Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the Deep Blue Oceans

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Philosophy of GIS

Part of the book series: Springer Geography ((SPRINGERGEOGR))

Abstract

The ocean terrain spanning the globe is vast and complex—far from an immense flat plain of mud. To map these depths accurately and wisely, we must understand how cartographic abstraction and generalization work both in analog cartography and digital GIS. This chapter explores abstraction practices such as selection and exaggeration with respect to mapping the oceans, showing significant continuity in such practices across cartography and contemporary GIS. The role of measurement and abstraction —as well as of political and economic power, and sexual and personal bias—in these sciences is illustrated by the biographies of Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen, whose mapping of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge precipitated a paradigm shift in geology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Felt (2012), “enjoyed”, Loc 2178.

  2. 2.

    On broadening the concept, methods, and purposes of cartographic generalization, see e.g., Abler (1987), Shea and McMaster (1989), Couclelis (1992), Goodchild (1992), Schuurman (2004), Lüscher et al. (2009).

  3. 3.

    Smith and Sandwell (1997).

  4. 4.

    I prefer the term “abstraction ” for the process of inferring general features from the particulars of the world or our experience. Although most cartographers prefer to use “generalization”, “abstraction ” is the more appropriate, flexible, and general term. On my pragmatic account of abstraction and its shadow side, pernicious reification, see Winther (2014). Cartographic abstraction is structurally and substantively related to scientific abstraction (see Winther 2020, Chap. 3).

  5. 5.

    The cartographic framework, and its take on abstraction , can be gleaned from close study of work such as Wright (1942), Koláčný (1969), Muehrcke (1969, 1972, 1974a, b), Wolter (1975), Robinson and Petchenik (1976), Wood (1992), MacEachren (1995), Harley (2001), Montello (2002). See also Winther (2015, 2020).

  6. 6.

    The sciences are distinguished by differences in scale . The boundaries of particle physics, biochemistry, neuroscience, anthropology, or cosmology, etc., are set (if permeably) by the minimum or maximum spatial scale of the objects and processes of its domain , from the tiny to the enormous. Temporal scales also vary across the sciences. For instance, quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry trade in extremely short time scales , developmental biology in days, weeks, and months, geology in millennia and millions of years, cosmology in billions of years (Winther 2020).

  7. 7.

    For a rigorous, mathematical treatment of map scales , see Bugayevskiy and Snyder (1995, 17–20).

  8. 8.

    Carroll ([1893] 2010, 162–163), Twain (1894, Chap. 3, 57), Borges ([1946] 1975, 325). With humor and irony, Eco ([1992] 1994) playfully deconstructs the very concept of a one-to-one map.

  9. 9.

    Greenhood (1964, 48–49), Muehrcke and Muehrcke (1998, 13, 537–546), Kimerling et al. (2009, 22–33), and Krygier and Wood (2011, 94–95).

  10. 10.

    ESRI (n.d.) provides a list of common map scales .

  11. 11.

    Since 2009, Google Earth shows the oceans based on, among other data sources, Marie Tharp as well as Smith and Sandwell, and collaborator’s maps and data . See Jha (2009).

  12. 12.

    Heezen et al. (1959, 3), Smith and Sandwell (1997), Sandwell et al. (2014, 66). The mathematics , visualizations, and quandaries involved in and with map projections are discussed extensively elsewhere (e.g., Snyder 1993; Winther 2020), so I shall set it aside here.

  13. 13.

    See Rankin (2016).

  14. 14.

    E.g., Brotton (2012, Chap. 12), Strebe (2012), Battersby et al. (2014).

  15. 15.

    First two quotes from Strebe (2012); third quote from Battersby et al. (2014, 88–9); last quote from Google representative Joel H., August 4, 2009. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/maps/A2ygEJ5eG-o.

  16. 16.

    https://map-projections.net/index.php.

  17. 17.

