Cars

3 cartographic perspectives Number 43, Fall 2002 successful in building a "pool" of manuscripts that are at various stages of review and publication. This pool is critical for CP to get back on publication schedule. It also speaks well for the recent changes in CP that have resulted more submissions. A few years ago, the Cartog- raphy Specialty Group of the Association of American Geogra- phers talked at great length about changing it's name. These discus- sions were fostered by the Board members, which, if I remember correctly, included Jeremy Cramp- ton, Liz Nelson, Charlie Rader, Ann Goulette, Frank Boscoe, Anna Williams, Ute Dymon and myself. The reason for the discussion was that some members of the specialty group expressed to the board that the current name was not inclusive enough…that cartography was only part of what they did…and that visualization included car- tography among other kinds of endeavors (e.g., animation, multi- media, 3D, virtual reality). The dis- cussion fostered two position pa- pers written by two of the specialty group members: Jeremy Crampton was pro, and Keith Clarke was con. The name of the specialty group was never changed, but the forces behind visualization remained. Relax, I do not intent to resur- rect that discussion here (is that a collective sigh of relief I heard?). What I wanted to talk about here are some discussions we've had in our department regarding courses, and the names of proposed cours- es. At present, we have a series of courses that include: Introduction to Maps and Cartographic Theory Map Design and Graphic Methods Advanced Cartography Introduction to GIScience Advanced GIScience Environmental Applications in GIScience Resource Management in GIScience Introduction to Remote Sens- ing and Image Interpretation Sounds like standard fare, right? The discussions we have had include changing the very structure and content of our course offerings, as well as changing the names of the courses to (1) reflect some current trends in GIScience, and to (2) include the broader per- spective that visualization brings to the design of spatial "things". Here is the list of courses that have been proposed: Introduction to Maps and Mapping Technologies Map Design and GEO Visualization Multimedia and Animated Maps Earth Imagery Digital Imaging and Image Analysis Introduction to GIScience Advanced GIScience Resource Management and Policy in GIScience Participatory Mapping in GIScience Environmental Applications in GIScience What's different in this list of courses? Well, I am certain that many of you noticed that the word "Cartography" is nowhere in this list. At the same time, the word "map" or "mapping" is peppered throughout, as well as the term GIScience. Hmmm… This curriculum change is in the proposal stage at this time. Many discussions will take place over the next year, some related to the financial implications of this new curriculum, and some related to a huge change in how we think about our role as educators about many aspects of spatial informa- tion. It certainly has us thinking about "who we are". The people in our department who are hav- ing these discussions include a water resource biologist, a physical geographer, a cultural ecologist and myself. We all have different perspectives on GIScience and car- tography…the proposed program is a collective view, one that has been reached by consensus. So, what do you think? Is this a "not so good" thing? Are other programs looking at similar chang- es? In spite of the fact that our organizations embrace their names (the Cartography Specialty Group as a case in point), the impact of visualization can be seen in our program, and I suspect in others. Is this incorrect thinking? I am tossing this out for discus- sion. I welcome any comments or views on this. In fact, I would propose that we have an opinion column about this in a future issue of CP. Anyone up for the task? Warmest regards, Scott Freundschuh Editor

• Cover