# Impact of navigation tools on pedestrian navigation: preliminary results

Bernard Guelton

► To cite this version:

Bernard Guelton. Impact of navigation tools on pedestrian navigation: preliminary results. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, 2019, 6 (18), pp.160387. 10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.160387. hal-04887182

HAL Id: hal-04887182

https://hal.science/hal-04887182v1

Submitted on 14 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Impact of navigation tools on pedestrian navigation: preliminary results

Bernard Guelton¹,*,

¹1st Institut ACTE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

## Abstract

Since some experiments analyzed impact of navigation tools on pedestrian navigation (Ishikawa, Fujiwara, Imai & Okabe 2008; Wang & Worboys 2016) few have studied how interactive devices between mobile participants possibly transform their cognitive maps. After many years of interactive artistic experiences between participants in distant cities, the goal of the present research is a better understanding of the links between mental, instrumental and shared maps. The question is whether connected and dynamic applications renew our shared mental representations of urban spaces. We will approach the notion of mental maps (introduced by Tolman) in its individual and collective dimension with regard to the new uses created by connecting devices. The hypothesis is that new access to cartographic tools is likely to produce new kinds of individual mental representations. Method: in these preliminary results, the objective is to compare the mental maps evidenced by maps drawn after the exploration of a single urban district between 2 groups of participants: 1) group of individuals equipped simply with a passive GPS tracking tool, 2) group of individuals equipped with an urban navigation application (Google map). Measures will include: 1) comparison of landmarks hierarchies, 2) Comparison of routes traces and icons, 3) Direct comparison by distances between geographical landmarks and drawing landmarks by superposition of the two kinds of maps, 4) Relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and internal distances between drawings landmarks. We will compare the two groups relative to these measures. In these preliminary investigations, and contrary to some assumptions (Ishikawa, Wang) we cannot find obvious confirmation that pedestrian's users of Google map have worse results from cognitive mapping that others without this device.

**Keywords:** cognitive maps, navigation tools, walks, pedestrian navigation, collective representation, collective interactions

Received on 04 January 2019, accepted on 19 January 2019, published on 30 January 2019

Copyright © 2019 Bernard Guelton, licensed to EAI. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unlimited use, distribution and reproduction in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.

doi: 10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.160387

## 1. Introduction

After many years of interactive artistic experiences between participants in distant cities, the goal of the present research is to better understand the links between mental,

instrumental and shared maps. The question is whether connected and dynamic applications renew our shared mental representations of urban spaces. Since some experiments have analyzed impact of navigation tools on pedestrian navigation: (Ishikawa 2008¹ Wang 2016²), few

have studied how interactive devices between mobile participants possibly transform their cognitive maps.

First, with these preliminary results, we will focus on the use of a navigation tool, such as Google map, in comparison with users without this device.

## 2. Context: Four general backgrounds and context for the study

### 2.1. Walks as art

Mobility in art launched a very important topic in the 50s, with Guy Debord's "théorie de la dérive situationniste",

<footnote>*Corresponding author. Email:Bernard.Guelton@univ-paris1.fr</footnote>
and found many different contexts in Land art, (Robert Smithson, Hamish Fulton, Richard Long), architecture (Walkscapes, Francesco Careri³) and performance. A very good synthesis was done by Thierry Davila⁴ with *Marcher-créer, Déplacements, flâneries, dérives dans l'art de la fin du XXe siècle* in 2007. More than 10 years after, art-walking practices boomed, especially with mobile technologies devices.

## 2.2. Group artistic performances by walkers in distant cities

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Example of combined simultaneous walks and tracks between several walkers in Rio de Janeiro's Jardim Botatnico and the Jardin du Luxembourg in Paris, Fictions & interactions Team & ORBE.</figcaption></figure>

Example of combined simultaneous walks and tracks between several walkers in Rio de Janeiro's *Jardim Botatnico* and the *Jardin du Luxembourg* in Paris, in late august 2015. Walkers in each town (with different colours) create and locate photographs in their surroundings. Since the two maps of the two districts are combined in one single map, each walker arriving at the geo-localization point of photographs can see the specific photograph on his/her smartphone.

http://fictions-et-interactions.net/
http://fictions-et-interactions.net/category/ateliers/
http://fictions-et-interactions.net/en/category/workshops/

## 2.3. Space representations

During these different experiences an important question emerge: How do different kinds of navigation and interactive applications transform our representation of urban space and more significantly, our mental representation of space? How do mental images develop in an interaction situation while using connected and evolving maps? Consecutively, how do they develop, when shared? There will be new forms of entanglements between egocentric, allocentrered and distributed spaces. In these preliminary results, I'll focus only on the two first

groups: 1) with passive trackings but without any navigation tool, 2) with Google map application.

