In reading Ideology and the Map, my eyes were open to a whole new idea. The concept of a map-maker getting to choose what to include on a map never really bothered me before. I took it forgranted that a map-maker was supposed to be able to choose what went on a map, and I never thought how his/her biase or motives could come into play. I guess I trusted the map-maker not to make a map based on those motives. I thought that a map-maker would make each type of map according to what was objectively needed for tha certain type of map. I see now that I should think twice before assuming that maps are separate from human agenda. It is disturbing to know that some maps have been made to hinder me from seeing the world in it's true form.

I do see how certain places or things may not need to be as pominent, depending on what type of map is being created. For exmple, a map of a regions specific landmarks may not highlight the state's capital cities. When I think a map-maker goes too far, is when specific things are left out, under-emphasized or over-emphasized in order to influence the map's consumer to percieve the world, city, or coutnry a certain way. I do realize that it is impossible to be able to make a map that includes everything about a region on a true scale, but there is middle ground and a map-maker should be the first person to know how to make a map as objective as possible.