This week, I explored the spatial humanities by rectifying a map of Northfield from 1849 to 1859, when Minnesota was still a territory. Here is my map.
Coming into this process, I did not consider how much close observation georeferencing requires. From my experience exploring spatial digital humanities projects in the past, I thought it would be straightforward. Projects such as Flowing Data: Coffee and Orbis are very organized and easy to use, which made me believe creating my own would be the same.
However, I was quick to realize that projects that appear simple were made using detailed cross-examination. During my first attempt to georectify the map of Northfield, I chose points haphazardly which resulted in my map being incorrectly placed on the map. I had to slow down and examine the different streets and landmarks. After successfully georeferencing the map, I explored the This Map page which allows users to access their rectified map. This can be done through GIS apps such as Web Map Tile Service (WMTS) or as a GeoTIFF and KML export.
For digital humanities researchers, having a georectified map offers endless possibilities for cross-examining how our society has changed over time. We can also explore environmental transformations such as the effects of climate change or the growing urban development. In the case of my map of Northfield, the next steps could be comparing the size of the Canon River and how the flow and direction have changed over time. Despite the many benefits, it is worth noting that georeferenced maps are not always accurate and can contain human error. If the points are placed wrong, like in my first attempt, the whole map could be inaccurate. There is also a verification issue. If the maps used are not widely accessible we cannot check if it is accurate. In the circumstance that georeferencing violates the privacy or consent of individuals, I do not see this method as appropriate. Overall, I hope to explore this process more in future projects.
