7 replies to this topic

[A. Fenix]

Hello everyone,

Here is another map for you to take apart, gently The analysis and map were done in the hopes that they could raise awareness about the perils of a pipeline spill over a Copper River Tributary, and the potential need to revise current response times in light of a potential spill.

as always, any and all feedback (criticisms and compliments) welcome here!

analisa

Attached Files

•  TAPS_augSpill2.jpg   1.36MB   233 downloads

[Hans van der Maarel]

Hello everyone,

Here is another map for you to take apart, gently The analysis and map were done in the hopes that they could raise awareness about the perils of a pipeline spill over a Copper River Tributary, and the potential need to revise current response times in light of a potential spill.

as always, any and all feedback (criticisms and compliments) welcome here!

analisa

First of all, very nice-looking map. I do have a number of comments though...

• The borders (both the watershed boundary and the US/Canada border) are shown with a very thick line. I think it would look better with a thinner one. Especially the watershed boundary can be done a lot thinner since you also grey out the area outside the watershed. The border around the inset map could be a bit thinner too (I mistakenly identified the lines connecting the inset map with the main map as boundaries of some sort)
• In the overview map, it's pretty hard to distinguish the watershed. Maybe you can use a more prominent line for the boundary there.
• The color ramp in the ocean (or rather, the lack thereof) is probabely a JPG artifact. Do keep an eye on that when you export it for web use.
• Some of the text labels don't really flow well (Tazlina River in the inset map, for example). Also, there's a "CANADA" inside the US... You can also consider using a different (sans-serif) font for some or all of the types of labels in there.
• Lose the zig-zag legend entry for roads (let me guess... Arc***?) and make a straight one.

Hope this helps.

[MapMedia]

Wow! That's awesome. Very nice work, and what a great piece of information. Its looks like a lot of thought and preparation went into it.

Ok, as far as comments, I agree with Hans' list and would add the following:

1. Placename labels are running parallel to latitude (?), but I don't see the lines. Otherwise, make them straight.
2. Topography is quite nice. Snow and ice elevations seem to be more opaque than mid elevations, to my eye.
Also, maybe shade out watershed with white opacity and let a revised watershed boundary do more work. This would give more 'eye-pull' to the colorful spill travel time line.
3. Watch for covering placenames with callouts. If you can't avoid conflict, then removed placename. IMHO
4. On Alaska / watershed locator map, can you add the wateshed?
5. On the river mouth, there is a disconnect between the travel-time model layer and the surface hydrology - I see blue lines at the mouth with separate yellow lines next to them.
Why were they not included in the model? Did you use a water polygon layer to account for river mouth hydrology? Also, at the river mouth, left of Kushtaka Lake, is that water flowing
uphill (to the east)? Somethings to look at / tidy up.
6. Possibly move the center of the background ocean radial-fill into the watershed so you give a pseudo-bathymetric effect: lighter blue near coast and contours around coast.
7. In the 'about the map' box, possibly use Sentence case and include (I would like to know) what time of year the river flow data represent (spring, summer, fall). You mentioned 1949-2004
data spread, but limited to fast flowing criteria - so it sounds like a fast-moving threshold was used - do tell. Also, any space to include a small reference to ESRI travel-time analysis function(s) used?
8. Last one! I like the color ramp of the travel-time line, though it might be more informative to use a two or three color ramp, where early, mid, later travel-time phases can be easily identified.

Was tidal influence at the mouth accounted for in the travel time model? I guess so if you were using river gages, etc.

Above are suggestions. I think you have done an excellent job. Thanks for sharing!!

Chris

[byzantium]

Very nicely crafted map and a worthy project. I suspect mapping anything that shows a lot of Alaska is harder than your average state due to the vastness and proximity to the pole.

There's something about the watershed boundary that overwhelms me. But perhaps you have a good reason for making it most dominant. I would vote for making the spill and the pipeline more dominant than the watershed edge.

