Seriously, the claims aren't that had to understand, even though they're drafted in legalese that intentionally obscures how trivial the "invention" is.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the patent are broad enough that they very well could capture a chloropleth map. After all, a chloropleth map is really just a bunch of "cells" (regions) that you're assigning visual cues (colors) to based on a value they're associated with.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the finer dependent claims would meet the threshold of patentability, but the broader claims are obvious to anyone who's done more than dabble in Excel VBA.
IANAL (thank God), but FWIW I have taken IP law courses at one of the top two law schools in the country.