Generalization is an important and unavoidable part of making maps because geographic features

cannot be represented on a map without undergoing transformation. Maps abstract and portray
features using vector (i.e. points, lines and polygons) and raster (i.e pixels) spatial primitives
which are usually labeled. These spatial primitives are subjected to further generalization when
map scale is changed. Generalization is a contradictory process. On one hand, it alters the look
and feel of a map to improve overall user experience especially regarding map reading and
interpretive analysis. On the other hand, generalization has documented quality implications and
can sacrifice feature detail, dimensions, positions or topological relationships. A variety of
techniques are used in generalization and these include selection, simplification, displacement,
exaggeration and classification. The techniques are automated through computer algorithms such
as Douglas-Peucker and Visvalingam-Whyatt in order to enhance their operational efficiency
and create consistent generalization results. As maps are now created easily and quickly, and
used widely by both experts and non-experts owing to major advances in IT, it is increasingly
important for virtually everyone to appreciate the circumstances, techniques and outcomes of
generalizing maps. This is critical to promoting better map design and production as well as
socially appropriate uses.

Hodza, P. (2020). Point, Line, and Area Generalization. The Geographic Information Science &
Technology Body of Knowledge (2nd Quarter 2020 Edition), John P. Wilson (ed.).
DOI: 10.22224/gistbok/2020.2.4..

This topic can also be found at:

DiBiase, D., DeMers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Luck, A. T., Plewe, B., and Wentz, E. (2006).
Approaches to point, line, and area generalization. The Geographic Information Science &
Technology Body of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
Explanation

1. Definitions
2. Introduction
3. Database Generalization vs. Cartographic Generalization
4. Data Enrichment and Generalization
5. Generalization Techniques for Point, Line, and Area Data
6. Generalization Challenges, Evaluation, and Research Outlook

1. Definitions

Cartography: Process of designing, making and using tangible maps.

Map use: Involves reading, analyzing and interpreting maps (Kimerling et al. 2012).
Generalization: Basically a process which modifies the information presented on a map or
contained in a spatial database based on factors like purpose, users, uses and scale.
Database: A structured collection of digital spatial data for a given purpose.
Map scale: Provides the conversion factor between the dimensions of map and real world
features.
2. Introduction

Most information about geographic phenomena (e.g. buildings, railroads and administrative
boundaries) is location-based, and cartographic maps are the most powerful and common way of
displaying and sharing that information. Cartographic maps come in all shapes and sizes and are
now readily available in digital format due to rapid developments and easy user access to IT.
Digital technology renders maps highly manipulable enabling the user reading, analyzing or
interpreting these graphical representations to generate in-depth ideas about the content
(Kimerling et al. 2012). Maps are not reproductions of reality. In the real world, there is no
reduction in detail, and many geographic things or features are substantially big and inherently
complex. Designing and making maps that emulate this level of detail and complexity is
basically not feasible or beneficial. Thus, maps abstract and represent select geographic
phenomena to meet particular needs drawing upon vector (i.e. points, lines and polygons) and
raster (i.e. pixels) spatial primitives that are usually labeled. Maps foster understanding of not
only the locations and arrangements of geographic phenomena but also their interrelationships.

The reduction of real-world detail in creating maps results in well-documented changes in one or
more properties like geometry, size, dimensionality, and distances or angles between features
especially on flat maps. Scale is a concept that exists only on maps and influences and controls
how much detail is presented to users. Scale defines the conversion factor between the
dimensions of map and real-world features. Thus, maps produced at different scales generally
show different amounts of information and levels of generalization. This is exemplified by a
small-scale map of a country that essentially exhibits considerably more generalization than a
large-scale map representing a city.

