← Back to the map
Method · vocabulary · sources

Method & reading.

A short vocabulary for keeping the route archive careful, provisional and open to correction. Counter-cartography is not a style; it is a practice with obligations.

Vocabulary

Counter-map
A map that argues with inherited cartography. It can show delay, care, uncertainty, sound, memory and relation, not only lines and places. Counter-maps are not corrections of errors; they are challenges to the authority that decides what counts as mappable.
Border time
The lived duration of crossing. Waiting, paperwork, negotiation, heat, fatigue and uncertainty are part of the border. The official map shows a line; the border-time map shows everything the line is made of.
Living archive
An archive corrected by use. It keeps process, gaps, permissions and returns visible rather than hiding them behind polish. A living archive is accountable to the conditions of its making.
Derive
A walking and drifting method from Situationist practice (Debord, 1958). Here it becomes slower, collective and accountable to the conditions of the road: consent, language, border time, fatigue and relation cannot be aestheticised away.
Become the road
A method for refusing the road as backdrop. The road acts on bodies, time, documents, vehicles, weather and relation. The archive should show that agency rather than treating the road as scenery for the travellers passing through it.
Decolonial method
A discipline of refusal, return and situated knowledge. It asks what should not be extracted, who can interpret a fragment, and what the archive owes back. Harley (1989) showed that the map itself is an instrument of colonial power; decolonial cartography makes that visible.
Route trace
A record of movement. Useful only when paired with context: who travelled, when, under what conditions, and what could not be recorded. An uncontextualised GPS trace is not evidence of understanding.
Consent note
A small ethical log attached to every fragment. Six possible states: public, private, anonymised, verify, return or delete. The consent inventory is not completed in Lagos; it begins at the first capture.
Cartographic silence
What the map refuses to show. Harley called these silences as important as what is depicted: the communities omitted, the labour erased, the violence smoothed into infrastructure. The field archive should name silences rather than filling them with speculation.
Five registers
The five modes of knowing the road. Field capture; counter-cartography; consent and care; listening; assembly and editorial. Each register produces a different kind of fragment and demands a different kind of attention. The archive holds all five in relation.

Field method

The daily practice asks for five fragment types. No day requires all five. The incomplete day is not a failure; it is evidence of the road's conditions.

Counter-cartography is not a separate task. It happens whenever a traveller annotates the official route line with waiting time, shade, hospitality, repair, fatigue, sound or a refusal to pass through a place without acknowledging it. Kitchin and Dodge (2011) argue that maps are practices, not objects: this project takes that seriously.

The field method draws from participatory cartography (Iconoclasistas, 2006), radical geography (Bunge, 1968), the atlas tradition (Mogel & Bhagat, 2007; kollektiv orangotango, 2018) and critical cartography theory (Harley, 1989; Crampton & Krygier, 2009). The practice is collective. The method is correctable.

The five fragment types
F1
Photograph

Place, person (with consent), texture, infrastructure, sky. Caption required: place, date, conditions, consent status.

F2
Sound note

Ambient, voice, music, machine, silence. Duration at least 30 seconds. Note what is not audible as well as what is.

F3
Map annotation

Waiting time, shade, crossing conditions, informal economies, corrections to the estimated route. Hand-drawn or digital.

F4
Written observation

Two sentences maximum, dated, with place and conditions. Mark uncertainty explicitly. Do not turn transit into comprehension.

F5
Short video

30 seconds or less. No narration required. Consent for any identifiable people. Not every day requires this.

Consent inventory

Each fragment should carry a consent note from the moment of capture. The editorial work at Lagos begins from that consent inventory, not from a selection of the most compelling images. The six possible states are listed below.

Public

Fragment can be published as collected. No further action needed.

Private

Fragment belongs in the notebook only. Not for the shared archive or any publication.

Anonymise

Remove or obscure identifying details before any use. Document what was removed.

Verify

Check with the source, the community or a relevant person before any use. Record the check.

Return

Send the fragment back to the person or place before or instead of publishing. This may mean the fragment is never public.

Delete

Remove from the archive entirely. The deletion is itself a record: note when, why and by whom.

How to contribute

The shared archive is built from contributions made through the route companion. You need an account to contribute. All contributions are private by default and only become public when you choose to publish them.

01
Sign in

Use the sign-in link to create an account with your email address. You will receive a magic link; no password required.

02
Capture or write

Use the photograph, voice memo or field log tools on any stop page. Contributions are saved to your private archive first.

03
Add a consent note

Before publishing, mark each fragment: public, private, anonymised, verify, return or delete. This step is not optional.

04
Publish to the shared map

Set visibility to Published to add your fragment to the shared route map. Other contributors and, eventually, the public will be able to see it.

05
Review and correct

You can return to any contribution, change its visibility, update the context or delete it entirely. The archive should stay correctable.

If you are contributing sound or images that include other people, consent must be clear before you publish. If consent is uncertain, keep the fragment private or mark it Verify.

Sources

  1. 1958Debord, G. Théorie de la dérive. Internationale Situationniste #2. The foundational derive method.
  2. 1974Lefebvre, H. La production de l'espace. Anthropos. Space as social production, not neutral container.
  3. 1989Harley, J. B. 'Deconstructing the Map.' Cartographica 26(2). The map as power, silence and political argument.
  4. 2007Mogel, L. & Bhagat, A. (eds). An Atlas of Radical Cartography. Journal of Aesthetics and Protest Press. Ten counter-maps, ten essays.
  5. 2009Crampton, J. W. & Krygier, J. 'An Introduction to Critical Cartography.' ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 4(1).
  6. 2011Kitchin, R. & Dodge, M. Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Routledge. Maps as practices and processes, not objects.
  7. 2018kollektiv orangotango (ed.). This Is Not an Atlas: A Global Collection of Counter-Cartographies. Transcript Verlag. Forty-plus counter-cartography projects worldwide.
  8. 2026Invisible Borders. Open Call Marrakech-Lagos 2026. Official project page and application materials.
  9. 2022UNCTAD. Trans-Saharan Road Corridor: Towards an Economic Corridor. Infrastructure context, not the artistic centre of the proposal.

A note on the prototype

“Do not make the city a prologue. Let it interrupt the journey before it begins.”

Field rule · Counter-Atlas of the Road · this prototype

This companion is a prototype built in application context. The route data is an estimate derived from the official Marrakesh-to-Lagos corridor. It should not be presented as the confirmed itinerary of any particular expedition. The final route belongs to the collective, the road and the people encountered along it.

The five registers, the consent inventory and the field method are proposals, not rules. They are open to correction, revision and refusal. That openness is the point.