10 replies to this topic

[razornole]

I've been working on a series of maps for a book on the history of tourism in Southern Africa. Attached is a representative sample.

Does anyone find any confusion?

Programs: Arc/Illy

Thanks,
kru

Attached Files

•  Zambia_Zimbabwe2.jpg   193.75K   278 downloads

[Hans van der Maarel]

Nicely done! The parts of the Zambesi river that form the border look a bit odd to me since that dash-dot pattern is quite similar to what a railroad looks like on a Dutch (European?) map, but I understand you have limited options if you want to stick with greyscale.

[David Medeiros]

Nice work. I agree with Hans, the river/border looks a bit confusing... to me it looks like major hwy or a border only. A dash dot border pattern that does not touch the river casing may help break that up

.. _ .. _ ..

I like the locator maps but the continental map over the regional map is creating a single map illusion to me... they don't immediately appear as separate maps. Maybe moving the cintiental map to the upper left so that it's shadow casts over the regional map will help separate them.

[razornole]

Thanks for the posts.

I worry about the border, and may have to change it since my target audience is England (European). Good to know they look like trains, maybe a more traditional US border (i.e. long dash followed by a gap then a dot and repeat?).

I worry about the continental map. When separated it looks like Madagascar at first glance. I may change my shadows to a NW orientation which breaks all my general rules of cartography. I could throw it up top, but I want to keep it in eye-train. I could always use a box but hate extra elements.

thanks again,
kru

[David Medeiros]

I worry about the continental map. When separated it looks like Madagascar at first glance. I may change my shadows to a NW orientation which breaks all my general rules of cartography. I could throw it up top, but I want to keep it in eye-train. I could always use a box but hate extra elements.

thanks again,
kru

This may be a personal impression, but to my eye the lower right position for the continent puts it lower down in the hierarchy which conflicts with its position on top of the regional map. Following the natural or preferred position for the sun in terrain shading,the shadow cast to lower right looks more natural. I think putting the continent in upper left, over the region with shadow cast down and over the regional map would solve your problem and look correct in terms of hierarchy and convention.

If you do this, maybe drop Madagascar from the continental map but add it to the regional one?

[razornole]

I worry about the continental map. When separated it looks like Madagascar at first glance. I may change my shadows to a NW orientation which breaks all my general rules of cartography. I could throw it up top, but I want to keep it in eye-train. I could always use a box but hate extra elements.

thanks again,
kru

This may be a personal impression, but to my eye the lower right position for the continent puts it lower down in the hierarchy which conflicts with its position on top of the regional map. Following the natural or preferred position for the sun in terrain shading,the shadow cast to lower right looks more natural. I think putting the continent in upper left, over the region with shadow cast down and over the regional map would solve your problem and look correct in terms of hierarchy and convention.

If you do this, maybe drop Madagascar from the continental map but add it to the regional one?

Can't put Madagascar on the southern Africa map per client's request. I've gone both ways on this, not sure which I prefer, but am leaning towards the top one.

Thanks,
kru

Attached Files

•  Zambia_Zimbabwe4.jpg   199.9K   106 downloads

[David Medeiros]

Can't put Madagascar on the southern Africa map per client's request. I've gone both ways on this, not sure which I prefer, but am leaning towards the top one.

Thanks,
kru

Both are an improvement IMO. What I was actually describing was a version with the continental map slightly over the regional one (just covering the corner of Angoloa with the shadow clearly on top of the regional map). This might require moving the regional to the east a bit.

If you're not showing Madagascar on the regional map than you might as well remove it from the continental one as well.

I just realized you're not using river casing here. The dark line is river the inner lighter gray is the boarder? Where the border is over the river it looks like the dark would be border on a cased light gray river. I wonder if doing the river cased with a thinner, tighter dash dot border would clean up the confusion? Is the river at this scale large enough that you could digitize its true shape?

[razornole]

Can't put Madagascar on the southern Africa map per client's request. I've gone both ways on this, not sure which I prefer, but am leaning towards the top one.

Thanks,
kru

Both are an improvement IMO. What I was actually describing was a version with the continental map slightly over the regional one (just covering the corner of Angoloa with the shadow clearly on top of the regional map). This might require moving the regional to the east a bit.

If you're not showing Madagascar on the regional map than you might as well remove it from the continental one as well.

I just realized you're not using river casing here. The dark line is river the inner lighter gray is the boarder? Where the border is over the river it looks like the dark would be border on a cased light gray river. I wonder if doing the river cased with a thinner, tighter dash dot border would clean up the confusion? Is the river at this scale large enough that you could digitize its true shape?

I decided to stick with the one on top. I don't like the blending of the greys when I slightly cover Angola.
It's not my first tangle with Madagascar, and won't be the last. I want it on the continent so that people may realize when she refers to Southern Africa, she is not including Madagascar (some do but not her).

Yes the river is very braided and wide before the plummet, and would look great digitized or areal data. Same could be said with the cities (areal vs point), but she wants to keep cost down, and I told her this was one way to help reduce the cost.

Thanks for your help,
kru

[19° norte]

I'd suggest to draw the country border on a parallel line to the river (either N or S). IMHO it always will look confusing if it's right on the river.

The rest looks fine to me.

Just my 2 centavos...

[MapMedia]

I like it - well done. The dashed river is not something I was expecting, unless you have a description that the dashed mean river miles, or something, otherwise if you want to make it prominent, choose another method. Even at that scale, maybe draw the river as a shape, to include its variable width etc. Also an arrow on the major hwy pointing to Harrarre might help 'place' the inset better? The bypass on the river, which is not dashed is a little mysterious. Also, instead of showing the business routes around the two major cities, maybe show the city footprint, shaded area?

Great job!! Chris

[AndyM]

Really like the map!

Like several others, I was going to suggest making this a double-line river. Looking at GoogleEarth, yes, it's wide enough (at least above the falls) that a boundary symbol running through it might work.

Another convention that can work is to omit boundary symbols where they coincide with rivers -- let the river carry the boundary. You could try making one larger country label each for Zambia and Zimbabwe, more centered within the extent of each country; then at several places along the river you could add much smaller labels (same colour and font) in pairs directly opposite each other. Same idea as this, but following the shape of the river ...
Minnesota/Iowa Then you wouldn't need your existing smaller country labels.

The ownership of the "island" within the river braid could either be left ambiguous, or you could run part of a small "ZIMBABWE" label into the island, just 1 or 2 letters, and perhaps delete the river where it passes under the label. (see attached?)


Also, for the locators, have you tried making a wider drop shadow for the larger one and/or a narrower one for the smaller?

Andy

[Edit: just realized the Minnesota/Iowa URL doesn't include the zoomed extents. Adding (hopefully) as an attachment]

Attached Files

•  boundary_labels.jpg   51.81K   52 downloads
•  minnesota_iowa.jpg   120.7K   46 downloads