Recently, there has been some discourse on BSKY about the use of genAI in cartography. In particular, this essay was released on my birthday of all days, arguing in favor of using genAI to create maps. I am going to be honest, I didn’t read the whole thing. I expected something closer to a white paper or case study, given its format and the author’s background, but I guess that wasn’t the point of the essay. The year long #365DaysofMaps challenge was also confusing to me. I initially thought it was about warning users about the issues with using genAI to create maps. It turns out it was in favor of using genAI in cartography. These efforts seem to want to stem the genAI tide before the wave comes for cartography.
To put my chips on the table, personally, I dislike genAI in almost all areas. GeoAI (or machine learning) is fine. I don’t have anything against Claude (I personally don’t use it); programming is kind of an open-source thing anyway, and code sharing is part of the culture. If this falls under genAI, then there you go; I am fine with a genAI thing. I have an issue with genAI laundering other people’s content without their permission, and the outputs are uninteresting or misleading. Even in geoAI, where the user supplies the data and the model, the results need to be checked, and the model adjusted when necessary. I have found that the line between genAI and geoAI (ML) gets blurry for many people, and everything falls under AI now. I think this attempt to steer geoAI in cartography is fine, maybe even noble; the reaction to cartographers’ opinions about genAI is not.
That said, the topic of gatekeepers was brought up. This caught my attention, mostly due to the discourse after the Kendrick-Drake battle. There is an idea floating around that gatekeepers need to be brought back into hip-hop to limit those who disrespect the genre. After following the hip-hop discourse, I’m not sure gatekeepers can be brought back at scale. With the internet, everything has changed, and the traditional gatekeepers have been severely weakened.
Gatekeepers can be used for good or for ill, and in the essay, it was clear to me that gatekeepers in cartography are bad. My question is, who or where are the gatekeepers in cartography? The music industry has labels, publishers, and distribution systems to function as pinch points. Not to mention producers and engineers. However, because of the internet, music artists can release their music directly to their audience. I personally think it is a good thing. Big companies tend to be risk adverse on new styles or ideas. Cartography has none of these options for gatekeeping. The essay implied several potential gatekeepers in cartography; I will focus on cartographers, guilds, software, data, and education.
Cartographers
For better or for worse, cartographers are largely independent by nature. This aspect is similar in most creative fields. Writing and art in general can be collaborative, but they are mostly individualistic. I am holed up in my office for many hours each day, creating my maps. I and other cartos, can create a single map without input from anyone other than our clients. If anything, I have to go out of my way to share my work with the world for feedback.
Prior to GIS, corporations like Rand-McNally or the National Geographic functioned as gatekeepers, but that time is long gone. Where can I or other cartos even gatekeep others in this process if I wanted to? If my client is unhappy with my work, they can go to another cartographer. If we see a map we don’t like, sure, we can critique it (fairly or not), but ultimately it is up to the cartographer to release their work. The gatekeeping potential here is pretty weak at scale, although there is potential at the margins. Especially where a young carto crosses paths with a senior carto.
Cartographic Guilds
Most cartos only meet one another once or twice a year at a conference where we share our work and methods. Many also share their work on social media. Which feels anti-gatekeeping? In the case of the NACIS conference, most talks are recorded and shared on YouTube. While there is a fee to attend most conferences, I would hardly call that gatekeeping. It costs money to run a conference, and most carto/GIS orgs are volunteer run. Frankly, I have seen many orgs fall apart due to poor management. Some conferences have grants available for those who can’t afford the cost of admission. My local GIS org has free conferences in the fall for anyone who wants to attend. Price can be weaponized, but most GIS cons seem reasonable. Although there is that one annual GIS con that costs a couple thousand to attend. Having a concentration of cartographers in a single place could have strong gatekeeping potential; however, these meetings last for a week at most, and everyone goes back home until next year. Diffusing any gatekeepery.
GIS Software
I remember the days when ArcMap was big money. I never even considered the possibility of owning a personal copy of GIS in the 2000s. While I still cannot afford a full license with access to most of the geoprocessing tools I typically use, the basic license is within reach. I have used ESRI products for most of my +20 year GIS career; I use open source QGIS for my freelance work. I have no disdain for ESRI; I would use ArcPro over QGIS in most cases if the price was the same or similar. This is anecdotal, but in my experience, most freelance cartos use QGIS, and most GIS Techs/Analysts use ESRI products. But if access to software is a gatekeeper, then one of the gatekeepers is ESRI.