    An interesting material simplification strategy is described in Hammond’s Compact Peters World Atlas: “Cartographers have struggled with the best way to create hillshading for hundreds of years. In this atlas the 3-D relief comes from photographing specially made plaster relief models and blending these photos with hand-rendered coloring” (Hardaker 2002, 7).

  18. 18.

    Doel et al. (2006, 605).

  19. 19.

    Tharp spoke thus: “The displacement of peaks and other topographic features [in physiographic diagrams ] due to the vertical exaggeration blurred their actual positions as demanded by a classification regulation” (Felt 2012, Loc 1779).

  20. 20.

    Felt (2012), Loc 1720.

  21. 21.

    Ramer (1972), Douglas and Peucker (1973).

  22. 22.

    More concretely, Ramer’s code selects every anchoring point of what becomes an irregular polygon constructed from the target real-world line. [An anchoring point was a farthest orthogonal point or vertex, in the prior step (N − 1).] Vertices exceeding maximum distance (see: lower left hand column box of Fig. 5.3) “open” the polygon at each step, and are labeled as such in the program stack. The polygon becomes “closed” when the two new line segments from that point to the original anchoring points are constructed. This automated procedure is repeated, until no further vertices (orthogonal points ) are greater than dm (the maximum tolerance distance) and the polygon becomes fully closed. For a dynamic rendition of the Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer%E2%80%93Douglas%E2%80%93Peucker_algorithm#/media/File:Douglas-Peucker_animated.gif.

  23. 23.

    See the “Harry Beck’s Tube map” post on the website of London’s transit agency, tfl.gov.uk.

  24. 24.

    Heezen et al. (1959, 15).

  25. 25.

    Doel et al. (2006, 620).

  26. 26.

    Lobeck was hired as a full professor in Geology at Columbia University, home of Lamont, in 1948. Tharp had “devoured” his 1924 Block Diagrams book (Felt 2012, Loc 1715). Lobeck developed the physiographic diagram and was involved with the US military, especially during the two world wars. His “Physiographic Diagram of the United States” (1948) was influential. For a brief biography, see Smith (1959).

  27. 27.

    For early work on the epistemology of gender, sex, and science, see Harding (1986), Keller and Longino (1996).

  28. 28.

    Longino (2001), Winther (2012, 2020).

  29. 29.

    Tharp and Frankel (1986, 3).

  30. 30.

    Tharp and Frankel (1986, 2–3), Barton (2002, 216–217). See Landa (2010) for discussion of Tharp’s early biography, and her “ties” to her father, a soil surveyor.

  31. 31.

    Consult Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (n.d.).

  32. 32.

    Tharp (1999). Helen Longino provided constructive feedback.

  33. 33.

    Felt (2012), “by the end of 1956” Loc 1880.

  34. 34.

    It appeared as an addendum to Elmendorf and Heezen (1957). In the acknowledgments of that paper, Marie Tharp is thanked first and the last sentence reads “The encouragement and guidance of Dr. Maurice Ewing has been of great value” (1093).

  35. 35.

    Felt (2012), “same scale ” Loc 1737.

  36. 36.

    Meritt (1979), 273.

  37. 37.

    Heezen et al. (1959, 3).

  38. 38.

    Felt (2012), “senior research scientists”, Loc 2900.

  39. 39.

    Tharp (1999).

  40. 40.

    Felt (2012), Loc 2451.

  41. 41.

    Felt (2012), Loc 3818.

  42. 42.

    Sullivan (1977).

  43. 43.

    Proofs completed in 1977. Felt (2012), Loc 4121: “The first copy of the World Ocean Floor Panorama—conceptualized by Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen, painted by Heinrich Berann with assistance from Heinz Vielkind, and funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research—rolled off the presses at about 7:00 p.m. on May 17, 1978.” In the final stretch of producing the WOFP, Tharp had hired a Ukrainian cartographer, Luba Prokop. WOFP has since appeared in many places , in various avatars, and even in poster format.

  44. 44.

    Debakcsy (2018).

  45. 45.

    Tharp (1982).

  46. 46.

    Felt (2012), Loc 4637.

  47. 47.

