In How to Lie With Maps, Mark Monmolier shows us how something we often take for granted, maps, are often designed to purposely persuade us and not to just represent information. Reading through Monmollier’s summary reveals the different ways map data can be construed, and although this deception proves interesting, I personally thought more about data visualization as a whole–and its inherent limitations. Monmollier, for example, discusses how maps must represent either distances or shapes correctly because both cannot be achieved at the same time. The problem stems from trying to represent a 3-dimensional object on a 2-dimensional plane; in the vast majority of cases, loss of information is guaranteed. So, we have to make decisions when mapping data regarding what is important enough to include and what isn’t. This goes, of course, for every attempt to represent data visually, making processes like cartography very interesting. If the point were to be as absolutely accurate as possible, some people probably would not be able to understand what’s going on in the visualization, effectively being shut out. It’s like the oft-quoted difference between OSX and Windows. Make the data too accessible, and parts of it are lost in the simplicity. That’s the trade-off. Mapping data allows us to see the big picture of raw data quickly and clearly without trudging through lines of code, but it misses a lot. So, who decides what data is important and what isn’t? In the case of maps, that’s completely up to the cartographer, who will be hopefully be as truthful as possible; it’s too much of a chore for us to sort through data to make sure it’s all there.