Invasive removal map
Posted 21 March 2009 - 01:44 PM
Posted 21 March 2009 - 10:56 PM
Seems to me that with all the blank space available on the map you could position the labels/text so they are not crossed by the stream. This map is nothing but dead space. Why is King County not orthogonal? Why are there park boundaries inside a park boundary? There appears to be vacant property inside the the water boundary, what ever water body that is.
On my map the parcels do not come through clear. I would think with all that available space you could easily place the legend inside the map instead of keeping it seperate.
Posted 22 March 2009 - 08:13 AM
I'm not too concerned with the white space, however I think you could add some labels to the map (e.g. streams, roads, parks, large water bodies) It may be a good idea to dissolve the parks layer, instead of having multiple parcels, unless those smaller parcels actually represent something on the ground.
I also think 11X17 is fine, the detail you are showing does not necessarily need to be in a larger format...I can read it!! If you really want more clarity, think if the buffer on the map really has to be 30'. You could symbolize the invasive areas with larger polygons, to make them clearer, but I am sure that the people who are actually removing the vegetation will know to work within the 30' vegetative buffer. Another solution would be to zoom in on the two areas that require invasive removal and show them individually with a small inset map showing the entire stream extent and the location of the two invasive areas as an inset.
Posted 22 March 2009 - 02:48 PM
I wish I could make the buffers bigger but it seemed like when I did that they started to obscure smaller/curvier segments of the creek. And as far as the margin box at the bottom goes, I felt it was necessary since this is part of a map series with other map extents - if I floated the margin info then it would have to be moved on each page to accomodate the other data, making it hard to flip through maps easily.
Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:19 PM
To me that is much more communicative. However, to me Burlington Northern is the highest on the VH. Not sure if that is what you are shooting for. With your hatch, there could be some confusion between harmful invasives and steep slope harmful invasives in the northeast, hard to tell which one it is. Not crazy about the uneven spaces on the legend.
Should you define what a steep slope is compared to a medium slope. To me that is just nominal data.
Hope that helps,
Posted 23 March 2009 - 07:08 AM
The "King County" rectangle is now very hard to discern, maybe a different colour? Also, it looks like there is some heavy aliasing going on.
Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:52 AM
I am not too sure the project warrants it - but adding some topographical indicators (hillshade or slopeshade) might help enforce the environmental landscape.
Oregon Metro - Portland, OR
Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:48 AM
Posted 23 March 2009 - 01:18 PM
For me, I always add NRCS logo and Soil Survey logos and disclamier statement on my maps. You could also put
a statement for Public use or Private use..etc. Thought I would share you a feedback.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users