Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the suggestions and the link! (it's not clickable by the way). As you say, I strongly suspect that it heavily depends on the actual data we have. But it's interesting to learn about a range of possible options. Before accepting your answer, I'll wait a bit to see what other people have to say about the issue. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @Dani No problem, and I agree that you shouldn't accept so soon. Mine isn't in any way a definitive answer and you will likely get other good ones. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1. Although posting boxplots (or other such graphical objects) can represent uncertainties, it is cartographically poor. Usually, the main point of drawing a map is to exploit gestalt visual processing to enable the viewer to see, without conscious thought or painstaking decoding, any patterns or important elements in the data. This supports your second comment about the inadvisability of separately mapping confidence limits: that clearly won't work. You are right to be cautious about transparency: my experience indicates it takes a lot of experimentation and mightn't work as intended. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday