confine yourself to one map at a time.

we're commissioning some maps for a project at work, and part of the map work involves the map indices which are the lists of quadrant locations which allow you to find the stuff on the map. like, you want to find minnetonka on the map of minnesota so you look in the index and find minnetonka and it says there beside it, for instance, d-5. so you go back to the map and you find the "d" which is either a column head or a row label, and then you find the "5" which is either a row label or a column head, and you follow the "d" line and the "5" line until they intersect and if the map is made in any sort of reasonable manner, the resulting d-5 quandrant where you land will be [1] a manageable size and [2] a container of minnetonka. you will thus locate minnetonka in minnesota.

the letters could be on the horiz or the vert axis, the x or the y, if you will. same with the numbers - could be on either the x or the y. now, on a particular map you will have only letters on the x and only numbers on the y or vicey versey. you will not have, for instance, "A - 2 - 3 - D" or even worse "A - 6 - S - 25". i mean, on the one hand you could still find the quadrant despite the labels being a bit wack, but on the other hand, it's a map, not a freaking puzzle. okay, well, it could be a treasure map and then maybe it would be a bit of a puzzle, but your everyday road map type map is designed to reveal, not disguise, information.

our maps are designed to reveal information, so the labels are in order. letters go this way, numbers go that way, and they go in progression. there are, however, maps that are oriented portrait style and others that are landscape style, and when you place them side by side with each aligned to the north, you might expect the letters and numbers at that point to be on corresponding axises. they are not. they are switched. letters on the y and numbers on the x and letters on the x and numbers on the y. it's weird when you look at them side-by-side and it makes you go - well, geez, why aren't they all the same? and then you realize that you have no idea what the standard is because you've never paid that close of attention. you use a map index by locating minnetonka in the list, finding the coordinates, then going and finding the quadrant on the one particular map. you don't then get out another map and compare how the quandrants are set up because you don't need to know anything else.

we were pondering all this in the production meeting when my co-worker says, "well, it appears what's best is to confine yourself to one map at a time."

and i was struck by the applicable, every-day wisdom of this. one map at a time. one game-plan at a time. one day at a time. i hear you saying that's boring or that's not how life works or any myriad plethorae of other objections to the feasibility of one map at a time but just a wee bit of focus to the task at hand and a bit of closure at the completion... that's a comfort from which, at times, we might all benefit.