20 replies to this topic

[David Medeiros]

Ok, something new from me finally. This is a trail and recreation reference map to Koke’e State Park on the island ok Kauai. The map is roughly 23” x 21” and intended to be used as a GeoPDF with the Avenza PDF maps app.

The map was built using Adobe Illustrator, MAPublisher and Natural Scene Designer utilizing data available from the Hawaii State GIS program. The terrain was built using Tom Patterson’s methods for “value-enhanced” shaded relief. Its primary purpose is as a trail and park reference map for use in GPS enabled iPhones and iPads.

I’m not finished, of course, but I think it’s ready for evaluation and input. Things I know I need to look at are: contour label distribution; Insertion of proper Hawaiian diacritical marks (‘okina); fill minor geographic features where appropriate; double check styles are uniform; check spelling.

Things I’m curious about are how people find the contour and shading to work. This is a trail map so I decided to use both. Not sure on the relief color or darkness. Contours look great in AI but when converted to PDF they have tendency to show up as more prominent at larger zoom levels. I may need to adjust their line weights accordingly. I will probably add some other notes to particular portions of the map to spell out certain restrictions or hazards.

Below are a few screen shots. This is a link to a compressed PDF: http://www.sonic.net... guide copy.pdf

Let me know what you think.

Attached Files

•  Screen_shot_2012_01_05_at_1.00.06_PM.jpg   156.57K   187 downloads
•  Screen_shot_2012_01_05_at_1.00.34_PM.jpg   143.27K   147 downloads
•  Screen_shot_2012_01_05_at_1.01.00_PM.jpg   183.22K   145 downloads

[Jacques Gélinas]

David,

Nice map,

I do have a very basic design question, and to be honest I don't have the answer.

Your map is a 23x21 inches reference map. It appears to be designed for paper output.

However you mention, that it is intended for mobile device (Iphone, Ipad Itouch).

From what I have seen of the available PDF maps, they all seem to be maps designed for paper and then simply converted to a geospatial PDF with NO or very little design consideration regarding the intended medium.

I am presently testing trail maps to be used on mobile device. Large (reference) paper maps (with NO zoom layering) don't seem to be very functional (from my users perspective) on small devices.
I will be creating a few maps on a per trail linear output basis to see what users think. It might not work but I think it is worth the try.
It would be interesting to know what others think with regards to designing maps for the PDF maps app.

tip...Consider your audience and work with them...Maybe your reference map is better on paper only?

Now for your map:
-The use of layers in the geospatial PDF might be useful. e.g. turning off the shaded relief. etc..
-It did not seem to be georeference... but I assume that will be on the final output.
-The geospatial PDF did not seem to have any attribute data. Would be nice on certain elements.
-Contour label should be facing uphill (even if they read upside down). That is an old carto. rule. But it still applies to today's topo. map.
-I don't like the use of double dash line (that is a personal thing...)
-The shoreline is a bit to greenish IMO.
-Consider more letter spacing on the annotation of linear features.

I think the contour-relief shading combo. works. Like you said more contour labels, and maybe a few more spot heights.

Regards,

[razornole]

Hey David,

It is a beautiful map, well done. There are many more aspect that I like with this map then I dislike, but I will just mention the ones that seemed odd/stood out to me. All of these comments are based on viewing your pdf map at 100%, except for sometimes I zoomed in even closer to get a better look. Finally these comments are based on if this map were to be viewed at 100% only (which it is not).

I'll start with your water features, is the color that you used an sRGB equivalent to 100% cyan? They seem pretty saturated to me, compared to your subdued hypsometry. Your labels for the water features seem very similar in color as well. I typically utilize a similar strategy, however, in your case it makes them very difficult to read over the Alakai Swamp area. I think that subduing the swamp symbology would take care of that or you could just change the label's colors.

The isohypse are way too heavy/thick. I like for them to be a grounded element and here they are a prominent figure.
I think that thinning the lineweight at least on the ones not labeled will help this (I'll sometimes bring mine down to .15 or even .1 depending on the printing). Again, your not printing so I would probably try a .1.

At 100% the two colors delineating your state/fed boundary lines blend into one color. Furthermore this made them stand out to me. They became the highest element in the VH to me, not your trails. Around 200% zoom I could tell that each line was in fact three colors, a solid green line with a semi-transparent color on each side. It was confusing to me at first. Maybe if you labeled the unit with a similar color as your boundary line it would help to clarify this?

Check your point markers, they have all shifted. A majority of your peaks are rendered in topographic lows. This may just be me, but I am not a fan of labeling waterfalls w/o an associated stream. I would only do that with springs.

It seems like a lot of your trails traverse lakes in the Alakai Swamp area, is that really the case?

