5 replies to this topic

[David Medeiros]

Do you consider a watershed a "natural feature" like a river or dessert? Or would you consider it more a designation of a natural system?

The issue at hand is whether to italicize watershed labels on a watershed map where the mabel highlights the primary focus of the map, each watershed. I usually italicize natural features but almost never italicize a label that is supposed to be a primary label on the map.

I'm leaning towards watershed is a designation we give a natural system or phenomenon, and not a specific natural feature and could be labeled apart from other natural feature on a map.

[Bryan Swindell]

I agree - we never italicize watershed labels, just the streams/rivers that fall within them. We will also typically use some sort of halo (solid or feathered) on watershed labels, as well as a little bit of character spacing.

[SouthernCross]

Watersheds are not necessarily hard-and-fast natural features so no I wouldn't give them that type of designation; they are interpreted by man. As for the labeling, I would probably use non-italics with a transparecy so it fades into the background, especially if there is a lot going on besides the watersheds. I would be opposed to too much haloing here and may even label them similarily to how I would label townships or counties.

On another note, you COULD try and use italics. My reasoning is that watersheds do not follow linear lines (they shouldn't) and are mostly irregular, therefore italics MAY be aesthetically pleasing. Of course, you need to take into account on how you are labeling your other features (i.e. drainage features) so not to confuse the person using the map. I would not use a font such as Times New Roman though, as that is generally reserved more for physical drainage features.

What software are you using?

[razornole]

I agree - we never italicize watershed labels, just the streams/rivers that fall within them. We will also typically use some sort of halo (solid or feathered) on watershed labels, as well as a little bit of character spacing.

I wouldn't consider them a feature. I think that italics would actually add a bit of confusion. After all the watershed itself is a bit arbitrary (HUC 8 vs 12 or 14 or 16 etc...)

kru

[David Medeiros]

I agree - we never italicize watershed labels, just the streams/rivers that fall within them. We will also typically use some sort of halo (solid or feathered) on watershed labels, as well as a little bit of character spacing.

I wouldn't consider them a feature. I think that italics would actually add a bit of confusion. After all the watershed itself is a bit arbitrary (HUC 8 vs 12 or 14 or 16 etc...)

kru

In this case the watersheds are being labeled with their names, not the HUC category, but to me it's the same... this is not a physical feature but a designation. Thanks for the replies, I just needed to be sure I wan't totally off base here.

[Soocom1]

Let put in my two cents worth here: I personally think it is relevant to the map itself. If the watershed is simply a happenstance in the general sense, then I would say no. But if in other conditions where it becomes relevant for other reasons, (topological relationship, identifier, spatial feature, etc.) then I would say defiantly, along with a specific hachure.
In my specific case, the watershed needs to be shown because of its relevance to roads and placement of specific buildings. (Gila River AZ is one such place), the surrounding Reservations and their infrastructure all interact with the watershed area, but the area is extremely arid. Thus, there is very little actual water. But buildings, dams and roads are built to avoid such areas.
Personally, I would prob. Use a standard Italicized lettering that is the same as the river label, but make it brown with a “WS” or “Water Shed” suffix attached. But that’s just me.