    Bizzarro (2001).

  48. 48.

    National Geographic, June 1968. Found here: http://www.berann.com/panorama/archive/image/PN_W_10.jpg. Accessed November 8, 2018.

  49. 49.

    Patterson (2000) explores this kind of panorama map.

  50. 50.

    See Copley (2014) for a clear exposition of what this actually means.

  51. 51.

    I discuss cartopower in terms of my multiple representations account of ontologizing in Chap. 5 of Winther (2020). See Harley (2001) and Wood (1992) for related views.

  52. 52.

    Doel et al. (2006, 608).

  53. 53.

    Doel et al. (2006, 608).

  54. 54.

    Doel et al. (2006, 609).

  55. 55.

    Doel et al. (2006, 610, 611).

  56. 56.

    Doel et al. (2006, 611).

  57. 57.

    Discussions of the simultaneous empirical and technological and social and political facets of GIS can be found in, e.g., Kwan (2002), Schuurman (2004), Pavloskaya (2006), St. Martin and Wing (2007), Cope and Elwood (2009), Crampton (2010), Dodge et al. (2009, 2011).

  58. 58.

    Kwan (2002, 275, footnotes suppressed).

  59. 59.

    Doel et al. (2006, 609) proclaim: “Their early careers offer a snapshot of the divergent opportunities for men and women in the earth sciences in mid-twentieth century America. One of the very few female researchers at Lamont during its first decades, Tharp had limited financial security and few opportunities to attend scientific meetings. Typical for this period, her contributions often remained invisible.” Moreover, recall the 1978 GEBCO affair above, where Marie Tharp’s work was forcefully removed from her—in my moral universe, this was an act of piracy against Tharp. For a discussion of the “climate and consciousness” (9) of women in geography (not geology) see Monk (2004).

  60. 60.

    Hall (2006).

  61. 61.

    Tharp (1999).

References

  • Abler RF (1987) The National Science Foundation National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 1(4):303–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton C (2002) Marie Tharp, oceanographic cartographer, and her contributions to the revolution in the Earth sciences. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 192(1):215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battersby SE, Finn MP, Usery EL, Yamamoto KH (2014) Implications of the Web Mercator and its use in online mapping. Cartographica 49(2):85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizzarro D (2001) Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory bestows Heritage Award on Marie Tharp, pioneer of modern oceanography. Columbia News. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/07/marieTharp.html. Last modified 18 September 2002

  • Borges JL ([1946] 1975) On exactitude in science. In: Collected fictions (trans: Hurley A). Penguin, London, p 325

    Google Scholar 

  • Brassel KE, Weibel R (1988) A review and conceptual framework of automated map generalization. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 2(3):229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressan D (2018) Marie Tharp, the woman who discovered the backbone of Earth. Forbes (Online, Accessed 30 July 2018.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotton J (2012) A history of the world in 12 maps. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugayevskiy LM, Snyder JP (1995) Map projections: a reference manual. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll L ([1893] 2010) Sylvie and Bruno concluded. Nabu Press, Charleston, SC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope M, Elwood S (2009) Qualitative GIS. A mixed methods approach. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley J (2014) Just how little do we know about the ocean floor? The Conversation (website). https://theconversation.com/just-how-little-do-we-know-about-the-ocean-floor-32751. Accessed 2 Oct 2018

  • Couclelis H (1992) People manipulate objects (but cultivate fields): beyond the raster-vector debate in GIS. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Theories and methods of spatial–temporal reasoning in geographic space. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton JW (2010) Mapping: a critical introduction to cartography and GIS. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Debakcsy D (2018) Making continents move: the ocean cartography of Marie Tharp. Women You Should Know (website). https://womenyoushouldknow.net/cartography-marie-tharp/. Accessed 18 Oct 2018

  • Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) (2011) The map reader: theories of mapping practice and cartographic representation. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge M, Perkins C, Kitchin R (2009) Mapping modes, methods, and moments: a manifesto for map studies. In: Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) Rethinking maps: new frontiers in cartographic theory. Routledge, London, pp 220–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Doel RE, Levin TJ, Marker MK (2006) Extending modern cartography to the ocean depths: military patronage, Cold War priorities, and the Heezen-Tharp mapping project, 1952–1959. J Hist Geogr 32:605–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas DH, Peucker TK (1973) Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. Can Cartogr 10:112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eco U ([1992] 1994) On the impossibility of drawing a map of the Empire on a scale of 1 to 1. In: How to travel with a Salmon and other essays. Harcourt, New York, pp 95–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmendorf CH, Heezen CH (1957) Oceanographic information for engineering submarine cable systems. Bell Syst Tech J 36(5):1047–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esri (n.d.) FAQ: what are some common map scales? https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000010532. Accessed 20 Aug 2018

  • Felt H (2012) Soundings: the story of the remarkable woman who mapped the ocean floor, Kindle edn. Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF (1992) Geographical information science. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 6(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhood D (1964) Mapping. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954) Seismicity of the Earth. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (As cited in Heezen et al. 1959, 110.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall SS (2006) The contrary map maker. The New York Times, Dec 31. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/magazine/31Tharp.t.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2018

  • Hardaker T (2002) Cartographic introduction. In: Hammond. Compact Peters World Atlas. Hammond, Union, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding S (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley JB (2001) The new nature of maps: essays in the history of cartography. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Heezen B, Tharp M, Ewing M (1959) The floors of the oceans. I. The North Atlantic. Text to accompany the physiographic diagram of the North Atlantic. Special paper 65. The Geological Society of America, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha A (2009) Google Earth drops into the oceans. The Guardian, February 2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/02/google-earth-oceans. Accessed 7 Nov 2018

  • Keller EF (1984) A feeling for the organism: the life and work of Barbara McClintock, 10th anniversary ed. Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller EF, Longino HE (1996) Feminism and science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimerling AJ, Buckley AR, Muehrcke PC, Muehrcke JO (2009) Map use: reading and analysis, 6th edn. ESRI Press, Redlands, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Koláčný A (1969) Cartographic information: a fundamental concept and term in modern cartography. Cartogr J 6:47–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krygier J, Wood D (2011) Making maps: a visual guide to map design for GIS, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwan M-P (2002) Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. Gend Place Cult: J Fem Geogr 9(3):271–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (n.d.) History of Lamont. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/about-ldeo/history-lamont-0. Accessed 12 Oct 12 2018

  • Landa ER (2010) The ties that bind: soil surveyor William Edgar Tharp and oceanographic cartographer Marie Tharp. Phys Chem Earth 35:868–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobeck AK (1948) A physiographic diagram of the United States. (Map.) A. J. Nystrom, Chicago. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~234507~5510052:United-States----Physiographic-Diag. Accessed Oct 2018

  • Longino HE (2001) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher P, Weibel R, Burghardt D (2009) Integrating ontological modelling and Bayesian inference for pattern classification in topographic vector data. Comput Environ Urban Syst 33:363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacEachren A (1995) How maps work: representation, visualization, and design. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt JL (1979) Hess’s geological revolution. In: The best of PAW: (100 Years of the Princeton Alumni Weekly), pp 273–277. https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/about/publications/Harry_Hess_bop.pdf Accessed 24 Aug 2018

