Why can’t printed maps be … accurate? As in: drawn by their creators to factually ‘map onto’ their terrain? So, if one segment of highway is considerably shorter than another, wouldn’t you assume that it would take you less time to travel that first segment? Yes, you would; but, no, you’d be correct only about 50% of the time. I’ve missed numerous turn-offs because I incorrectly assumed I had miles to go before I needed to slow down and … whoops! There goes another exit…
Armed with copies of maps from the Internet, a printed road atlas, and various local maps obtained from Welcome Centers, realtors, and the like, I strapped the dog into her travel harness, rolled up the car windows (manually), and headed out for a 2500-mile adventure.
The adventure would have been less adventurous sometimes if I could have relied more strongly on the interface between my visual perception and the map(s). As it was, the maps printed road titles in ways that ensured you’d miss your critical veer or turn because the necessary information was … about 10 miles by car and several inches by map past that point.
On the positive side, maps provided pleasant diversions and surprises: there was the state park a mere 10 miles off the interstate that served as a quiet, peaceful lunch and rest one day; there was the ‘wrong turn’ that led to miles of winding roads and green horse farms outside a city; a missed intersection that took me further away from a restaurant/shopping area and into a residential area of old homes with big front porches and lots of trees …
I know I miss something by not relying on a GPS system or having a computer with me when I travel by car. I feel, though, that I would miss more by relying on electronic technology than I gain by relying on my imperfect, crumpled, folded, and well-used maps.
No comments:
Post a Comment