## 2.4. Mental maps

A series of experiments have highlighted the ability of organisms to use three sources of information during their moving processes, dimension, orientation and movement Through three mechanisms:

1) integration of the trajectory (based on the proprioceptive data related to body movements, see Etienne & Jeffrey (2004);

2) orientation to landmarks (highlights in the environment);

3) and geometric calculations based on spatial dimensionality (Taylor & Tversky 1992, 1996, Tom & Tversky 2012, Tversky 2003, 2004).

# 3. Fundamental questions about mental maps

In the brief overview of the issue of mental maps, we mentioned that individuals can retrospectively construct a more or less precise map of the space in which they have been moving. This does not exclude, however, a number of important problems, recalled in particular by Colette Cauvin (1999). The difficulty of dissociating "the acquisition process of cognitive maps, which leads to each individual having an image of the space concerned, which we call the "cognitive representation" from the concrete product of this representation, that is to say its "outsourcing", which we call "cognitive map" here. It reminds us, with R. Kitchin (1994), of four positions related to the cognitive representations of space: 1) they are explicit, that is, they are maps, 2) they are analogue, that is, they are like maps, 3) they are metaphors, that is, they function as if they were maps, 4) they are hypothetical constructions and are in fact a fiction practice. "To these basic questions is added the difficulty of synthesizing a set of renditions of individual map as a "single" collective map. To these questions are added 3 subsequent basic questions: 1) how to translate an urban mental map? 2) how to synthesize a set of urban mental maps? 3) how to compare the urban mental maps of two different groups of subjects?

### 3.1. How to translate an urban mental map?

Following Frédéric Roulier (2010), “We chose to obtain geographic cognitive data using the freehand sketch technique”. Often criticized since their beginnings (limits imposed by the format of the sheet, effect of graphomotor skills differences especially between social groups, cognitive barrier for old people vis-à-vis the technique ...), However, the sketches remain widely used for obtaining individuals’ cognitive space. It is true that freehand drawing has many practical advantages: It is rich in
collected information (possible expression of complex
spatial configurations), not very demanding in
explanation, light in equipment required ... Above all, the
apparent simplicity of the technique does not make it a
less reliable method than another to express the cognitive
representations of space (Cauvin et al., 1998). Nora
Newcombe (1985) states that sketch collection was
underestimated and that other collection methods were
overestimated⁶.”

## 3.2. How to synthesize a set of urban mental maps?

Typically, urban mental maps are individual. Whether
they came from drawings or interviews, the difficulty is to
synthesize a group of individuals and secondarily to
compare different group of subjects. In their study
“Aggregation issues in cognitive mapping” (1997),
Kitchin⁵ & Fotheringham have distinguished 3 kinds of
analysis: 1) The individual data sets are analysed
separately and only pooled for comparison
(disaggregation), 2) Individual data sets are averaged and
then analysed (collective aggregation); or 3) The
individual data sets are analysed and then results are
averaged (individual aggregation). We use the third type
analysis for the 3 methods presented and subsequently
compare the two groups.

## 3.3. How to compare the urban mental maps of two different groups of subjects? 4 methods are presented:

1. Comparison of landmark hierarchies

2. Comparison of route traces and icons

3. Direct comparison by distances between geographical landmarks and drawing landmarks by superposition of the two kinds of maps

4. Relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and internal distances between drawing landmarks

## 3.4. Experimental protocol

1. Choice of the urban district: Paris (north), a rich, various and heterogeneous district between 2 main railway-lines and a ring-road.

2. Choice and identity of subject groups: 2 homogeneous student groups in arts and geography.

3. Steps of the experiment: instructions, passive tracking tools, limits of the district, an hour of exploration and the place address for the drawing place.