Just noticed Monoa Str. (abbreviated) Stream is spelled out on the other.


Well done, I most certainly would use this map (assuming that I could print it out of course).
kru

[David Medeiros]

Thanks for the comments Jacques.

Your map is a 23x21 inches reference map. It appears to be designed for paper output.

However you mention, that it is intended for mobile device (Iphone, Ipad Itouch).

From what I have seen of the available PDF maps, they all seem to be maps designed for paper and then simply converted to a geospatial PDF with NO or very little design consideration regarding the intended medium.

I am presently testing trail maps to be used on mobile device. Large (reference) paper maps (with NO zoom layering) don't seem to be very functional (from my users perspective) on small devices.
I will be creating a few maps on a per trail linear output basis to see what users think. It might not work but I think it is worth the try.
It would be interesting to know what others think with regards to designing maps for the PDF maps app.

tip...Consider your audience and work with them...Maybe your reference map is better on paper only?

My background is in design for print and I'm sure that's showing a bit. This is actually a question I have as well and will enlist users to help me tailor a future version for trail use. I like the idea of strip maps for each trail. My intention here is that the user would have all trails together but will use the map zoomed in to an appropriate level for their area. I may need to add on map use to that effect. Design wise I have tried to style lines and type be readable and the scale a user would need while on the trail. This is the part that will require some on-device investigation.

Now for your map:
-The use of layers in the geospatial PDF might be useful. e.g. turning off the shaded relief. etc..
-It did not seem to be georeference... but I assume that will be on the final output.
-The geospatial PDF did not seem to have any attribute data. Would be nice on certain elements.

The final version will be GeoPDF, this is just a mockup for visuals. That said, I'm targeting users of the Avenza PDF Maps App which does not currently support layering or attributes.

-Contour label should be facing uphill (even if they read upside down). That is an old carto. rule. But it still applies to today's topo. map.

I struggled with that issue myself. My findings were that either is acceptable and even the esteemed Eduard Imhof preferred contour labels that read right side up as opposed to uphill. I don't typically adhere to idea that there many real "rules" in cartography, just guidelines and situations. In this case I felt that right side up was preferable.

-The shoreline is a bit to greenish IMO.

All over or just around the shoreline park areas? The park boundary cover the shore in some spots, I could probably remove it there.

-Consider more letter spacing on the annotation of linear features.

I agree.

[David Medeiros]

It is a beautiful map, well done. There are many more aspect that I like with this map then I dislike, but I will just mention the ones that seemed odd/stood out to me. All of these comments are based on viewing your pdf map at 100%, except for sometimes I zoomed in even closer to get a better look. Finally these comments are based on if this map were to be viewed at 100% only (which it is not).

Definitely intended to be viewed zoomed way in. I have found that PDFs do strange things to line work at full zoom. Very light lines, like the contours or rivers are beefed up by the PDF when zoomed out and only resolve to their intended appearance once zoomed in more. The lighter or thinner the line the closer you have to zoom to see the real appearance. I think the Avenza app works with GeoTIFs as well and I may have to experiment with that format to see if one is better than the other for this maps use.

I'll start with your water features, is the color that you used an sRGB equivalent to 100% cyan? They seem pretty saturated to me, compared to your subdued hypsometry. Your labels for the water features seem very similar in color as well. I typically utilize a similar strategy, however, in your case it makes them very difficult to read over the Alakai Swamp area. I think that subduing the swamp symbology would take care of that or you could just change the label's colors.

Yes colors are RGB conversion of CMYK. The stream lines and water labels actually have some black in them (90% c & 10%k), while the swamp pattern is actually a less intense C (not sure of the percent). I agree they could all be less intense.

The isohypse are way too heavy/thick. I like for them to be a grounded element and here they are a prominent figure.
I think that thinning the lineweight at least on the ones not labeled will help this (I'll sometimes bring mine down to .15 or even .1 depending on the printing). Again, your not printing so I would probably try a .1.

I think for the PDF I posted these were .4pt for the index and .2 for the regular contours. I reduced them later to .4 and .15 but will probably go thinner. The real issue though is what I described above with the PDF line resolutions and zoom level. Zoom in to the level you'd be at to view the trail and local area and everything looks much better.

At 100% the two colors delineating your state/fed boundary lines blend into one color. Furthermore this made them stand out to me. They became the highest element in the VH to me, not your trails. Around 200% zoom I could tell that each line was in fact three colors, a solid green line with a semi-transparent color on each side. It was confusing to me at first. Maybe if you labeled the unit with a similar color as your boundary line it would help to clarify this?