Generalization modifies (e.g. refines feature geometries) map content in a manner that is
purposeful, measured and coordinated (Kraak and Omerling 2010). Generalization benefits from
robust data models and operates on the primitives used to model geographic phenomena. In
practice, generalization is a contradictory process that is prompted by several circumstances and
factors, and results in various implications (MacMaster and Shea 1992). On one hand,
generalization is crucial in delivering maps that offer high user experience. In particular,
decreasing the amount and complexity of information helps to optimize the readability and
interpretive analysis of maps (MacMaster and Shea 1992). This also assists in reducing the user’s
cognitive load which is important since our eye-brain visual knowing system is, by itself, weak
(Bunch and Lloyd 2006). On the other hand, feature details are lost albeit in a controlled way
when generalization is implemented. This can potentially impact the breadth and depth of
knowledge that can be gained from maps.

The benefits of generalization far outweigh the drawbacks, though, and this process remains an
integral component of map making. Both experts and untrained individuals need to appreciate
the main reasons for generalizing maps, how this process is implemented and the results of
different generalization techniques. This is crucial particularly in today’s digital world where
different kinds of maps are now created easily and efficiently, used and maintained by the
masses through social media (e.g. Facebook), neogeographic tools (e.g. OpenStreetMap and
Google Maps) and other mainstream technologies (Figure 1). Developing knowledge about how
maps are created and generalized can potentially encourage appropriate and ethical uses.

Figure 1. A Google Maps navigation map commonly created by the public showing travel times
for different modes of transportation. The interactive map includes information about road
construction activities, the option to use a satellite image to provide locational context and access
to detailed street level imagery. Source: author.

3. Database Generalization vs. Cartographic Generalization

Another technology that has greatly advanced how maps are planned, produced and utilized in a
digital context is GIS. GIS integrates comprehensive tools for building, managing, analyzing and
generalizing map content. In fact, many cartographic maps are currently compiled from thematic
data layers kept in GIS databases. The datasets are being collected and updated at incredible
speeds such that storing, processing and maintaining current and historical information is now a
challenging big data problem. Although this is increasingly changing, many users including
private companies, government agencies and non-governmental organizations lack the requisite
IT power to successfully handle big data, and find themselves in need of generalizing their
databases.

Database generalization resembles cartographic (i.e. map) generalization in being a purpose-

oriented process that attempts to carefully exclude non-essential elements from data about
geographic phenomena. On one hand, database generalization entails computational thinking
which, inter alia, involves abstracting and decomposing reality into several ‘things’ that are
intelligible and manageable in digital technology (Weibel and Jones 1998; Weibel and Dutton
1999, Mackaness 2007). On the other hand, this process can be used to generate a new database
that is smaller in size or lower in detail than the original without compromising the basic
meaning of the content (Weibel and Dutton 1999). Small databases are generally better than their
large counterparts because they take up less storage space, are more portable and easier and
cheaper to maintain, and result in more efficient computational operations (e.g. retrieval and
updating of data records).

Maps assembled from thematic data layers stored in GIS databases usually undergo additional
generalization to create new and effective maps that may subsequently get stored and maintained
in the databases. This implies that cartographic and database generalization processes
complement each other in the production of maps. Of particular importance to the former is the
overall look and feel of a map which can make or break user experience. The look and feel of a
map is a function of many factors including the producer’s map design skills and his or her
generalization experience with manual or automated techniques. The map medium is also an
important consideration in cartographic generalization since single scale analog maps can have
different design and generalization> specifications than zoomable digital maps which enable
users to select map content and modify display scale in real-time.

4. Data Enrichment and Generalization

There is an urgent need to produce up-to-date, accurate and readily usable maps in quick, cheap
and easy ways. This requirement has partly motivated and enabled automated generalization.
Commonly cited prerequisites for effective automated generalization include deep user- and
computer-based understanding plus robust formalizations of geographic phenomena (Mackaness
et al. 2014, Hu 2017). This understanding can be achieved in many ways including extracting
(e.g. via ESRI’s GeoEnrichment web service synthesizing and analyzing ‘enriched’ datasets
maintained in spatial databases. Here, enrichment describes the process of adding something that
enhances one or more qualities of geographic data primarily to inform and support
generalization. That ‘something’ can take various forms like variables (e.g. feature attributes),
other geographic data (Figure 2), refinements in feature geometries, and explicitly modelled
spatial and semantic contexts plus relationships between geographic phenomena (Neun 2007).
Figure 2. Rivers data enriched by draping on shaded relief can lead to improved understanding of
stream drainage. Image sources: author.

