7 and 8 are
properly designed and they refer in style to the character
used on maps published by cartographic editors. The shapes
used by set 9, of average geometricity, were regarded as
highly original among the 100 maps of the participants.
Symbols belonging to group C can in fact be evaluated in
the same way as group B, but those distinguished by the
manner of inserting windows in the symbols (7% of all
symbols) makes them graphically highly geometrical.
Group D (3% of all symbols) includes symbols with
elements drawn with irregular lines but are highly
consistent in their design, yielding the most original and
unique symbols in this investigation. The originality is not
combined with an automatic association of the symbols
with objects, but it certainly draws attention. The irregular
lines of the individual elements of symbol sets 13 and 14
give the impression that their designers did not have the
technical skill in using the software. Similarly, set 15 may
reflect an intentional choice of style in order to produce an
original graphic design.
A full assessment of symbol design can only be made after
an analysis of their relationship with the visual variables of
the remaining map content. For this reason, the participants first prepared the base content of the map following
the researchers directions before proceeding to design the
symbols. The total effect of their work can be evaluated on
the basis of Figures 58, which are extracts from maps using
the symbols sets 6, 9, 12 and 14. These sets were selected
for comparison, as sets 6 and 9 are the most representative
for group B, set 12 for group C, and set 14 for group D.
The symbols that can be regarded as the most striking are
those shown in Figures 5 and 7, as they demonstrate a high

66

The Cartographic Journal

Figure 6. Map extract using symbol set 9

Figure 8. Map extract using symbol set 14

contrast with the map base. As such, they have been

designed correctly on the basis of the cartographic
principles imparted to them. The most mimetic, in turn,
are the symbols from set 9 (Fig. 6). Their designer has
given up the uniform yellow fill and grouped them
thematically according to the following pattern: blue for
tourist infrastructure; red for architectural monuments; and
green for natural features. The extract of the map in

Figure 8 (symbol set 14) represents an example of original

design because the irregular line of the elements of the
point symbols clearly stands out from the graphic manner
of the other map content. It is interesting to note that the
student who designed this set of symbols has also changed
the font for the place names.

CONCLUSION

Figure 7. Map extract using symbol set 12

The results of this experiment provide a basis for understanding factors involved in the creation of symbols by a
specific group of non-cartographers, i.e., university students
of Tourism and Recreation, and Figure 9 presents those
factors which played a part in their performance of this task.
It includes some characteristics of this type of noncartographer (before the experiment): a general knowledge
of maps; the ability to read and use tourist maps; and
individual graphic intuition. It was, of course, crucial to
provide cartographic instruction immediately before the
performance of the task, such as the teaching of selected
cartographic principles and how to use the graphics program.
The number of directions given turned out to be sufficient
for participants to generate simple geometric symbols that
demonstrated an average or high level of association with the
tourist features depicted. It is tempting to postulate that
further instruction may have improved the results of group A
(68% of the participants). In turn, overwhelming the
potential designers with too many cartographic principles
could discourage them from performing the task and
showing individual graphic initiative. Importing such a
minimal degree of cartographic knowledge seems to have
been enough to encourage creativity in 32% of the
participants, resulting in the design of original symbols. It
was noted that participants had become very involved in

67

Principles and Originality of Point Symbols

interesting to note that,in this experiment, out of 100

symbol sets developed by a specific group comprised of
Tourism and Recreation students, only four works appeared
to be highly original.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Beata
Medynska-Gulij
gained
her
PhD
in
Geography from Wroclaw
University, Poland in 1998
and has been Lecturer of
Cartography at the Faculty
of
Geographical
and
Geological Sciences, Adam
Mickiewicz
University,
Poznan since 2001. Her
main area of research is
cartographic design.

Figure 9. Factors affecting task performance

REFERENCES

performing the task, which may provide confirmation for the

thesis put forward by Wood (2003), that everyone is a
mapper everyone has basic mapping ability.
The research suggests that non-cartographers possess
great potential in creating original elements of cartographic
design. Keates (1996: 301) claims that it is not easy to find
a really original design in cartography, hence it is considered worthwhile to study the ideas of non-cartographers.
They are an example of a fresh look; unfettered by the
knowledge of principles that are often confined to the
professionals. Cartographic knowledge may contribute to
petrifaction of concepts and habits of thinking concerning
the traditional symbolism of topographic maps.
Theoreticians of cartography attempted to standardise
symbols also outside topographic maps. Ratajski (1971)
has proposed a system of a standardised set of symbols for
economic maps to fit with visual processing. The idea
hierarchically organised by Ratajski has found an application
first of all in school atlases. In the case of tourist maps, it is
important to find an original graphic design to make them
attractive for the users.
It is possible that new methods of map design might
include the controlled involvement of non-cartographers.
Controlled refers to proper selection of the prospective
map-designers and the adequate amount of cartographic
knowledge to be imparted to them. It is, however,

Belbin, J. A. (1996) Gestalt Theory Applied to Cartographic Text. In:

Wood, C. H. and Keller, C. P., Cartographic Design: Theoretical
and Practical Perspectives. Chichester: Wiley.
Dent, B. D. (1996) Cartography: Thematic Map Design. (4th ed.),
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.
Keates, J. S. (1989) Cartographic Design and Production. (2nd ed.),
New York: Wiley.
Keates, J. S. (1996) Understanding Maps. (2nd ed.), Longman:
Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.
Lloyd, R. E. (2005) Attention on Maps. Cartographic Perspectives
52, 2857.
MacEachren, A. (2004) How Maps Work: Representation,
Visualization, and Design. (2nd ed.), New York: The Guilford
Press.
Muehrcke, P. C. (1996) The Logic of Map Design. In: Wood, C. H.
and Keller, C. P., Cartographic Design: Theoretical and
Practical Perspectives. Chichester: Wiley.
Ratajski, L. (1971) The Methodical Basis of the Standardisation of
Signs on Economic Maps. International Yearbook of
Cartography 11, 137159.
Robinson, A. H., Morrison, J. L., Muehrcke, P. C., Kimerling, A. J.
and Guptill, S. C. (1995) Elements of Cartography. (6th ed.),
New York: Wiley.
Robinson, A. H., Sale, R. D., Morrison, J. L. and Muehrcke, P. C.
(1984) Elements of Cartography. (5th ed.), New York: Wiley.
Wood, C. H. and Keller, C. P. (1996) Design, Its Place in
Cartography. In: Wood, C. H. and Keller, C. P., Cartographic
Design: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Chichester:
Wiley.
Wood M. (2003) Some Personal Reflections on Change The Past
and Future of Cartography. The Cartographic Journal 40, 111
115.