Ideology and the Map

Three things from the reading:

1. We tend to look at not only what is emphasized on the map but what is excluded from the map.
2. Maps can be distorted to create privilege, hierarchy and clarity.
3. Maps are already a collage to some extent because of the numbers, letters and images, but the authors believe maps need more than that.

Question: When comparing the two London maps, the authors state that the second map sacrificed geographic accuracy for readability, and that the clarity of the new map is obtained through distortion. They mention that this clarity gives the map viewer a false sense of the city of London by making the city appear more organized. Do you think this is true? Is it worth the "sacrifice" to make the map easier to read?