Same issue as with the contours. I am torn about how to label these though. I usually label areas int he same color as the boundary but that seems to clash with the relief in some areas. I have also considered labeling along the lines themselves instead of inside the area. There are no real jurisdictional changes that occur between areas for most hikers so I could leave these off, but they do describe hunting areas and that may be a potential use for the map or serve as a guide to explorers who want to know when they are in a hunting zone. I may increase the outer lines transparency.

Check your point markers, they have all shifted. A majority of your peaks are rendered in topographic lows. This may just be me, but I am not a fan of labeling waterfalls w/o an associated stream. I would only do that with springs.

I don't see all of them having shifted, but some do appear to be off what would look like the nearest prominent peak. I'll have to double check against the topo. What may be happening is that in many cases ancient Hawaiians would have named a local spot not based on its prominence but for a large boulder or rock that lay near by (spirits often reside inside these features). I'll check the waterfalls too. I need to fill in some more stream names in some places.

It seems like a lot of your trails traverse lakes in the Alakai Swamp area, is that really the case?

Their not lakes really, more like bogs and where the trail passes through them it's raised by a board walk or built up earth paths. I should look for another symbol there or just convert to swamp.

Just noticed Monoa Str. (abbreviated) Stream is spelled out on the other.

Good catch, I need to convert all to Str..


Thanks for the comments Kru.

[Jacques Gélinas]

David,

Yep, the greenish shoreline I saw was probably part of a boundary.

I did not know that the PDF maps app does not support layering and attributes. Now I do. I looked at your map using Acrobat 10 on a PC. Maybe something Avenza is looking into. My PDF map testing was done with one of my daughter's Itouch. ...I have a long way to go before I can efficiently use those 'I' devices.

As for contour labels, I think there was a tread on that here on Cartotalk (Charlie Frye).
http://www.cartotalk...lie frye labels
But you are probably correct in saying that both can be acceptable.


Regards,

[Dennis McClendon]

You ask about use of the okina, but I didn't see it even where I expected to, as in Pu‘u. My vague recollection from my O‘ahu map is that the state GIS data didn't have okinas in the name attributes. I believe I eventually found a listing online where the state board on geographic names had compiled a list of features that appear on topo maps and the proper name using okinas.

Since you have full color available, I wonder if it makes sense to dash the trails and primitive roads. Certainly it seems like the trails, as the most important thing on the map, would be clearer as solid strokes even if you need to tone down the red.

[David Medeiros]

You ask about use of the okina, but I didn't see it even where I expected to, as in Pu‘u. My vague recollection from my O‘ahu map is that the state GIS data didn't have okinas in the name attributes. I believe I eventually found a listing online where the state board on geographic names had compiled a list of features that appear on topo maps and the proper name using okinas.

Since you have full color available, I wonder if it makes sense to dash the trails and primitive roads. Certainly it seems like the trails, as the most important thing on the map, would be clearer as solid strokes even if you need to tone down the red.

You're right, the GIS attributes don't contain the okina, I'll have to go in and manually add them as well as convert to the correct orientation (opposite single quote). I think I have a few in where I took names from other sources but most are still missing.

No one likes the dashes huh? : ) I have a hard time with solid trail lines for some reason, the dash suggests some level of travel restriction to me and foot travel in particular when single line dashed. I should look at some other examples of road to trail hierarchy, but I've never liked seeing all solid for paved main all the way down to 4x4 and trail, I prefer to have a distinct break between these modes of travel. Maybe thick and thin black for main and minor paved, grey for 2whd unpaved, and the color for 4wd and trail?

One reason to keep them dashed is that it mimics topo sheet trail and 4x4 road designations which a lot of recreation map users are already familiar with.

[Charles Syrett]

One way to get around the PDF's way of equalizing line weights (and thereby undermining design) is to use a different colour for the index contours. Not hugely different; just a brown that's the same but with enough added darkness that, when you zoom out, you can still distinguish them from the regular contours. (I've done this myself in the past, and it works.)

The contour labels look pretty good to me....perhaps you could sprinkle a few more in here and there. Make it as easy for the reader as possible without cluttering.

About cartographic "rules": I wince at the idea myself, and I do prefer "guidelines". Oh – and I was taught that the contour-numbers-should-read-uphill practice was a "beginners' error". Yet lots of maps do this, that were clearly professionally designed. Go figure.

I'm with you on dashed lines – love 'em! Dashed lines (as well as double lines) add character differentiation to help in distinguishing features. And if you have colour to play with as well, so much the better. But Dennis' point is well taken; you do have to account for the possibility of very short lines that may not survive the dashing process.

