A. Zierhoffer · 1929
A. Zierhoffer reviews the Geographical Society of Finland’s third Atlas of Finland, listed as published in 1925–1928; the Polish text dates its appearance to 1929 and calls it the first edition since independence, following a project begun thirty years earlier. Thorough revision reduced the atlas from 55 to 38 plates by omitting prehistory and town plans, contracting other sections, using smaller scales, and increasing map content and synthesis. Its coverage extends from physical geography to population, production, trade, transport, education, health, crime, and administration. New 1:1,000,000 maps show topography and population distribution against vegetation types, each in four sections. The reviewer discusses three methods of depicting population distribution and geographical regions defined by combining morphological, hydrographic, vegetation, and human-geographical criteria. He values the typical landscape maps and the material for regional studies, while criticizing the language map’s depiction of the extent of the Polish population and suggesting finer differentiation of vegetation types. He judges the atlas and its separately published text an exhaustive account of Finland, praises its cartographic execution, and regards it as evidence of Finnish cultural achievement and an effective means of political publicity.
Eugene van Cleef · 1930
A review of the 1925 Atlas of Finland treats the work as a whole: the atlas itself carries explanatory matter in Finnish, English and Swedish, with a separate text volume, and it replaces the 1910 French edition. The reviewers praise the four-sheet 1:1,000,000 political map, the revised 1:2,000,000 bathy-orographical, geological and surface-deposit maps, and especially the four-sheet vegetation and population map, whose seven-color detail they call admirable; they also find the small regional maps, foreign-trade maps and numerous topical maps useful. Changes from 1910 include moving statistical tables to the text volume, adding an index and trilingual contents, and increasing the total number of maps while reducing page count and map sizes. Criticism concerns English translation errors that should have been caught by native speakers, the preference for block shading over the dot method, lower paper quality, and less clean color and type register.
