It is interesting to think about some of the issues introduced by Cosgrove in light of our current investigation of Venice. On the one hand, the conventional use of mapping as a tool capable of “social efficacy and disruptions,” as well as definition of socio-territorial entities becomes pertinent as we examine the set boundaries of Venice both as an island as well as a mainland city, both of which with rather arbitrary delineations. With the consideration of Venice as a coastal city, Cosgrove directly addresses some of the concerns that we must consider in our representation of the region. As Cosgrove asserts, “an implicit claim of mapping has conventionally been to represent spatial stability, at times to act as a tool in achieving it.” He continues: “all coasts [are] in fact zones rather than lines—the unstable space between high and low water in tidal zones.” In our discussions of Venice, his point has become clear. Mapping and defining a continually shifting boundary—or coastline—poses a problem; and the question is raised as to whether we want to impose spatial stability on an inherently unstable system. In turn, this dilemma exemplifies the “questions of representation and reality” that Cosgrove identifies and which we now face as we choose which information to present and with what graphic language in which to do so. Luckily, these questions allow for a stimulating exercise as we seek to utilize mapping in its most generative capacity.