Research on some of the concepts above has occurred under broad topics like geographic
ontologies, semantics and cognition, and identified or produced several spatial data models,
methods, rules and tools that can help enrich geographic data and facilitate automated
generalization. One approach involves integrating geotagged social media especially tweets and
photos to better capture the sense of place in spatial databases (Hu 2017). Analyzing these and
other datasets can reveal the levels of social significance of different places (e.g. villages and
cities) to consider when seeking to selectively include or omit specific places from a map as
scale is altered. Another approach entails using object-oriented and hierarchical data model
abstractions like aggregation and specialization to respectively model HAS-A and IS-A types of
relations between geographic phenomena. This can aid, for example, in removing boundaries
between contiguous polygons (e.g. counties) with the same attribute value (e.g. state).

There are also other relational concepts (e.g. spatial and temporal topology) that are valuable in
building accurate context-aware databases. For example, predefining spatial topology rules like
‘area features must not overlap’ provides a useful tool for assessing and controlling the quality of
automated generalization. Proximity methods based on Euclidean, Manhattan or Hausdorf
distances can also be applied in real-time to determine the spatial context of geographic
phenomena including identifying collocated points according to some predefined cluster
tolerance. It is also important to recognize, relate and concurrently generalize the data layers of
inextricably linked geographic phenomena to prevent erroneous outcomes such as misalignments
between the courses of rivers and the ‘Vs’ in topographic contours (Mackaness et al. 2014).

5. Generalization Techniques for Points, Lines, and Areas

There are many techniques for generalizing point, line and area data. These are identified and
grouped (e.g. based on aspects of mapped geographic phenomena they modify) in several
taxonomies that have been put forward, refined and extended over the years by various authors
following improved knowledge, understanding and implementation technology for
generalization (Foerster et al. 2007, Roth et al. 2011, Stanislawski et al. 2014). The taxonomies
differ in such things as total numbers, terminology and definitions of techniques considered
important (Roth et al. 2011). Below, we briefly discuss some of the most common techniques
and note that they vary in purpose, driving factors, implementation approach, rate of use,
outcomes and consequences.

5.1 Selection

There are no hard and fast rules about sequencing the techniques for generalizing cartographic
maps (Regnauld and McMaster 2007). A reasonable and common starting point is selection
which prompts map makers to carefully pick geographic features to map. The selection process
is user-oriented and largely influenced by map scale and predefined map uses. For example, a
map for visualizing the spatial distribution of national high schools does not necessarily need to
incorporate middle or elementary schools even though such information might be readily
available or easy to gather and depict.

5.2 Elimination

Depending on map scale or purpose, not all selected features should or can be drawn effectively
on a map. Map makers make decisions to remove features or certain parts of feature using
criteria such as length, size, societal importance or potential impact on the capability of the map
to successfully tell the intended spatial story or facilitate knowledge construction. A map maker
might choose to delete all oil wells with low cumulative production volumes, discard all short
tributaries, or remove small lakes from a map. Elimination results in fewer features which helps
reduce the complexity, overload and time required to mentally or computationally process map
information (Weibel and Dutton 1999).
Figure 3. Illustrating the results of feature elimination (left = before, right = after). Click here to
see an animated version of this process. Data source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. Maps source: author.

