Blog Post 6: Spatial Humanities: Mapping 101

Above, I have posted a link to the map I chose to work on. Beginning with my thoughts about the process, I initially felt as though the process was going to be very straightforward and simple, but after playing around with the tool, I realized that some of the maps were actually extremely hard to translate. Ones that included drawings and or very old photos of just the land itself, with the only way of really knowing where exactly it is by being some kind of geo-guesser wizard or living in that exact area. Eventually, I settled on a map of Italy. I felt as though it was just enough out of my comfort zone with the language and familiarity but simple enough, given the well-documented cities, that I could give my best for the site.

Compared to some of the projects we have done before, I don’t believe that it really changed my understanding all too much. The mapping and archiving process really resonated with me in the same way that some of the data analysis and data visualization we have done in the past. For the formats in which you could export the map, the available were to use in GIS apps, export to GEOTIFF, and export as IIIF. Once given the georectified map, some next steps could be to introduce some three-dimensional aspects into the map, such as incorporating landmarks and significant things found on the map. I think one problem that falls in line with the georeferencing process is accuracy; there were times when I felt like I had to estimate to the best of my ability where I thought the points were. I can imagine that for others who are also posed with unfamiliar maps, it could be challenging. When it comes to research questions, this should not be used, for I immediately think of how the spatial features of the environments change over time. Things such as oxygen levels or emissions would probably not benefit so much from the georeferencing process.