I agree that the ability to use the software can limit a user from creating maps. GIS software is a tool that takes time to learn, just like any other software or tool. I bailed on learning Python for many years because I didn’t have the patience for programming languages. I eventually took some classes and got over the threshold. I wouldn’t call myself a programmer, but I know enough to build automated workflows and more complex symbology from expressions. The same can not be said for my interest in playing a musical instrument. I never practiced, never took lessons, never learned how to play. That is how it should be. In my GIS career, I helped other techs and analysts when they asked. I also taught in higher ed at the ground level for 6 years. I taught people GIS who barely used a computer beyond checking their email. Sometimes it was a struggle, but eventually they got the hang of it.
I am seeing a ton of genAI maps on Instagram. Many commenters are now asking what prompts the prompter used instead of what geoprocessing tools and data were used. Is this a better scenario than not knowing where the buttons or geoprocessing tools are located? To me, this feels more like a form factor change at most. Something akin to voice-to-text controls in software. I can refuse to answer questions about GIS just as well as a prompter can. If lack of knowledge about a tool is gatekeeping, then nearly everything I don’t know about is gatekept from me. ESRI and QGIS publish the documentation for their tools.
One of the benefits of StackExchange, Reddit, and other websites is being able to find an answer to similar issues without asking the same question over and over again. The shift to chatbots will have the same effect as moving from message boards to social media. The info will be hidden from public view, reducing the flow of information. Maybe message boards will make a comeback?
Data
The process of finding data might be overwhelming for a newcomer, but with ESRI and ArcGIS Online portals, data is more accessible than ever. Hopefully, an open source version becomes widely available soon. While there are still some places where you have to pay for data, most of it is available for free. Further, many Python and R packages will download authoritative spatial data based on your AOI right now. Some QGIS plugins will do the same. I don’t see how genAI solves this issue. The paid data is still behind a paywall, and it is not clear to me that genAI is actually accessing and retrieving, formatting, and symbolizing vector and raster data from the examples posted. Pointing someone in the right direction is helpful, and Gemini does this without me asking whenever I Google something. I have never used ChatGPT, but it appears some cartographers are using genAI to find data. If there is a gatekeeper here, it’s the paywalled data sources.
Education
Considering the costs, I can see how higher education is a gatekeeper. Tuition costs are higher than ever, which is a product of the politics of devolution. I had a career in GIS for +15 years before I got my first degree. I wish I had gotten it sooner. I Googled a lot of things, and I learned a lot in the process, but I wasn’t confident in what I knew until I returned to school. Today, there are free tutorials on the internet. ESRI has a ton of free tutorials, many of which I used in the GIS classes I taught. YouTube also has many great tutorials that were not around when I got started. Some of which I used while getting up to speed on QGIS over the last year. I have answered many GIS questions on social media. Having recently been a non-traditional student and an instructor, I can say school is not for everyone. GenAI may lower this barrier when asking a specific question about a problem in one’s workflow, but does it give users knowledge if it does all the work? Or will prompters be similar to me or worse prior to my degree(s)?
The barrier to entry in GIS is very high if you want a formal education; otherwise, it can be low (with the potential cost of insecurity). Many users on r/GIS advise against going to school for GIS. Where do cartographers fit in the cost of college as gatekeepers? Professors don’t set the price of admission. They don’t even get to choose their students. Professors can obviously play a role in a young cartos development, especially if they are unconstructively critical. Having attended community college, state school, and an elite school, I found most carto professors were constructive with their feedback. GenAI use by students and professors in higher ed is becoming a massive issue. It may even reduce access to higher ed through online learning if cheating isn’t curtailed soon. Online degrees from reputable institutions have finally gained credibility in recent years, and now that hard work may be lost for good. Increasing education’s gatekeeping potential.
Cartographers (Again)
I found that most of the steam in the essay and other posts was pointed at cartographers not jumping on board to use genAI for their creative workflows. The genAI examples posted on social media look like typical AI slop to me (note: after more investigation, the web maps seem ok. why not just post those?). I was confused by these examples that I wondered if the champions of genAI in cartography knew who their target audience was. The creative process is work, and it should be, as that is where the reward comes from. Solving a creative problem and seeing the results is one of the best parts about being a cartographer. I am a car enthusiast for a similar reason. I get a little bummed out when the end of the project is near. I am not interested in handing the creative process over. Why would I pay for the privilege?