Altogether a fine piece of work. More like this, please.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

[razornole]

I personally love dashes for any unpaved surface. It adds an element of roughness to me, much like the subject I am mapping. In fact, if I have a trail that starts out paved, then turns to single track I'll map the paved section with a solid line and dash where it turns to dirt. I do the same with roads. Furthermore, I feel that most trail data are not very accurate (at least in the temperate regions) due to tree canopies. A read a dashed feature as the data somewhat follow this route.

The 4x4 dashes could be toned down with the use of gray if you feel they are too busy.

kru

[Jacques Gélinas]

OK,

regarding contour label reading uphill.
From my 'old' days scribing national topographic system map for the Canadian government contour labels had to read uphill.
Is there a national topographic map system for some countries that does not follow that 'guideline'?
From my perspective I find it confusing when there are some labels reading uphill and others reading downhill. I then have to look at the area to find out what is uphill and what is downhill.

As for dashed lines, I have no problems with the single line dashes, only for double line dashes. For double line dashes I simply don't like the look of the intersections and the 'ground width' covered by such lines at the scale of representation you are depicting. Take a look at the Lapa picnic area...

Cheers,

[Charles Syrett]

Jacques, I still have an ancient textbook called "Topographic Map and Air Photo Interpretation", published in Canada, that has lots of samples of Canadian topo maps, as well as topo maps from other countries. Since you date from the scribing days, you may be familiar with this book. I found topo maps from Canada (probably predating the implication of the rule) as well as Switzerland (gorgeous!) and USA, with contour numbers reading downhill. I'm sure there are others.

Here are the beefs I have with this rule:

1. Practically nobody outside of cartographic circles even knows this rule. The average reader would see upside down contour labels and assume there was an error.

2. On the maps I saw that clearly followed this rule, you could see that they avoided upside-down wherever possible. In places with north-facing slopes (such as the Niagara Escarpment south of Lake Ontario), there are very few contour numbers, or they're awkwardly placed in unusual situations where a line loops back on itself. Without the rule, there would no doubt be far more labels in such areas.

I'm with the Swiss on this. Make the numbers easily legible.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

OK,

regarding contour label reading uphill.
From my 'old' days scribing national topographic system map for the Canadian government contour labels had to read uphill.
Is there a national topographic map system for some countries that does not follow that 'guideline'?
From my perspective I find it confusing when there are some labels reading uphill and others reading downhill. I then have to look at the area to find out what is uphill and what is downhill.

As for dashed lines, I have no problems with the single line dashes, only for double line dashes. For double line dashes I simply don't like the look of the intersections and the 'ground width' covered by such lines at the scale of representation you are depicting. Take a look at the Lapa picnic area...

Cheers,

[Jacques Gélinas]

Charles,

Regarding contour labels. As the English saying goes I stand corrected

...But I'll stick to my guns on my comments regarding, the double dashed lines used on David's map.

Kind Regards,

[David Medeiros]

Time to update this post I think. I've made a few minor design changes to the Kokee Recreation Map, that are probably too subtle to really notice.

First I changed the length of the trail line dashes to allow the line to more accurately display tight curves and switchbacks in the trails. The smaller dots did a poor job of showing tight trail areas.

Second, I reduced the overall width of the 4x4 road sections (the double lines) and thinned the outer black case line. I also cleaned up road intersections by creating a single compound path so intersections will now (mostly) show as merging together rather than over or under other lines. I think this helps clear up some of the double line issues. I think it's import to keep these lines double dashed for a couple of reasons: 1) its convention on USGS topo maps of the area which many hikers here will be familiar with 2) it reduces ambiguity between route types. The road, 4x4 and trail lines must be quickly and clearly distinguishable to equally serve casual visitors, off road travel, and hiking.

No other major changes. I still need to go back and fill in all of the okinas but at this point its more important to get the map out and make diacriticals part of a first revision in a few months time. I feel ok doing this because as far as I can find, no other USGS topo or the DLNR rec map of the island use okinas either. Th map is now live in the Avenza PDF maps store and I've created a small promotional site for it. Site link and a new sample map below.

Thanks for the help all!

David


New sample jpeg: http://www.sonic.net...-01smallRGB.jpg (updated this link to an RGB version)

Promotional site: http://www.sonic.net...okeeGeoPDF.html

Attached Files

•  Screen_shot_2012_02_02_at_8.57.46_AM.png   604.81K   40 downloads

[razornole]

I like the updates. The 4wd roads look much better, lower in the VH. The trails look sharp and easy to follow throughout the map.

You have definitely changed the basemap color. It is more saturated and goes well with your other boundary lines. I like it better then your first version. However, it makes your flowlines difficult to see. They had much more contrast on your previous version. Maybe that was your goal? For me personally, I think that they are one of the most important elements on a hiking map. Maybe it is just me but it also give a feeling of inversion. Like they are floating on top of the basemap rather then entrenched? What do you think?

kru