Taken in light of our earlier discussion of mapping, especially the way in which “traditional” maps dictate space, I can start to conceive of something of a theoretical loop in regards to human activity / interaction and maps. If, as de Certeau states, “ stories have the function of spatial legislation”(122), and then these stories “‘go in procession’ ahead of social practices in order to open a field for them,” then how to reconcile this with earlier discussions (was is Cosgrove or Corner?) that place the map ahead of activity. What I am trying to get is the idea of a feedback loop whereby people define space through their narrative understanding (de Certeau’s citing of itinerary), giving rise to an official map that then consumers these story tellers, only to have people come after and layer new narratives (new maps) onto these maps, returning them to the realm of the common language. Taken together these ideas for me create a fertile ground for meaning to be constantly redefined with relation to the “official” and informal creation of space. That and the part about bridges was gnarly.