4. Choice of the transcription of mental images by sketch maps through questionnaire.

5. Elements of the questionnaire: types of landmarks, interests, difficulties.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Urban district</figcaption></figure>

## 4. Examples from the first group drawings with 3 tendencies for the sketch maps:

1) traces & orientations, 2) landmarks, 3) sectorizations,

4) combined strategies

### 4.1. Examples of Traces & orientations

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Example of Traces & orientations</figcaption></figure>
## 4.2. Examples of Landmarks

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Example of landmarks</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Example of landmarks</figcaption></figure>

## 4.3. Examples of sectorizations

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Example of sectorizations</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. Example of sectorizations</figcaption></figure>

## 4.4. Examples of Combined Strategies

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Example of combined strategies</figcaption></figure>
## 5. Four methods of comparisons

Four methods were used to compare the group of subjects without Google maps with the group with Google Map: 1) comparison of landmarks hierarchies in sketch maps, 2) comparison of landmarks and icons, 3) direct comparison by distances between geographical landmarks and drawing landmarks by superposition of the two kinds of maps, 4) Relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and internal distances between drawing landmarks.

### 5.1. First comparison of landmark hierarchies in sketch maps and questionnaires

<table><thead><tr><th>Group 1</th><th>Group 2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1) Café Marx Dormoy, Marché</td><td>1) Marché</td></tr><tr><td>2) Place Hébert, Églises</td><td>2) Place Hébert, Églises, jardin Rachmaninov</td></tr><tr><td>3) Jardin Rachmaninov</td><td>3) Café Marx Dormoy</td></tr><tr><td>4) Rond-point Porte de la chapelle, square Robin</td><td>4) Square Seguin, square Robin</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5) Rond-point Porte de la chapelle</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Figure 9.** When we Count landmarks in sketch map for group 1 & 2, the importance of the landmarks varies from level 3, while the market place, the two churches and the *place Hébert* are common to the first 2 levels. (Frequent mentions of “buildings” and “parks” could not be counted because of the multiplicity of their locations.)

### 5.2. Example of comparison of routes and icons

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** 3 operations were used: 1) Division with a grid of 10 x 15 compartments for each sketch map, 2) Counting of traces or/and icons in each one, 3) Percentage</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Relationships between icons and route trace drawings, for group 1 & 2</figcaption></figure>
## 5.3. Example of direct comparison by distances between geographical landmarks and drawing landmarks by superposition of the two kinds of maps

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12.** Example of superposition of each sketch map with Google map at the same scale and Measurement of distances between landmarks in Google map and landmarks in sketch map</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Figure 13.** Average distance between landmarks in Google map and landmarks drawn by subjects : Example of results for group 1</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Marche</th><th>Place Hébert</th><th>Jardins Rachmaninoff</th><th>Eglises</th><th>Calis Marx Darmoy</th><th>Rond-pointe de la Chapelle</th><th>Square Seguin</th><th>Square Rubin</th><th>Place Hébert (siège de l'unité groupe 1)</th><th>Lycee (siège de l'unité groupe 1)</th><th>Nombre de repères</th><th>Somme par sujet</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1) BENIEIDIA</td><td>NADINE</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2) CANCE</td><td>PIERRE-E</td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>55</td><td></td><td></td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>3) COMES</td><td>ROMANE</td><td>24</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>4) DUHAMEL</td><td>EDOUARD</td><td>23</td><td>42</td><td></td><td>70</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>5) FLU</td><td>XIAOMIN</td><td>45</td><td></td><td></td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>6) GAUTARD</td><td>JEANNE</td><td>2</td><td>22</td><td></td><td>50</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>7) GILOT</td><td>MARIE</td><td></td><td>65</td><td></td><td>48</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>85</td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>8) GIORDANA</td><td>ZOE</td><td>30</td><td>2</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td>24</td><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>9) GRILLET</td><td>ANTONIN</td><td>34</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>10) NEMBROT</td><td>LAETITIA</td><td>70</td><td></td><td></td><td>25</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>11) NOBILI</td><td>THOMAS</td><td>22</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>12) REMADNA</td><td>MEGANE</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>35</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>13) VERNAY</td><td>LOUIS</td><td>50</td><td>2</td><td>23</td><td>40</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>14) ZAITSEVA</td><td>ANNA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>15) ZHANG</td><td>JINGZHUI</td><td>72</td><td></td><td>35</td><td>75</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td colspan="13">DISTANCE MOYENNE DES REPÈRES DU GROUPE I PAR RAPPORT AUX REPÈRES GOOGLE :<br>1398 : 56 = 24,96</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.4. Example of relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and internal distances between drawing landmarks

