Hi, I am new in the forum and I looked for a similar thread but couldn't find anything similar yet. I have a cartographic question.
There are users in my company who have lots of data in samples and they want to classify them in their respective municipalities/localities. They use maps with the limits of municipalities and they see where the samples are falling within the limits. The problem is that depending on the scale of the border map they use, some bits of samples will fall in our out of one or another locality, due to the detail level of the borders traced in different scales.
So if I have a 1:1000,000 map parts of a sample will be within municipality X while they will be out of these limits when using a 1:50,000 border map, and viceversa, for example.
The point is so far the users have been determining their own arbitrary tolerances of inclusion/exclusion when hopping from one scale to another. We'd like to unify the criteria of tolerances.
We have now maps of state borders at 1:1000,000, 1:250,000, and 1:50,000, and of municipalities at 1:250,000. I would like to make a matrix where I can determine the tolerance to be used for each scale to define whether a part of a sample falls within a certain locality or not. Moreover, users tend to combine different scales of border maps, eg. 1:1000,000 and 1:50,000 because of different reasons. So it makes it hard to define a tolerance.
For the 1:1000,000 maps they've been using 2 km of buffer/tolerance, and for 1:250,000 they use 250m. However these tolerance was defined quite arbitrarily. Is there a more cartographic or mathematical way of determining this range of inclusion of data for different scales?
I'd like to make a matrix with the sample, the minimum cartographic area for X scale, the mapping scale that users used and what tolerance they used, and a recommended tolerance to standardize their ranges.
I'd appreciate any advice or maybe bibliography or experience with this. Thanks!
Inclusion tolerance and scale
No replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users