5.3 Simplification and smoothing

Simplification applies to linear and areal features. The vertices which form and shape these
features can be grouped into key and non-key points. Simplification creates new features by
discarding non-key points with overall minimal distortion to the original shapes. Tolerances
defined by distances and angles between feature points provide the basis for identifying the
points to weed out (Regnauld and McMaster 2007). Unlike smoothing, simplification typically
retains the acute angles which give some features a jagged appearance. One motivating factor is
oriented towards visualization and about making displayed data look less complex. Another is
computational in nature and concerned with saving computer storage space (Shea and McMaster
1989). Widely used algorithms for simplifying and smoothing line and area features include
Douglas-Peucker (Douglas and Peucker 1973) and Visvalingam-Whyatt (Visvalingam and
Whyatt 1992). The former is particularly effective at generalizing cultural features (e.g. roads)
but natural features (e.g. rivers) and polygon boundaries are better simplified using the Wang-
Muller algorithm which preserves polygon area (Wang and Muller 1998). Douglas-Peucker and
Visvalingam algorithms are computationally efficient and quite good at minimizing linear
deformations and disagreements between original and derived lines (Shi and Cheung 2006). For
example, Mike Bostock applied the Visvalingam-Whyatt algorithm to polygon data and
produced incredible results from both cartographic and database generalization perspectives.
Through barely noticeable but important geometrical modifications, Mike was able to shrink the
file size of a detailed boundary of the coterminous U.S. states by a whopping 95%!
Figure 4. Illustrating the results of polygon simplification and line smoothing (left = before, right
= after). Click here to see animated versions of this process. Images source: author.

5.4 Displacement

Displacement resolves issues that occur when several features are congested in a map area. The
technique moves features from their true map positions so that they are more distinct and can
easily be distinguished. The key is to keep the movements as small as possible so as to minimize
concomitant errors especially in the positions and relationships between features.

Figure 5. Illustrating the results of feature displacement (left = before, right = after). Click
here to see an animated version of this process. Images source: author.

5.5 Classification

Classification organizes geographic data in classes or groups. The classes are defined by
qualitative (e.g. landcover type) or quantitative (e.g. population) feature properties, the closeness
of quantitative property values (e.g. values between 10,000 and 20,000) or the functional roles
(e.g. administrative boundaries) of features (Shea and McMaster 1989). Classified data are
generally easier to visually analyze, interpret and comprehend because of less attribute data that
needs to be dealt with. Methods for classifying quantitative data such as quantile and standard
deviation are chosen based on the distribution of data and significantly impact the spatial patterns
portrayed on maps. Data on existing maps can also be re-classified; for example, grouping
hierarchical classes like deciduous, coniferous and mixed forest lands into a broader but useful
forest landcover class.

Figure 6. Classification methods can vary dramatically how the data appear, especially in
choropleth maps such as these. Click here to see an animated version of these differences. Maps
source: author.

5.6 Exaggeration and Enhancement

Although different, exaggeration and enhancement techniques similarly draw upon the map
maker’s familiarity with real-world features. All features are not equal and exaggeration gives
prominence to more important features by drawing them disproportionately on maps. An
example is depicting ancient ruins much larger than they truly are so as to highlight them as
symbols of national pride. Enhancement adds extra detail to help map users better appreciate the
nature of geographic features. Both enhancement and exaggeration modify feature symbology
but for different reasons, the former to augment visible aspects and improve feature recognition,
and the latter to highlight the non-visible (e.g. societal value).
Figure 7. Illustrating the results of enhancing and exaggerating line and polygon features (left =
before, right = after). Click here to see an animated version of this process. Images source:
author.

5.7 Aggregation

The aggregation technique creates a single feature by combining two or more features that may
or may not be contiguous. The boundaries between contiguous regions are dissolved to create a
simple polygon, or retained to build a complex multipart feature. Non-contiguous features can
only be combined when they fall within a predefined threshold distance or share the same
property (e.g. owner) values (e.g. John Doe). Points can also be combined to define areal extents
of some variables, geomask sensitive data or enhance the display and analysis of data. An
example is aggregating a group of fruit tree points into an orchard landuse region.
Figure 8. Illustrating the results of aggregating point and polygon features (left = before, right =
after). Click here to see an animated version of this process. Images source: author.
5.8 Collapsing

Many features undergo transformation when map scale is reduced. Through collapsing, features
can change from one size to another and/or become a new type of geometry sometimes with
unintended consequences. For example, a narrow river polygon may be converted into a single
line feature giving some users the impression that the river is not navigable. Similarly, changing
building footprints or small islands into points or reducing multiline roads to single lines may
alter people’s perceptions of those features since we tend to make connections between the sizes
of features and their values, levels of importance or functions (ESRI 1996).
Figure 9. Illustrating the results of collapsing features (left = before, right = after). Click here to
see an animated version of this process. Images source: author.
5.9 Refinement

Data layers digitized in a GIS often require refinement such as making a running track appear
more rectangular with rounded corners (ESRI 1996). Refinement fine-tunes a map layer by
subtracting or adding features or feature detail. Features that rank low in importance or relevancy
to specific purposes are usually the first to be weeded out when users become overwhelmed by
map information, or effective map use is hampered. An example of adding feature detail is
including lower order streams to densify and improve the look of a hydrographic network.
Refinement also enables subtle changes to be made to features are not large enough to draw
proportionally on maps.
Figure 10. Illustrating the results of refining a digitized running track and a hydrographic
network (left = before, right = after). Click here to see an animated version of this
process. Images source: author.

5.10 Typification

Typification is based on the basic sampling principle that suggests that a subset of the features in
a map layer can adequately capture and represent the essential qualities of the entire population.
The goal is to ensure that a map of representative features provides a good idea about the general
arrangement, spread or connections between features in the entire dataset. Sampled features
especially points (e.g. address points geocoded by zip code) may be rearranged slightly to closely
mirror the picture or structure of the population (ESRI 1996).
Figure 11. Illustrating the results of typification using 50% of the original points (left = before,
right = after). The heat maps illustrate that the point density pattern is largely the same before
and after typification. Click here to see an animated version of this process. Data
source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Images source: author.

6. Generalization Challenges, Evaluation, and Research Outlook

Generalization affects and alters the content of spatial databases and cartographic maps.
Although it is now largely automated through various methods and tools (e.g. Web services),
generalization remains a challenging problem. This is partly due to the difficulty involved “in
finding a compromise between the choice of … [geographic phenomena] …, their form and
detail of representation, and the space available in which to display them” (Mackaness et al.
2014, p3). Generalization is also prone to quality concerns (Weibel and Dutton 1999; Regnauld
and McMaster 2007). Muller (1991) identified three quality dimensions that are commonly
sacrificed when spatial databases and cartographic maps are generalized, that is, accuracy,
completeness and consistency. Simplified lines, for example, embed locational and geometrical
inaccuracies that can cause topological problems like co-located, misaligned and intersecting
lines (Shi and Cheung 2006). These problems often end up in spatial databases where
(generalized) data layers are usually kept. Depending on purpose, the databases may also be
considered incomplete when, for example, minor roads are deleted from an urban road network
dataset.

Another generalization issue is that users are not usually given specific information about the
techniques applied or the extent to which these modify the features in a given map. This can
potentially mislead some users who might measure the dimensions of exaggerated features and
take them literally as truth. At the same time, many people appreciate that maps are generalized
spatial representations, and do not, for example, interpret a 1mm wide road symbol on a 1:50,000
scale map to be 50m wide in reality.

As shown through the figures in §3, visual methods can be used to quickly identify and judge the
inaccuracies of cartographic generalization (Weibel and Dutton 1999). At the same time, there is
growing research on more reliable quantitative methods for evaluating the outputs of
generalization. Stoter et al. (2014), for example, evaluate generalization within the context of
map use placing emphasis on map reading and how this activity is affected by factors like
amount, distribution and complexity of content. The authors also discuss other areas of
evaluation that involve defining, iteratively tweaking and then applying specific generalization
parameters.

On the whole, the field of generalization has experienced great progress owing to advanced
research in Web cartography, data enrichment, generalization algorithms and other areas.
Although there are notable successes apparent in, for example, (1) widespread implementations
of automated generalization, (2) widely used auto-generalized maps, (3) generalized maps that
effectively preserve feature geometries (e.g. river sinuosity) and densities, and (4) the growing
number of richer spatial databases, Burghardt et al. (2014) identify some areas that demand
further research. These are concerned with but not limited to how to create and employ powerful
interactive and statistical tools to effectively solicit user requirements for custom maps, how to
develop reusable generalization algorithms, and how to successfully implement real-time and on-
demand generalization.