Is that snow or clouds in the overview map? I'm guessing snow, but it seems like it obscures discerning the watershed. I would like to see the overview map lightened a little bit.

The special effects on the lakes seem too compressed and not synchronized to the reflectivity of the ocean. For instance, the lakes on the lower left have dark blue while the ocean in the inner Sound is very light. If you are going for the NPS realistic style like you are seeing Alaska from a satellite, that gradient and/or dark-to-light radial approach doesn't work for me.

There seems like some visual confusion between the "edge-of-glacier" dashed lines and streams. Is the dashed line for glacial edge a standard I just am not familiar with? I don't like the dashed line for several reasons: 1) I think for some people will remind them of an intermittent stream; 2) it conflicts with the apparent goal of making a realistic-looking map view ala Google Earth or NPS realism style.

While the in-river spill color treatment works very well for me, it seems sort of incongruous that the yellow oil spill just stops at the ocean interface. Is there any point or benefit to making it diffuse out to sea? It would add drama and not be unrealistic.

Do you need the island names in the Sound?

There's something funky about the dash pattern of the zoom box. It seems like the dash frequency is different in the box than in the leader lines heading out.

All in all, it is a very fine map which works quite nicely already. I think you are well on the way to creating an excellent product. Thanks for sharing your work. I'd certainly be curious how much time this has taken you to date.

bb

[A. Fenix]

Thank you for the helpful comments everyone! I am incorporating many of your suggestions to the map now. To answer MapMedia's statement

7. In the 'about the map' box, possibly use Sentence case and include (I would like to know) what time of year the river flow data represent (spring, summer, fall). You mentioned 1949-2004 data spread, but limited to fast flowing criteria - so it sounds like a fast-moving threshold was used - do tell. Also, any space to include a small reference to ESRI travel-time analysis function(s) used?

The flow data is from the month of August, which is when the river has the most discharge. As for how long it took me to get to this point.... it took some time! Especially since we kept going back and forth on what month to use, and how to account for changes in river flow based on topography, etc. (where there were not gage station data present). Admittedly, I didn't have as much time to work on the map as I would have liked. It's wonderful to be able to present work that i'm almost satisfied with and get back such useful suggestions. I can't express how much I love this forum!

ok, enough of the gushy stuff... Thanks again... and I'll post my revised map soon...

a

[Matthew Hampton]

Excellent map.

I think the other comments about cartography are good and the only thing I would offer is the that the gradient for the ocean is a bit off (same for the lake gradients). I see this in a lot of maps lately and perhaps it's bugging me more than it should - but I tend to think that gradients in water are an attempt to show water depth (the poor cartographer's bathymetry) and as such, they should darken subtly from the coast (not at random points).

As for the content - I am curious to know what a containment site looks like and it's relationship to the pipeline/safety of the environment. From your icon - they seem like they would be dirty, nasty spots - are they also important in controlling spills?

It seems like you are asking the map viewer to find significance in the 6-hour response time and the 6-hour contamination traveltime (as opposed to the 4, 8, 12, etc. time intervals). I might eliminate (or decrease the size) of the other time/distance callouts to help the viewer focus more on the significance of the response time. It would also be great to correlate how much destruction a 6-mile reach of oil contamination would cause (i.e. 10 redds per mile, 2,000 eggs per redd = 120,000 eggs potentially destroyed or something).

Next you could rank the containment sites by the reponse time (low, medium, high) to show a need for revision.

[A. Fenix]

As for the content - I am curious to know what a containment site looks like and it's relationship to the pipeline/safety of the environment. From your icon - they seem like they would be dirty, nasty spots - are they also important in controlling spills?

great question matthew. from what i've been told, each one has a different actual appearance since it depends on what type of containment method (http://en.wikipedia....ng_an_oil_spill) they would use at a particular site. i chose this symbol precisely because it looks "dirty, nasty" hoping that this would suggest a place where oil would be corralled by various methods.

i just got back from a mini-vacation..now back to the map!

[araki5]

Totally Awesome!! Very good work!!