the coconut's hovel: Factual maps arn't always cool

Maps have been trusted as fact since they were first created. Maps were and are the only way people can perceive great areas of space and analyze them. All the good maps, the maps worth analyzing, the maps worth seeing, are the maps that are perceived as being factual. The election maps you see are seen by its many viewers as being absolute fact. This is not always the case, sometimes these maps can be misleading or down right wrong. Maps in the early days of mapmaking were often wrong, but they were still thought to be right by the locale populous. These are both good examples of maps that although they are thought to be correct in every facet of their existence, are often times or always wrong.

Fictional maps are often not incorrect maps because of the maps themselves, but because of the data used to compile these maps, or the time at which the data was collected. If you have faulty or corrupt data to put maps together, the end result is going to be an untrue and incorrect map.
Map fact can be successfully described as correct data put into a map using all of the data correctly.

Map fiction can be described as either an incorrectly used data set, bad data used on a map, or just bad data and a bad interpretation.

There are other ways to think about fictitious maps, maps that are of places that do not exist. Such maps do not have any data sets so all of these types of maps are as accurate as can be. This is because these fictitious maps are just creations of someone’s mind and do not need any actual coordinates or number values to represent what the author wants.