30
154
Omitting this detail speeds chart construction, but also ªshow(s) more clearly the
prominent land marks needed by the navigator. In addition, on new charts, both the
hachured land area and sanded water areas have been simplified, with the result that the
original drawing and engraving is reduced and subsequent corrections more easily made
(141).º
In 1916, a manual on chartmaking published by the C&GS emphasized which
topographic features are noted in topographic surveys and why: ªAll objects of
prominence which can be seen from the water areas, such as lighthouses, beacons, range
marks, church spires, towers, etc., are carefully plotted on the drawing (U.S. Department
of Commerce et al. 1916c, 13).º These are all navigationally important features. Those
features that are not of use to mariners were not emphasized. Since the charts had begun
to be ªdesigned primarily for the navigator (Jones 1924, 22),º information that did not
directly support navigation was ªgeneralized or omitted altogether if they in any way
interfere with, or cloud, data of navigational value (22).º The changes between NY40
1914 and NY40 1917 show how this was implemented. The cultural topography was
dramatically simplified as figure/ground was reversed for roads; most vegetation fill and
topography was removed; only large buildings visible from the water were shown; and
the standard symbol for navigationally-important features was revised and relabeled. In
1925, the survey saw its charts as ªa diagram for practical use by navigatorsº from which
ªunnecessary details are studiously avoided (U.S. Department of Commerce et al. 1925b,
97).º
By the end of the first century, there was a recognition among the cartographers at
the C&GS that graphic techniques could be used to help navigators focus on the
important information. ªThe proper procedure is to bring out the essential characteristics
in a clear light, without entering deeply into incidental features which have no reference
to the professed purpose of instruction,º and if the chart is not properly designed, the
chart's user ª¼ is led to fix equal attention on all its parts, though many are superfluous
(U.S. Department of Commerce et al. 1943, 81).º The stated goal of a chart was then seen
to be ªsimplicity,º which ªis the golden mean between too little and too much (81).º
29
155
The survey made a transition from producing accurate, detailed, and beautiful
charts, to producing accurate, simple, and legible charts. This change in attitude about the
agency's goals is a significant shift to user-centered thinking that in turn contributed to
major changes in chart design.
Competition
Prior to the C&GS adopting color lithography, the USGS had adopted the method
and was producing high-quality results. Its technique was to engrave charts on copper
plates but transfer them to lithographic printing plates for three-color printing
(Monmonier et al. 2000). All three colors (black, brown, and blue) were printing points
and lines, not flat tints. By 1914, however, a fourth color, green, was being used for area
fills. Seeing the USGS succeed with these processes must have provided some impetus
for the C&GS to reexamine its policy of printing in a single color from copper plates.
Another source of competition was for labor, specifically engravers. The survey
took years to build up a cadre of engravers in the early years and by 1920 was again
having difficulty finding workers willing to make a career of the art. The initial problem
was that the U.S. was not training topographic engravers and no one was available to
teach the skill. During the period between the Civil War and 1900, there was salary
competition from the private sector that reduced the pool of applicants for positions. By
1920 the art was commercially dead except for banknote engraving. The Director of the
C&GS noted that this situation made hiring for the engraving room extremely difficult,
which was exacerbated by retirements (U.S. Department of Commerce et al. 1920a, 17-
18). No one was entering into a career in topographic engraving.
Other Publications
Another change that should not be overlooked is the movement of information off
the charts themselves and into several periodicals: the various Coast Pilot books, tide-
tables, and Notice to Mariners. These publications became the repository for detailed
navigation information and engraved views (later photographs) that were originally
available on the survey's charts.
16
156
Coast Pilots for the Atlantic seaboard were originally published by the Blunt
Company beginning around 1850, but were purchased by the Coast Survey in 1867
(Morrison et al. 1990, 103). The Pacific Coast Pilot was first published by the Coast
Survey in 1858 (U.S. Treasury Department et al. 1872, 7). The publication Notice to
Mariners started as occasional bulletins published by the U.S. Light-House Board, but
were taken over by the Coast Survey and became regularly printed. They provide up-to-
date information about navigational hazards and aids, which often require chart owners to
manually update their chart to reflect the new information. They began regular
publication in 1876, going to monthly publication in 1887. In 1908, responsibility for
publishing them was transferred back to the Lighthouse Board.
When the Coast Pilots were published, detailed information on tides, currents,
navigation along particular routes, and images of what a pilot would see from particular
locations were removed from the charts. The text could then be typeset and both the text
and views could be printed by lithography, avoiding the need to engrave them on finished
charts. Lithography was also a less expensive printing method.
25
157
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The topics of this thesis were chosen to help map librarians and historians
understand the continuity of Coast & Geodetic Survey charts as they went through
changes to design and numbering systems, and to better understand the period of
transformation from manual to photomechanical production and reproduction in the
history of cartography. From a bibliographic control perspective it is clear the charts are
problematic, particularly in the early years of the survey. After years of publishing charts
with either no identification number or a context-specific number, three numbering
systems were developed and used between 1858 and 1892. After 1892 the numbering is,
for the most part, problem-free.
Titles, however, continued to change into the 1940s, although the most dramatic
changes had been enacted by 1900. Titles were changed from long and florid to short and
terse before additional geographic descriptors were added to place them in a locational
hierarchy. Publication dates are problematic throughout the first 100 years. There were
inconsistencies regarding what dates were provided on the charts, issues with the
cartographic base remaining static while navigational information is updated, and the
problem of multiple printings from the plates.
The information provided here is helpful context for librarians and historians, but
the high degree of inconsistency suggests that generalizing between charts is not
appropriate. The details provided should help a person know what to look for, but does
not provide enough information to give answers for any specific chart.
Regarding this period in the history of cartography, the primary insight this thesis
provides is that inconsistency is the rule rather than exception for the charts produced by
30
158
the C&GS. Despite concerted efforts at providing standards for the surveyors,
cartographers, and engravers to follow, published charts that are the work of so many
different people are extremely difficult to make perfectly consistent. Even after the
advent of mechanical aids and photographic compilation techniques using standard
elements, inconsistencies abound. Wording, typography, capitalization, topography,
bathymetric contours, and use of color all have some inconsistencies in their application
during the 1940s.
Parts of the inconsistencies appear to be due to ad hoc choices made while the
chart was constructed. Some are due to mistakes, such as obvious typographical errors.
Mistakes are inevitable and will also slip through no matter the level of proofing
available. Ad hoc choices are not, and must be seen differently. Some are probably due to
a spirit of invention, giving staff the freedom to advance the products through
experimentation, particularly during times when new production techniques were being
implemented. New methods were variously tried and abandoned, tried and adjusted, or
tried and adopted, leading to differences when experiments broke with the past
(particularly when they were not widely adopted and so became design orphans). Other
inconsistencies probably slipped through unnoticed due to lack of oversight. It is
probably not possible to distinguish which errors stem from which types of sources from
this distance in time.
Just as important to the level of inconsistency is the inertia of the survey's body of
work. When a decision was made to change a design element, the several hundred
existing charts did not immediately update themselves to match the new expectation. It
took years of work for a change to cascade through the charts one at a time as they were
corrected (for minor changes) or reconstructed (for major changes). Simply put, reality
could not keep pace with rhetoric. It is much simpler to change the message about the
work by announcing a design change than it is to make those changes to such a vast body
of work. Changes were always phased in over time, so one cannot tell by looking at a
single chart what the policies of the survey were at the time of publication. A chart may
carry all of the current design elements and be produced and printed with the most up-to-
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