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14.** Measurement of distances between 6 landmarks in Google Map. Relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and internal distances between drawing landmarks</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Example of measurement of distances between the same 6 landmarks in the sketch maps of one subject</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Graph of the correlation between geographical distances in Google Map, group 1 & 2. Correlation Google distances / group 1 = 0.92, Google distances / group 2 = 0.87.

Blue = Google, red = group 1, violet = group 2</figcaption></figure>

**6. Remarks and conclusion for these preliminary results**

After a subjective categorization of drawings: 1) traces & orientation, 2) landmarks, 3) sectorizations, 4) combined strategies, we use 4 methods: - Comparison of hierarchies of landmarks, - Comparison of routes traces and icons, - Direct comparison by distances between geographical landmarks, - Relative comparison between internal distances in geographical landmarks and drawings landmarks. The 2 first methods are independent from geographical space whereas the 2 last methods are dependant from geographical space. This allows to relativize the question of whether cognitive maps are similar or not with physical maps.

The 4 methods of analysis used to compare the two
groups of subjects, (control subjects without navigation
tools and subjects using Google Map) do not show any
obvious differences.

1) The importance of the landmarks varies from level 3, while the market place, the two churches and the *place Hébert* are common to the first 2 levels.

2) Regarding the differentiation between lane tracing and the iconic representation of landmarks, tracings dominate for both groups, with a larger gap for group 1.

3) The distance between the landmarks drawn with respect to the geographical landmarks is smaller for group 1. It is therefore better, but the average difference between the two groups is not very significant (25 and 28 mm)

4) Finally, if the Pearson-Bravais type correlation between the measurements internal to the geographical space and those of the sketch map is also better for group 1 (0.92), the difference with group 2 is not so important, as it is 0.87.

So, contrary to some assumptions (Ishikawa, Wang), we
cannot find obvious confirmations that pedestrian's users
of Google Map have worse results from cognitive
mapping than others without this device. These results are
to be considered with caution, considering the small
number of subjects summoned, the experimental protocol
used and the methods envisaged. We need more
investigations to know how Google Map transform or not
our cognitive maps in comparison to users without this
device. One important possible bias is the free use of
Google Map in the exploration in the urban district, which
means that it was not necessary for participants to find
any specific address. Nevertheless, I tried to show that
beyond the fundamentally personal character of an urban
mental map, it is possible to report a set of subjects with
different methods and then to confront them with
another group. The next steps of analysis are of two kinds:
1) consolidation of the number of subjects for this first
experience, 2) comparison of these two groups with a
third group with a navigation and interactive relationship
tool experiment. The main perspective of this research is
to compare these two first groups with a third one with a
navigation tool in an *interactive situation*. The objective is
to experiment impact of navigation and interactive tool
between participants on *collective representation*. In this
perspective, three kinds of investigation will be
considered: temporalities of sharing use, temporalities of
drawing the sketch maps and temporalities of tracking
traces.

References

[1] Ishikawa, T., Fujiwara, H., Imai, O., & Okabe, A. (2008) Wayfinding with a gps-based mobile navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience. *Journal of Environnemental Psychology*, 28, 74-82.

[2] Wang, J. & Worboys, M. (2016). Pedestrian navigation aids, spatial knowledge and walkability. In *Short Paper Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of GIScience* (pp. 332-335).

[3] Careri, F., (2013) *Walkscapes, la marche comme pratique esthétique*, Ed. Jacqueline Chambon.

[4] Davila, T., (2007) *Marcher-creer, Déplacements, flâneries, dérives dans l'art de la fin du XXe siècle*, Edition du Regard.

[5] Kitchin, R., Blades, M., (2002) *The cognition of geographic space*, I. B. Tauris. P. 160-161.

