Jump to content

 
Photo

Great Smokies NP

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
Polaris

Polaris

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Burnsville, NC
  • Interests:Making maps and data graphics!<br />Paddling<br />Hiking<br />Gardening<br />Natural Philosophy<br />Loved Ones
  • United States

Here's a clip from a current project. The project is a series of 3 publications witha total of 6 topographic map panels featuring major trout fishing watersheds in the Great Smokies National Park.

I've been meaning to put something up from this project. Thanks frax for the reminder.

Eric

Map Clip

#2
Rob

Rob

    Legendary Contributor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kailua, Hawaii
  • Interests:anything outside.
  • United States

Eric, nice and clean. my only critique is that the darker shading and some of the inter contours end up losing each other and it becomes difficult to read.

The smokeys are a fun stomping ground. sounds like a fun project to research.

cheers,

rob

#3
Matthew Hampton

Matthew Hampton

    Hall of Fame

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Playing in the mountains and rivers.
  • United States

There looks to be an artifact line (darker blue) in the middle of Lake Fontana. Is that b/c of a polygon problem?

Also, using a darker, thicker stroke on major rivers/creeks can cause some unintended problems when using line-tapering and stroked lakes/rivers - like in the upper right corner (near Sugar Fork, Pinnacle Creek, and Cove Creek).

Since the stroke is darker, and the polygon it thin - the width of the filled polygon is visually smaller than the widest stroke.

Some solutions might include keeping all of the water (rivers, creeks, lakes) fill and stroke the same color, or not stroking the polygons, or if you keep the stroked poly's then have the stroke be the same width as the widest river/creek...

It has a clean feel.

At first the yellow contours threw me off. If this area is heavily forested, you could use a (light green) for contours.

Nice job!

co-cartographic creator of boringmaps.com


#4
BEAVER

BEAVER

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Location:Middletown, NY
  • United States

The hill shading looks like what they use to draw by hand in old National Geographic maps. The contour color is the sames as shading making them almost invisible. Rivers should be more visible since it's a fishing map.


I'm glad to see someone alse is doing fishing map for a change.

#5
DaveB

DaveB

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Redlands, CA
  • United States

Nice map, but the browns and grays make it look too dry and barren for my taste.
Dave Barnes
Esri
Product Engineer
Map Geek

#6
Polaris

Polaris

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Burnsville, NC
  • Interests:Making maps and data graphics!<br />Paddling<br />Hiking<br />Gardening<br />Natural Philosophy<br />Loved Ones
  • United States

Thanks all for your critique. I am truly greatful (and greedy for more). Here are my responses (so far?).

*rob et. al. - on contour line/background color/contrast
I've been rethinking the background coloring. I want to go more toward green overall (which should help distinguish the contour lines) and try to better emphasize the distinction between valleys and hills (slope). Basically green up the valleys. It is on my list to to re-work the terrain image. One of the challenges here is that the changes that make the most sense globally (acorss the smokies) and locally (in a portion of a map panel) aren't necessarily the same. Also, I'm willing to sacrifice contour legibility in worst cases in favor of the terrain image looking how I'd like.

This project has indeed been interesting to research, and the research has resulted in some useful contacts. Unfortunately, the budget does not allow for very extensive research or any field work by me (the publisher is doing some).

*cartomat - on artifact line in lake
the blue 'artifact' line is in fact the old river channel - which I do want to show. I have it 'coded' the same as a waterbody stroke. This did come about as a matter of convenience (the old riverbed is a poly boundary in the source data), but needs to be changed - I think a dash would be appropriate.

*cartomat - on stream classification, stroke
point all well taken... my method does result in 'bugaboos' like you mentioned at the intersection of Pinnacle/Eagle Creeks, etc. On the other hand, it gives me about the right overall visual balance and hierarchy that I am looking for. I'm afraid that adopting any of your generously offered solutions would compromise this. I feel willing to live with the 'bugaboos', but perhaps they are more offensive to others than to me?

*beaver - on "Rivers should be more visible since it's a fishing map".
I couldn't agree more and I am using all the tricks I know to make the rivers stand out AMAP without gross exageration. I still want the map to look 'natural'. Any suggestions?

perhaps interesting note... the stream classifications (width/strike/fill) are based on flow accumulation derived from the terrain model. This is the first time I've done this, and I like the results overall. In the past I've used Shreve ordering, which can work o.k., but the flow accumulation method seems more realistic and is actually easier to implement.

Also, each map panel is 21.75 X 17.25 inches and the scale is 1:54,000. Each publication (including maps and info) is planned to be 18 X 30 inches (folding to 3.75 X 9). The final published size could change as the publisher is still working on the non-map content. This was supposed to be a Spring publication, but I'm past begining to wonder whether it will be delayed. Here's a link to a scaled down image of the whole panel that the prvious clip was clipped from.

