This is a poorly executed map (the labeling makes me cringe), but it was entertaining nontheless.

This website was posted on Cartotalk and I thought it looked pretty good:  Cartography 2.0.  Seems to be a lot of valuable theoritical and some practical guides to cartography.

Kelso has posted a link to an interesting article.  The gist - "How Google’s open-ended maps are embroiling the company in some of the world’s touchiest geopolitical disputes."  Of course this isn't really anything new.  Maps created outside of the contested area are always controversial, e.g. National Geographic and the Persian Gulf.  What is particularly interesting in this case, is how technology is allowing the modern atlas to be in more than one place at once.  Google maintains different maps for different regions of the world, allowing a space where Iranians might see the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabians might see Arabian Gulf.  Of course, there are always going to be layers of meanings and names for places from the local/individual to what the nation has "officially" decided.  In some ways, Google is trying to cater for that as well by placing photos from panaramio on google maps so you can "explore" the area.  The other interesting bit in the article is how Google is being held responsible for Crowdsourcing of geographic/historic data (accurate or otherwise).  I think when Neogeography and Crowdsourcing are spoken of, it is generally in this solve the world gleam sort of way (sorry not very eloquent this morning), but this article shines a light on its dark side.

 

Plus it quotes Goodchild, so how bad can the article be.

Interesting list of the Ten Greatests Maps from The Daily Mail, via Flowing Data.  Interestingly, Google Earth made the list.  "Is Google Good for Geography?"  I think I would have liked to see the Hereford mappa Mundi on the list.  A commenter on Flowing Data suggested Snow's Cholera map.  I suspect the intention of the list is to bring attention to maps that aren't necessarily the ones you would think of.  The article is authored by Peter Barber, head of Map Collections at the British Library.  He is also featured prominently in the BBC 4 production The Beauty of Maps.  If you can find a copy of the documentary it is worth checking out, otherwise the website has some nice interactive features and clips.

I'm currently reading the English translation of Heaven and Earth in the Middle Ages by Semik.  One might describe it as an intellectual history of geography during the middle ages.  I'm really enjoying it, but only a few chapters in.  The author spends a good portion of the book so far convincingly refuting the myth that medieval thinkers believed the earth to be a flat disc.  The author lists a number ancient texts from the Greeks onwards that discuss the Earth as a sphere, or the universe as a sphere.  I can even remember my elementary school history lessons teaching me that Columbus was a lone figure who thought the earth was round while everyone else thought the earth was flat.  Really though, Columbus' main problem was convincing people that the earth was small (smaller than it really is) and that sailors can be away from land for extended periods of time.  It's funny how such a myth, despite efforts to eradicate it is still common.  I suppose it is like a lot of myths that have been around for hundreds of years.  Semik suggests that a handful of authors who weren't popular during their time but supported the flat earth conception helped convince 18th and 19th century thinkers that the middle ages viewed the world as flat.  Semik also suggests that T/O maps, with their circular flat representation of the known world (from a European's perspective) also contributed to the myth.  Just goes to show how choice in a projection can influence how people perceive of our ideas (I'm looking at you Google Mercator Maps).  Personally I suspect the myth was aided by a heroification of Columbus, and the proceding generations' continual desire to show the preceding generation as backward also helped.

Here's a bit more about it if you are interested.