There are many cases where the map in my head did not pan out on paper. This is fine. Failure is a part of the creative process! In some cases, I discover a new skill or workflow that I can tuck away for another project. Obviously, if there is a tight deadline, you should avoid trying new things unless you need a hail mary (been there, done that). Nevertheless, failure is where growth happens. Success can be the death of many creatives. New challenges can be fewer and farther away, and you never know when the next level may be forever out of reach. I struggle to look at the maps I made 5 years ago when I thought I had gotten pretty good. GenAI skips all of the trial and error process in favor of instant gratification. If preserving this step is gatekeeping, then so be it. People will use genAI even if I oppose its use in cartography. They already are. Most won’t care about cartographic methods or techniques, only the end product. I will tell anyone who is interested in cartography to make their own maps. Writers write, and we make maps. Make a map every damn day!
Some Nice Things About AI
I can understand the usefulness of geoAI. I’ve taken a geoAI class in grad school. Finding patterns in imagery can create new useful datasets (e.g, a tree dataset). I think automating the digitization of old topographic maps is another interesting case for geoAI. I am looking for a segmentation tool to digitize buildings from old Sanborn fire insurance maps. There will be errors, and those will need to be corrected by the user. If genAI is used for collecting new (and accurate) datasets, I could potentially find a place for it in my workflows. If genAI is used to aggregate data from authoritative sources for my area of interest (AOI), I could potentially find a place for it in my workflow. If genAI can create geoprocessing workflows or models to process my data, I can see the usefulness of such a tool. I have made some climate change maps in the past. If genAI can make imagery reflecting sea level rise based on a specified level, I can potentially see a use for that. Unfortunately, I suspect this tool will be used for ill and misinformation. See the recent situation with the Google Earth AI tools.
Mercator Hater
I am going to take a step back before I finish this essay. In my experience, the general public typically takes my maps as authoritative. Even when I am looking for early feedback and there is a clear error on the map. Unless the reader has detailed knowledge of the place, they will accept the map as factual. An aesthetically pleasing image can do that. This was alarming to me at the time, and I am reluctant to share drafts with significant errors, even when requested. GenAI is hallucinatory by nature. Errors are the norm. Once duped by slop, readers will become very skeptical of maps. Which may be a good thing in some ways. There are some bad maps out there! I am a certified Mercator Hater, and no one can change my mind!
Earlier posts by genAI proponents related genAI as an evolutionary tool like a pen and paper and the typewriter. I disagree with this analysis. While it is true that writers became more efficient and consistent with the typewriter, the words were usually their own. The Industrial Revolution lowered the cost of tools (pen and paper); this led to greater access with near universal literacy rates; propaganda rose as well. However, the overall impact of increased literacy is a net good for society. Everything is a two-way street. The problem with genAI is the relationship with creativity.
With a pen in hand, if you write a letter, you get a letter. If you write a word, you get a word, and so on until you have a paragraph, an essay, or a book. This is a clear 1:1 relationship with your mind. The same thing happens with the typewriter and word processor. With genAI, when you write a word (or prompt), you get a plethora of other people’s words or ideas in return. Usually from Wikipedia. This is a one to many relationship. A tool in a different category. The creative process is not even close between pen and AI. GenAI is closer to having other people carry out all of your ideas based on what they think you might want.
Personally, I think we are in a golden era of cartography that is about to end. Handing map creation over to someone who only has a casual interest in cartography via genAI will be a net negative. This is completely ignoring the environmental and employment concerns. If my career is about to go down the drain because there is better tech out there, then so be it. I’ll be ok or I won’t. That’s life. The essay handwaves the cons of genAI (inaccuracy is a massive issue for cartography!!) as if errors between humans and machines in cartography are equivalent. Machines should be more accurate and consistent than a human! We somehow created and deployed lying computers.
If one is not trained in geography/cartography, where does accountability step in to correct bad maps? Are formal cartographers supposed to police the internet? Like gatekeepers? Why not nip it in the bud at the source? Once the genie is out (and it is out), there is no going back. We are about to be inundated with bad maps whether cartos jump on the genAI train or not. Some traditional cartos will rise to the top of the fray, while many others will get buried by the prompters.
That said, if you want to use or even champion these tools, then be my guest. But I or others don’t have to like or respect the output. Frankly, if I see an ad created with genAI, I keep scrolling. If I see a video with genAI, I keep scrolling. I’d rather see blurry iPhone pics at this point than trust that you will ship a product or put a good faith effort into your content. As far as I am concerned, genAI in cartography is a race to the bottom. There will be little to no accountability in these maps as there is very little ownership in them. A few lines of text and they get a map.
If there are gatekeepers in cartography, they aren’t the cartographers. As the author even acknowledges in the essay, we can’t even stop people from using Mercator.