Eage/Hazel Panel

Thanks again,

Eric

#7
Matthew Hampton

Matthew Hampton

    Hall of Fame

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Playing in the mountains and rivers.
  • United States

I think adding a lovely hypsometric tint and lowering the visual level of the contours (.2-.4 pt) might put the icing on this.

I think flow accum. is the way to go and gives the map more (scientific) information than Shreve.

After looking at the whole panel - it seems that there are several shades of contours (base data?). There seems to be a yellowish center, a greenish southern region and a paler outside. I like the greenish tint (but then again I'm from the NW where it's always green). Do the tints identify certain areas?

How come the wide, semi-transparent green boundary on the left-center doesn't extend across the map. My eyes want to see it extended if the boundary designation is the same across the lake.

co-cartographic creator of boringmaps.com


#8
Polaris

Polaris

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Burnsville, NC
  • Interests:Making maps and data graphics!<br />Paddling<br />Hiking<br />Gardening<br />Natural Philosophy<br />Loved Ones
  • United States

>>adding a lovely hypsometric tint
there is already a hypsometric tint in the image - along with an illumination glow, slope darkening, hillshade, etc.... I've even blurred the hillshade in the low slope areas for some of that 'aerial perspective' effect... mebbee too complicated, but it all seems to work. I've been playing with the image and adjusting the hypso tint is giving the best results - though I initially thought that I could 'green up' the low slope areas, it is working better to green up the low elevation areas.

>>lowering the visual level of the contours (.2-.4 pt)
well, the minor contours are already a hairline (0.25 pt), and the major contours are at 0.4 pt, so not much room to maneuver there

>>>After looking at the whole panel - it seems that there are several shades of contours (base data?). There seems to be a yellowish center, a greenish southern region and a paler outside. I like the greenish tint (but then again I'm from the NW where it's always green). Do the tints identify certain areas?

the areas outside the featured watersheds are lightened and desaturated, there is also a green tint over forest service lands south of the lake... the yellowish center is probably due to the hypso tint?

>>>How come the wide, semi-transparent green boundary on the left-center doesn't extend across the map. My eyes want to see it extended if the boundary designation is the same across the lake.

The park boundary is comprised of the greenish tint and a darker dashed line - I extended the line across the lake, but not the greenish tint - this may be a bit confusing, but I don't like the looks of the tint across the lake and, visually, the lake itself emphasizes the park boundary. Am I wrong about this one?

I'll post an update when I get around to propagating these changes through the setup for these maps. There is no urgency right now as I am waiting (and waiting) on the the client at this point.

eric

#9
Martin Gamache

Martin Gamache

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Topographic Cartography
    Topographic Mapping
    History of Relief Depiction
    Thematic Cartography
    Demographic Cartography
    Cartographic techniques, methods, and tools
    Orienteering
    Panoramic &amp; Kite Photography
  • United States

Here is a Swiss solution to this problem. although scale is 1:200,000 it may work at 1:50k too.

Attached File  Leman.jpg   371.77KB   344 downloads

#10
Polaris

Polaris

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Burnsville, NC
  • Interests:Making maps and data graphics!<br />Paddling<br />Hiking<br />Gardening<br />Natural Philosophy<br />Loved Ones
  • United States

Martin -

An elegant solution and a beautiful sample map. I may give this a try. Thanks!

#11
Matthew Hampton

Matthew Hampton

    Hall of Fame

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Playing in the mountains and rivers.
  • United States

leave it to the Swiss...

co-cartographic creator of boringmaps.com


#12
JoeFred

JoeFred

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • United States

Here's a clip from a current project. The project is a series of 3 publications witha total of 6 topographic map panels featuring major trout fishing watersheds in the Great Smokies National Park.

I've been meaning to put something up from this project. Thanks frax for the reminder.

Eric

Map Clip


Eric, the link to your clip doesn't appear to be working.

JF

#13
razornole

razornole

    Legendary Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ozark Plateau, Arkansas
  • Interests:Photography, Cartography, Down-river canoeing, Backpacking, Cross country biking, Geomorphology, Ornithology, Ecology, Quaternary, and last but first; drinking beer on the beach.
  • United States

Here's a clip from a current project. The project is a series of 3 publications witha total of 6 topographic map panels featuring major trout fishing watersheds in the Great Smokies National Park.

I've been meaning to put something up from this project. Thanks frax for the reminder.

Eric

Map Clip


Eric, the link to your clip doesn't appear to be working.

JF


I second that.

kru
"Ah, to see the world with the eyes of the gods is geography--to know cities and tribes, mountains and rivers, earth and sea, this is our gift."
Strabo 22AD




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->