  • Monk J (2004) Women, gender, and the histories of American geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montello DR (2002) Cognitive map-design research in the twentieth century: theoretical and empirical approaches. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 29(3):283–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan WJ (1968) Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J Geophys Res 73(6):1959–1982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehrcke PC (1969) Visual pattern analysis: a look at maps. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehrcke PC (1972) Thematic cartography. Resource paper no. 19, Commission on College Geography. Association of American Geographers, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehrcke PC (1974a) Map reading and abuse. J Geogr 73(5):11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehrcke PC (1974b) Beyond abstract map symbols. J Geogr 73(8):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehrcke PC, Muehrcke JO (1998) Map use: reading, analysis and interpretation, 4th edn. ESRI Press, Redlands, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N (1999) The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson T (2000) A view from on high: Heinrich Berann’s Panoramas and landscape visualization techniques for the U.S. National Park Service. Cartogr Perspect 36:38–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavloskaya M (2006) Theorizing with GIS: a tool for critical geographies? Environ Plan A 38:2003–2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramer U (1972) An iterative procedure for the polygonal approximation of plane curves. Comput Graph Image Process 1:244–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin W (2016) After the map: cartography, navigation, and the transformation of territory in the twentieth century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson AH, Petchenik BB (1976) The nature of maps, essays toward understanding maps and mapping. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandwell DT, Müller RD, Smith WHF, Garcia E, Francis R (2014) New global marine gravity model from CryoSat-2 and Jason-1 reveals buried tectonic structure. Science 346(6205):65–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N (1999) Reconciling social constructivism and realism in GIS. ACME: Int E-J Crit Geogr 1(1):75–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N (2004) GIS: a short introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea KS, McMaster RB (1989) Cartographic generalization in a digital environment: when and how to generalize. In: AUTO–CARTO 9, ninth international symposium on computer-assisted cartography, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 56–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G-H (1959) Armin Kohl Lobeck, geomorphologist and landscape artist, 1886–1958. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 49(1):83–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2561290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WHF, Sandwell DT (1997) Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science 277(5334):1956–1962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder JP (1993) Flattening the Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • St. Martin K, Wing J (2007) The discourse and discipline of GIS. Cartographica 42(3):235–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebe D (2012) Why Mercator for the web? Isn’t the Mercator bad? (Posted 15 March 2012.) https://www.mapthematics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=251

  • Sullivan W (1977) Dr. Bruce C. Heezen, 53, dies; mapped ocean floors. The New York Times, June 23. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/23/archives/dr-bruce-c-heezen-53-dies-mapped-ocean-floors.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2018

  • Tharp M (1982) Mapping the ocean floor: 1947–1977. In: Scrutton RA, Talwani M (eds) The ocean floor: Bruce Heezen commemorative volume. Wiley, New York, pp 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Tharp M (1999) Connect the dots: mapping the seafloor and discovering the mid-ocean ridge. In: Lippsett L (ed) Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: twelve perspectives on the first fifty years, 1949–1999. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY. Parts available at: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7500&tid=282&cid=23306. Accessed 26 Oct 2018

  • Tharp M, Frankel H (1986) Mappers of the deep. Am Hist 95(10):48–62. http://www.faculty.umb.edu/anamarija.frankic/files/Oceanography%20Spring%2008/MidAtlantic%20ridge%20discovery.pdf.gz. Accessed 14 July 2018

  • Twain M (1894) Tom Sawyer Abroad. Charles Webster & Co

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther RG (2012) Interweaving categories: styles, paradigms, and models. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 43(4):628–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winther RG (2014) James and Dewey on abstraction. The Pluralist 9(2):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winther RG (2015) Mapping kinds in GIS and cartography. In: Kendig C (ed) Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice. Routledge, New York, pp 197–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther RG (2020) When maps become the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter JA (1975) Cartography—an emerging discipline. Can Cartogr 12(2):210–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood D (1992) The power of maps. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright JK (1942) Map makers are human: comments on the subjective in maps. Geogr Rev 32(1):527–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kristine Sergejeva provided expert project coordination. Laura Laine secured figure permissions. Mats Wedin processed and finalized figures. Lucas McGranahan and Gloria Sturzenacker provided outstanding editorial commentary. Heidi Svenningsen Kajita and Mette Bannergaard Johansen were sounding boards. Gratitude to all.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, 9, Laidley Street, San Francisco, CA, 94131, USA

    Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther

Authors
  1. Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli, Italy

    Timothy Tambassi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Winther, R.G. (2019). Mapping the Deep Blue Oceans. In: Tambassi, T. (eds) The Philosophy of GIS. Springer Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16829-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation