When choosing between 2D and 3D cartographic design for any project, there are number of factors we usually discuss with the client to help them decide on the best approach: the target audience and their expectations for detail and orientation; what style of map is currently being successfully used for this audience; and of course, the design cost. Here, we take a look at both approaches.
The Pros and Cons of 2D Cartography
Pros
- Simplicity and Familiarity: 2D maps are universally understood and easy to use for most audiences. Road atlases, OS walking maps and reference atlases all use 2D cartography to good visual effect.
- Accurate Measurement: unless deliberate distortion is used by the cartographer, 2D maps accurately depict relative distances and angles and thus provide precise measurements for tasks like site layout and wayfinding.
- Cost: 2D maps are usually less expensive to produce than 3D maps as they are less time-consuming to design. The design of 3D maps can require specialist cartographic software and different design skills to traditional cartography.
Cons
- Limited Depth and Context: 2D maps cannot represent complexities such as changes in elevation in a visually intuitive way that 3D maps can. Users of 2D maps may struggle to interpret abstract symbols such as contour lines where a 3D map can better convey the landscape.
- Limited Interactivity and Engagement: 2D maps generally offer limited interaction, restricting users to a fixed, top-down perspective. This can make for a less engaging map for tourist destinations, visitor attractions and school campuses to name a few examples.
The Pros and Cons of 3D Cartography
Pros
- Realism and Detail: 3D map design offers a lifelike representation of the environment with depth and volume, which enhances the user’s understanding of complex landscapes. Detailed sites and campuses with changing elevation can be better communicated to the user, allowing easier navigation and orientation.
- Added interest: When 3D maps feature building frontages and detailed Points of Interest, the user is drawn in more. This approach is more engaging and fun to use for visitors.
Cons
- Complexity and Cost: the design process for 3D mapping is more time-consuming and therefore expensive. The cartographic skillset is slightly different and the sheer number of hours needed is greater for 3D representation.
- Occlusion: 3D maps must be drawn from an agreed angle and perspective. Even with a steep perspective view, tall features such as buildings can obscure information in the background meaning other detail is potentially obscured.
Whilst 2D maps provide clarity, cost-effectiveness, and precise measurement of horizontal distances, 3D maps can provide superior realism, depth perception, and a comprehensive understanding of complex terrain and structures. In reality, the best approach is often project dependent. A simple road map is best in 2D, while a complex university campus may benefit greatly from 3D visualization.
Comments are closed here.