A new course, a new subject. This time, the third dimension was explored in the course 3D Modeling and Visibility Analysis. In this first exercise, I explored thematic mapping in 3D. This was exciting at first but later proved to be quite the challenge (which was the whole point of the exercise). 3D maps are effective and appropriate when taking advantage of the z-dimension, however are rarely so for thematics, especially for static representations such as on print or on a screen. To test this in a human geographical context, I made two maps in 3D showing demographic statistics of Sweden both at the municipal level and the city level.

However, static frames and increased complexity are exactly where the problems of 3D maps lie, and in my experience making the maps seen here, it did not matter which spatial scale I was working with. Because I was making a static frame 3D map, the main problem I ran into was the obstruction of important features. In a static frame, no matter the spatial scale, you cannot avoid this problem. This can be seen in the map above where Sotenäs (an important feature of the map) is obstructed from view and therefore has to be conveyed with line symbology, indicating that something lies behind the obstruction.

This risk of misinterpretation is called foreshortening, meaning that the foreground is larger in the field of view than the background, which can introduce difficulties in interpreting the relative sizes and amounts of the map. Separately, thematic and 3D maps are effective visual representations of real-world phenomena, however, combined they feel more cumbersome than useful, both for the creator and audience.