I am not a cartographer or any type of a data visualization expert, but isn't the advantage of the hexagon map - the fact that it "highlights trends that are often masked by the geographical quirks of actual state boundaries" per the article - negated by hexagon county maps?
For example, California has 58 counties, but Kentucky has 120. That means that the "resolution" of the data in California is half as accurate as the data in Kentucky despite having ten times as many inhabitants and 4 times the land area.
Basically, by switching to hexagon county maps, aren't we actually amplifying the problem that hexagon state maps try to solve and making it worse, not better?
(A good article and good examples OP but I just don't personally see how the hexagon county map is an improvement, but again I am not an expert in this field)
For example, California has 58 counties, but Kentucky has 120. That means that the "resolution" of the data in California is half as accurate as the data in Kentucky despite having ten times as many inhabitants and 4 times the land area.
Basically, by switching to hexagon county maps, aren't we actually amplifying the problem that hexagon state maps try to solve and making it worse, not better?
(A good article and good examples OP but I just don't personally see how the hexagon county map is an improvement, but again I am not an expert in this field)