Letters to the Editor: Response to Dan Cole's Review
David Imus
Dan Cole’s review of The Essential Geography of the
United States of America, which appeared in issue 72 of
this journal, raises a number of interesting issues worthy
of lengthy discussion. Five of them, however, I can address
comprehensively with just a few words.
-
A folded map often requires a reversed cover panel,
standing it on its head in relation to the rest of the
printed image so that it is right-reading in the sales
rack. If the flat sheets had been published with a panel
standing on its head, that indeed would have been indefensible.
But the flat sheets are published without the
cover panel, and the same basic information appears in
a separate sheet of “liner notes.”
-
In keeping with the use of Spanish spellings in Mexico
and French spellings in Québec, I used the reservation
nomenclature adopted by the Indian Land
Working Group for its map titled “Native American
Reservations.”
-
I specifically decided to represent the Umatilla
Reservation as a point symbol after first comparing
polygon vs. point representations. Due to its small size
and the high percentage of its boundary line that would
have been obscured by overprinting type, this reservation’s
geographic extent would not have been easy
for the user to see when represented as a polygon. It
also would have been misleading to show the Umatilla
Reservation as a polygon, since much of the area inside
the congressional boundary is non-reservation land.
-
While it is true that the Yakama, Jicarilla Apache, and
Tohono O’odham people identify themselves as “nations,”
the websites of these three nations identify their
associated lands as “reservations.”
-
The reviewer correctly notes the omission of two reservations
in Nebraska, which will be corrected in the next
edition.
More generally, I appreciate the reviewer’s many positive
observations and his generous summing up. Many of his substantive criticisms, however, seem to me to reference
the press release more than the map. Criticizing the press
release may be valid, but it doesn’t address the reasoned
cartographic judgments behind virtually every detail on
this map, and a more comprehensive explanation of those
judgments is appropriate. I'm working on that now and
plan to submit it as an article to Cartographic Perspectives in
the near future.