Jump to content

 
Photo

Land Ownership over hillshade

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
Robert2009

Robert2009

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Cruces, NM
  • United States

Hello,

I am attaching a file of a watershed I worked on and would like anyone's comments on it. This is only draft and I have other watershed like this as well.

One of the thing I am trying to make the private ownership white but it's not possible. The RGB is closer to 255,255,255 so it may seem like a light grey.

My workstation has ArcMap 9.3.1.

Thanks,


Attached File  tv_ownership.jpg   832.39KB   225 downloads

#2
Hans van der Maarel

Hans van der Maarel

    CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.
  • Netherlands

I think it works well. Maybe the actual property boundaries could get a little line too, but that's a minor detail. As for private lands, have you considerd a crosshatch pattern over a neutral color?
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics

#3
Esther Mandeno

Esther Mandeno

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Santa Rosa, CA
  • United States

You want the grey part (the hillshade) to show up white where it's private property, correct?

I've never been able to do that either in ArcMap, I think, because it's a layering issue. In the past, I've just added another layer: define as just private, put it on top of everything, and then played with the transparency until the parts that are supposed to come out white look closer to white. You lose some of the detail of the hillshade, but then if you need to show the private land, then that'll make it show up closer to white.

If you figure out a better way to do it in ArcMap, let me know! :)
------
Esther Mandeno
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

#4
Dennis McClendon

Dennis McClendon

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:map design, large-scale maps of cities
  • United States

A few things:

  • It seems odd to see the county names without the county boundaries.
  • The watershed boundary doesn't need a stroke. It's just the difference between color and no color.
  • I'd add the highways, and label a few major things like White Sands NM, Holloman AFB, Ft. Bliss.
  • Why show Mescalero and Boles Acres (both little more than crossroads) but not Cloudcroft?
  • Is showing University Park rather than Las Cruces an inside joke of some kind?

Dennis McClendon, Chicago CartoGraphics
chicagocarto.com

#5
Gretchen Peterson

Gretchen Peterson

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • United States

I think this is pretty good! For the white layering you would probably have to decrease the transparency on just that one part of the layer (by making it its own layer). But as the other poster said, you lose the hillshade then. It would be nice to clip out that part of the hillshade and actually color the hillshade white but I've never tried that before!

There's some sort of issue with the town names and town points. I'd prefer to see them both the same color if possible. I can't speak to which towns you chose to display since I don't know the area. A few more layers as suggested earlier (major roads, for one) would be nice.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->