Post by Any of N on Sept 25, 2016 5:35:06 GMT
Regarding the Tversky* paper I referenced above, here is a quick summary of the types of distortions people make when drawing maps. I oversimplified things a bit for the sake of clarity. So the reality is more complicated than how I have it below, but this might do for our purposes.
If the hand-drawn map was truly drawn from memory based on ground-level experience, some or all of the above factors may be in play. We can keep these in mind when comparing to real places.
* Tverksy, B., 2000. Levels and structure of spatial knowledge. Cognitive mapping: past, present and future. Routledge, New York.
Types of Distortions in Cognitive Mapping
Alignment
Map makers arrange map elements to be more vertically or horizontally aligned than they really are.
Cognitive Reference Points
Map makers set distances to be shorter if they imagine they are moving to a landmark rather than from a landmark.
Hierarchical Organization
Map makers are influenced by the group membership of map elements. They distort distances in favor of what is generally true for the groups. (Example: San Diego falsely believed to be west of Reno because CA is generally further west than NV.)
Canonical Axes
Map makers shift the orientations of individual elements to make them more horizontal or vertical.
Perspective
Map makers judge distances to be longer if they are closer to their frame of reference. (Example: If you live in CA, you will overestimate the distances between cities on the East Coast and not do so badly for CA cities.)
Distances
Map makers overestimate shorter distances. They also exaggerate distances if there are barriers along a route, more visual clutter along a route, or if they remember more information about a route.
Simplifications
Map makers draw curves as straighter than they really are. They draw intersections to be more at right angles. They draw regions to be more symmetric and smaller than they really are.
If the hand-drawn map was truly drawn from memory based on ground-level experience, some or all of the above factors may be in play. We can keep these in mind when comparing to real places.
* Tverksy, B., 2000. Levels and structure of spatial knowledge. Cognitive mapping: past, present and future. Routledge, New York.