Very attractive, I really like the hill shading and general design.
Good choice on leaving out the Boulder Falls access, it has long been climber access, but technically "illegal". At least it was for the 14 years I lived and climbed in Boulder. I recently read on a climber's forum that a "hiker" fell and died at that access point.
I assume the mile markers are from the intersection of Broadway (36) and Canyon (119), and I'm sure if not from there that the "trip" point is well defined within the text, i.e. "All mileage starts at X." Bob D. is known for good guides, great routes and is a good fella. If only using whole mile counts maybe use "6 mi." or some such instead of "6.0".
I would say loose the scale bar. You are using mileage markers and this really is a driving map not a hiking map. If you must have a scale bar, maybe use a much smaller one, on the scale of meters or hundreds of feet, for scale from the road to the crags. A more subdued north arrow integrated with that smaller scale bar would look nice inside the inset. Think about only mile marking major parking and prominent crags. Maybe mile mark selected pullouts in the main map but indicate exact mileage where one enters and exits the inset?
Looking closer, the scale bar and the mileage points seem a bit off. Mileposts 12.0 and 11.0 look a heck of a lot closer together than 11.0 and 10.0, and seem to be less than one mile in comparison with the scale bar even accounting for road curvature. Maybe this is due to text constraints? Or maybe the "self similarity and fractal dimension" of line-work on maps (i.e. was the map used to calculate these mileages or another method)?
I can see what Mr. Hampton is speaking about concerning the roads. I don’t find it bothersome because I am intimately familiar with the area, however, unfamiliar visitors might. My suggestion would be omitting Magnolia Rd., unless the guide includes Gross Reservoir or other crags up that a way, and indicate the mileage back the Sugarloaf Rd. intersection with 119 on the main map.
This map is labeled “Upper Boulder Canyon” so I assume there will also be a map of Lower Boulder Canyon including the Elephant Buttresses, and … what else is down there? Could one smaller scale map, maybe with several insets, be more effective?
The text on this map is better than the previous, IMO. But still needs work, especially, like you said, on the inset. There is too much going on for some of the points. Granted, there has been a lot of development in the area since I moved away five years ago, but I think the major crags and classic climbs should be emphasized. Bell Buttress, Animal World, Happy Hour, Cob, Easter, Boulder Falls, etc. should be emphasized with prominent text with “lesser” crags having a diminished font or text point.
Could you rank the crags, in terms of climbs with number of stared routes, using text to create a visual hierarchy
? I believe this would reduce clutter and serve as a navigational aid. Choose the main areas with the best routes to highlight and include other areas as map space permits.
Concerning map space, the text is too dense it takes over the figure and leaves too much ground for the eye. Spreading the text throughout the map space will unfortunately cover the quality terrain you've rendered, but may be necessary. Get creative with leaders.
Hey Dan, can you tell that I’m totally jealous of your project?
Overall, I would say it is well above par for a climbing guide map as is. Think about what this map really needs to convey; there are many classic climbs
in the canyon and only a few major parking/pullout areas
relative to those climbs. Keep submitting updates!
I will be moving back to the area soon and it would be cool to meet you and do some cragging. Shoot me an e-mail if you like: patrickwild at g mail.
Edited for clarification. Yah, I was PUI. Honestly, I only had a few with dinner...