Yes Nick, start the Corner piece. You should have something posted here by about 3AM. I've been slogging through it on and off all day. I did find the things that I could understand interesting.
I liked the idea that maps are instruments that influence perceptions of place, that they carry a force. I also like the idea of maps as layered, multidimensional readings as opposed to static empirical documents. This speaks to the discussion about using technology in a less representational manner, not just to get bus schedules. However, mapping data like atmosphere is somewhat like mapping buses, it suggests a temporal diagram, one that is constantly shifting.
A map of the atmosphere would certainly begin to embody the thematic concepts discussed in the Corner piece, namely that of 'rhizome' (a map that burrows and extends?). Acting as an underlay for other urban characteristics, socio-political data in particular, it also begins to explore layering and the 'game-board'. Maybe we are the 'drift'.
I think one of the most exciting things is to really look at mapping as a creative activity, even though it is suggested that 'objective analysis' not be abandoned for 'free-form subjectivity', I'll push for it anyway.