This is what a regular astrocartography map looks like in terms of the line display. These lines show where the ten planets would fall on the Asc, MC, and their opposite points -the Desc, and IC. While these lines are the most important or immediate, they only show part of the whole picture.
This is what a full aspect astrocartography map looks like in terms of the line display. These lines show where the ten planets would fall on the Asc, MC, Desc, and IC and all legitimate aspects to them(the trine, square, sextile, quincunx, and semi-sextile). The opposition aspect in astrocartography is fulfilled by the Desc or IC which are the opposite points of the Asc and MC. The result is way too many lines -unless one zooms up the map to focus on a specific area or country.
This is what a full aspect astrocartography map of Europe looks like in terms of the line display. While the lines are clearer, there are still too many of them.
Only if one zooms up considerably further are the full aspect lines manageable in terms of interpretation.
Here is a whole sign map showing the signs or houses(same thing) as colored zones with the MC lines or sectors in the background. Much nicer, isn't it? I view the MC rows as columns or support beams for the more important Ascendant fields.
The problem with whole signs is that you can't get specific like you can with the degree lines. That's the whole conundrum about astrology and astrolocality in particular -do we use the signs or the lines(or both). Also, should we include the MC lines or treat the MC as a planet?
Untill we know for sure, it's wise to adopt a balanced approach. Use whole signs for a bird's eye view of things and use the degree lines as focus or strength points. Personally, I like to use only Ascendant lines and treat the MC as a planet(see below). You will note that both the Ascendant and Midheaven lines and their aspects are included in the map. This way all twelve factors in the birth chart are represented as lines.
back to main