[6] Roulier, F., (2013) Synthèses cartographiques des représentations mentales de l'espace, M@ppemonde 112 (2013.4) p. 1. (My translation from French)

[1] https://mappemonde-archive.mgm.fr/num40/articles/art13403.html
Bibliography

[2] CARERI, F. (2013). Walkscapes : la marche comme pratique esthétique: Editions J. Chambon.

[3] CAUVIN, C. (1999). Pour une approche de la cognition spatiale intra-urbaine. *Cybergo : European Journal of Geography*.

[4] BIHANIC, D. (2015). *New Challenges for Data Design*. Londres: Springer.

[5] DAVILA, T. (2002). *Marcher, créer: Editions du Regard*.

[6] GUELTON, B. (2018). New Entanglements between Instrumental, Shared and Mental Maps in the Exploration of Urban Space: An Experimental Project. *EAI Transactions on Creative Technologies*, 5(15), e1. https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.10-4-2018.154448

[7] GUELTON, B. (2017). (dir.) *Digital Interfaces & Mobility: Cognitive, Artistic & Game Devices*. Common Ground Publishing.

[8] GUELTON, B. (2016). Immersions in Urban Game Project: Experiments and their Cognitive Implications. *Space & Flow*, 7(4), 23-33.

[9] GUELTON, B. (2016). (dir.) *Dispositifs artistiques et interactions situées*. P.U.R.

[10] HUANG, H., SCHMIDT, M. & GARTNER, G. (2012). Spatial Knowledge Acquisition with Mobile Maps, Augmented Reality and Voice in the Context of GPS-based Pedestrian Navigation: Results from a Field Test. *Cartography and Geographic Information Science*, 39(2), 107-116.

[11] ISHIKAWA, T., FUJIWARA, H., IMAI, O., & OKABE, A. (2008). Wayfinding with a gps-based mobile navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 28, 74-82.

[12] KHATIB, A. (1958). Essai de description psychogéographique des Halles. *Internationale Situationniste*, 2, 13-18.

[13] KITCHIN, R., GLEESON, J. & DODGE, M. (2013). Unfolding mapping practices: a new epistemology for cartography. *Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers*, 38(3), 480-496.

[14] LOBBEN, A. K. (2004). Tasks, strategies, and cognitive processes associated with navigational map reading: A review perspective. *The Professional Geographer*, 56(2), 270-281.

[15] MEILINGER, T. (2008). The network of reference frames theory: A synthesis of graphs and cognitive maps. In *Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Cognition* (pp. 344-360). Berlin: Springer

[16] MUNZER, S., ZIMMER, H., SCHWALM, M., BAUS, J., & ASLAN, I. (2006). Computer-assisted navigation and the acquisition of route and survey knowledge. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 26(4), 300-308.

[17] PALSKY, G. (2010). Cartes participatives, cartes collaboratives : La cartographie comme maïeutique. *Le Monde des Cartes. Revue du Comité Français de Cartographie*, 205, 49-60.

[18] PASALA, K. S., KHAMASSI, M. & CHANDRASEKHAR, P. (2016). Variation in intuitive geometric construct of spatial perception during navigation. In *Proceedings of 2016 ANFA Conference* (pp. 128-129).

[19] QUESNOT, T. (2016). La spatialité algorithmique - Apports, limites et réductions de la personnalisation algorithmique dans l'assistance à la navigation et au wayfinding. (Ph. D. Thesis), Université Laval, Québec.

[20] QUESNOT, T. & ROCHE, S. (2015a). Measure of landmark semantic salience through geosocial data streams. *ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information*, 4(1), 1-31.

[21] ROULIER, F. (2013). Synthèses cartographiques des représentations mentales de l'espace. *Mappemonde*, 112(4).

[22] TVERSKY, B. (2001). Structures of mental spaces. In *Proceedings of 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium Atlanta* (pp. 12.1-12.5).

[23] WANG, J. & WORBOYS, M. (2016). Pedestrian navigation aids, spatial knowledge and walkability. In *Short Paper Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of GIScience* (pp. 332-335).

Acknowledgements

Thanks to ICSC 2018 – 7th International Conference on Spatial Cognition for the presentation of this paper.