I'm tasked with performing a number of corrections on several maps. I did not make the original maps.
One of these maps, featuring a fairly large city, has a total of 96 numbered locations on it. Public buildings, landmarks etc. Now, the corrections I have received call for removal of 2 of these locations... #87 and... #3
So... what do you all think... renumber or not? (they're grouped by type, so I can't simply take #96 and call it #3)
Numbering dilemma
Started by
Hans van der Maarel
, May 07 2009 06:13 AM
6 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 07 May 2009 - 06:13 AM
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
#2
Posted 07 May 2009 - 06:41 AM
If there is an index that goes along with it (which I assume there is - how else would you know what's what) than I would renumber them. Go thing its only 96 and not 200 or 400.
#3
Posted 07 May 2009 - 07:02 AM
If there is an index that goes along with it (which I assume there is - how else would you know what's what) than I would renumber them. Go thing its only 96 and not 200 or 400.
Yes, there is an index, which would make it more obvious if one of the numbers is missing...
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
#4
Posted 07 May 2009 - 07:48 AM
Okay, I just figured out that if I turn it into a Mapublisher layer, I can actually use the expression builder to change the text value, so that would take care of the renumbering of the map...
I wish I knew about this before...
I wish I knew about this before...
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
#5
Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:43 AM
. . . . before you actually did it manually? I'm sure that's happened to all of us at sometime.
#6
Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:22 AM
. . . . before you actually did it manually? I'm sure that's happened to all of us at sometime.
Oh, I didn't do it manually yet for this particular one, but there's been many previous occasions (though not with the need to renumber so many locations)
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics
#7
Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:50 PM
This would happen frequently on CSAA maps with school numbering or in our heavily numbered recreation indexes. If there were only a few changes I'd leave the numbers alone, the gaps help to absorb additions later on. In fact we often build number gaps into large numbered indexes so that every new group would start on the next multiple of 10 (if that makes any snese).
The issue here is that the numbers are not ordinal, they help to locate the feature but don't add a value or sequnce to the feature so it doesn't matter if there are gaps.
dave
The issue here is that the numbers are not ordinal, they help to locate the feature but don't add a value or sequnce to the feature so it doesn't matter if there are gaps.
dave
GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.
www.mapbliss.com
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Sign In
Create Account

Netherlands
Back to top
Canada
United States








