The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. I., No. 3, July, 1889Various
Science
The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. I., No. 3, July, 1889
Various
Geography -- Periodicals
The question as to the proper amount of exaggeration to be given the
vertical scale, as compared with the horizontal, is the question about
which has raged most of the controversy connected with relief map
making. This controversy has been rather bitter; some of the opponents
of vertical exaggeration going to the length of saying that no
exaggeration is necessary, and that "he that will distort or exaggerate
the scale of anything will lie." On the other hand the great majority
of those who have made relief maps insist upon the necessity of more or
less exaggeration of the vertical scale--generally more than seems to
me necessary, however.
An increase of angle of slope accompanies all vertical exaggeration,
and this is apparent even in models in which the vertical element is
only very slightly exaggerated. It produces a false effect by
diminishing the proportionate width of the valleys, and by making the
country seem much more rugged and mountainous than it really is. A
secondary effect is to make the region represented look very small--all
idea of the extent of the country being lost. This can be illustrated
better than described. The King model of the United States is an
example of one extreme; it is worthy of note that no examples of the
other extreme--too little exaggeration--are known.
In small-scale models of large districts some exaggeration of the
vertical scale is necessary in order to make the relief apparent, but
the amount of this exaggeration is often increased much beyond what is
essential. The proportion of scales must depend to a large extent on
the character of the country represented, and on the purposes for which
the model is made. It has been suggested by a writer, quoted by the
Messrs. Harden, that the following exaggeration would afford a pleasing
relief: "For a map, scale 6 inches to 1 mile: if mountainous, 1:3; if
only hilly, 1:2; if gently undulating, 2:3. For smaller scales, except
for very rugged tracts, the exaggeration should be correspondingly
increased. For a tract consisting wholly of mountains no exaggeration
is necessary." I know of no country of such a character that its
relief, in all its detail, cannot be shown upon a scale of 6 inches to
1 mile without any exaggeration at all.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account