Landmarks are Exaggerated

Abstract

In this discussion essay, I contend that the role of landmarks is exaggerated in basic and applied spatial cognition research. Specifically, I discuss empirical and theoretical arguments consistent with two claims. First, the word landmark is a label for several different concepts, although its precise reference in a particular context is rarely specified carefully. Further, whether specified or not, researchers never use the term landmark to mean everything that the concept can legitimately mean. Thus, when researchers assert something about the role of landmarks in spatial cognitive activities, they exaggerate their particular meaning at the expense of a broader ontology. Second, I claim that even when landmarks are clearly and precisely defined, their role in specifying location is misunderstood and less fundamental than proposed. In exaggerating landmarks, other important components of spatial knowledge, memory, and reasoning are undervalued. Taken together, these two claims support my contention that landmarks are exaggerated in spatial cognition.