354 
BAKER. 
shall we magnify the inequalities of the plains that they 
may be seen and then for uniformity exaggerate the moun¬ 
tain heights, or shall we adopt one scale of exaggeration for 
the broken and mountainous area and another for the plains 
area? Model makers have tried these three methods, so 
that actual examples may be seen and judged. The varia¬ 
ble scale is open to the objection that true proportions are 
thereby destroyed. The model, being a unit designed pri¬ 
marily to show surface irregularity, will not truly show 
these relations if relatively flat areas have their small ine¬ 
qualities magnified. 
I saw two illustrations of this change of vertical exag¬ 
geration in one model at Chicago, viz., New Jersey and 
Kentucky. The low relief of New Jersey’s borderland be¬ 
tween the seashore and the 100-foot contour was in the 
model exaggerated 33 times, between the 100 and 800 foot 
contour 16.5 times, and for the remainder of the State 11 
times. As a result the model misleads as to the relative ine¬ 
quality of surface. Of the whole State two-thirds or more 
lies below the 200-foot contour and is very flat country. In 
order that the small inequalities and very gentle slopes 
which actually exist in this area might appear, a scale of 
exaggeration was adopted to bring them out. And it suc¬ 
ceeded. They are brought out, but at the expense of accu¬ 
racy and truth of the model as a whole. It seems to me, 
therefore, that the varying vertical scale does not success¬ 
fully solve the problem of yielding the ideal map. Whatever 
scale be adopted for one part of the map, that scale should, 
in my judgment, be impartially used in all parts. 
Two alternatives are now left. If we are to embrace 
within one map a district composed in part of rough or 
mountainous country and in part of comparatively smooth 
or level country, shall we exaggerate the vertical scale to 
show the minor inequalities of the relatively flat areas and 
so greatly distort the picture of our mountain masses, or 
shall we truly portray the great mountain features and sac¬ 
rifice the flat country’s detail, or shall we compromise by 
distorting both? 
