Jump to content

 
Photo

Three simple maps

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
woneil

woneil

    Will O'Neil

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Falls Church, Virginia
  • United States

These are three simple maps intended to illustrate a case study on the failure of German planning at the opeing of World War I (in a book on organiazational failure). I wsnt them to present well on e-readers, which are constrained by small monochrome screens, limited resolution, and poor contrast ratio. Comments on any or all welcomed.

Attached Files


Will O'Neil
Author and amateur cartographer

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/w.d.oneil@pobox.com

#2
Hans van der Maarel

Hans van der Maarel

    CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.
  • Netherlands

These are three simple maps intended to illustrate a case study on the failure of German planning at the opeing of World War I (in a book on organiazational failure). I wsnt them to present well on e-readers, which are constrained by small monochrome screens, limited resolution, and poor contrast ratio. Comments on any or all welcomed.


Couple of nitpicks:
  • You show modern Dutch coastlines, this is especially noticable in the first map, where the Afsluitdijk (not constructed until 1932) and the Wieringermeer polder (1930). The other two show a dam in Zeeland that wasn't constructed until the late 1950s. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and I understand that The Netherlands, being neutral at that time, are not the primary subject of your map.
  • What you call Constance on maps 2 and 3 is actually Koblenz (where the Mosel joins the Rhine). What you call Koblenz on map 3 doesn't seem to be any city of significance.

Other than that they're really clear maps, I like the style.
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics

#3
sitesatlas

sitesatlas

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Spain

Nice maps. I especially like the clear, bold labeling.

Instead of Constance, I think you meant Koblenz (also spelled Coblence or Coblenz); Constance is on the Swiss border.
Michael Borop
World Sites Atlas
http://www.sitesatlas.com

#4
woneil

woneil

    Will O'Neil

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Falls Church, Virginia
  • United States

Thanks very much! I took some trouble about borders but neglected the issue of shorelines -- even though I have some general awareness of the reclamation projects.

Next question: Does anyone have any sources to recommend for 1914-era vector coastlines, or for maps at suitable scale that I could digitize?


These are three simple maps intended to illustrate a case study on the failure of German planning at the opeing of World War I (in a book on organiazational failure). I wsnt them to present well on e-readers, which are constrained by small monochrome screens, limited resolution, and poor contrast ratio. Comments on any or all welcomed.


Couple of nitpicks:
  • You show modern Dutch coastlines, this is especially noticable in the first map, where the Afsluitdijk (not constructed until 1932) and the Wieringermeer polder (1930). The other two show a dam in Zeeland that wasn't constructed until the late 1950s. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and I understand that The Netherlands, being neutral at that time, are not the primary subject of your map.
  • What you call Constance on maps 2 and 3 is actually Koblenz (where the Mosel joins the Rhine). What you call Koblenz on map 3 doesn't seem to be any city of significance.

Other than that they're really clear maps, I like the style.


Will O'Neil
Author and amateur cartographer

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/w.d.oneil@pobox.com

#5
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

Definitely agree with everyone one the clear style and bold labeling, very nice.

I 'm not as big a fan of the patterns though. My biggest issue is on the larger map where the patterned ocean and "Invaded" pattern seem to clash. It makes the Invaded areas look hollow, like water. Any chance you could use a general gray fill for the water instead of the pattern? Or a light gray fill on the land under the regular patterns?

GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#6
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

Waterbodies need to be a shade of gray. It is too difficult to tell the difference between the land. It would establish figure/ground.

I'm not a fan of patterns, I get dizzy looking at maps with multiple patterns. Usually I don't even bother to look. There are times when it is absolutely required but this map only has 4 elements to map (5 if you consider the water). If you don't feel that you can differentiate five shades of gray, then just change the density of your dot pattern for the invaded countries.

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

#7
Hans van der Maarel

Hans van der Maarel

    CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.
  • Netherlands

Thanks very much! I took some trouble about borders but neglected the issue of shorelines -- even though I have some general awareness of the reclamation projects.

Next question: Does anyone have any sources to recommend for 1914-era vector coastlines, or for maps at suitable scale that I could digitize?


For the past century we have had the habit of changing our coastline at least once per decade. Keeps cartographers busy :) In fact, this project recently finished: De Zandmotor, it's a new peninsula of sand that's expected to naturally feed the dunes along the coast for the next few decades.

Here's a photo of a 1921 map that had lying around. This should give you a good idea of what the northern part of The Netherlands looked like around that time, this is just before all the major reclamation work starts.
Attached File  IMG_2517.jpg   1.35MB   47 downloads

I've been meaning to do a reference map showing the major Dutch coastline changes of the past century. One of these days...
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics

#8
woneil

woneil

    Will O'Neil

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Falls Church, Virginia
  • United States

Here's a photo of a 1921 map that had lying around. This should give you a good idea of what the northern part of The Netherlands looked like around that time, this is just before all the major reclamation work starts.


Thanks again.

I found an image of a map from a German military atlas of 1905 at http://commons.wikim...rlande_1905.png. At least at first glance it looks much like your 1921 map, which encourages me to think that I don't need to track down a map specifically from 1914 to get it right.

When I finish fixing everything I'll re-post the results.
Will O'Neil
Author and amateur cartographer

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/w.d.oneil@pobox.com

#9
woneil

woneil

    Will O'Neil

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Falls Church, Virginia
  • United States

Here are revised versions. Bear in mind that they will be printed at very small size -- about 4.5" (11.5 cm) width

Again, thanks for the inupts.

Attached Files


Will O'Neil
Author and amateur cartographer

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/w.d.oneil@pobox.com

#10
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

That is so much better. Don't forget to change your legend.

I would go ahead and change the water for all 3 maps

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

#11
mapfax

mapfax

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington, VA
  • United States

Here are revised versions. Bear in mind that they will be printed at very small size -- about 4.5" (11.5 cm) width

Again, thanks for the inupts.


The map of Europe is a bit confusing to me because France is not one of the Invaded countries, but then there are maps showing the German invasion routes into France. I would suggest deleting the Invaded category and group the countries into Central Powers, Allied Powers, and Neutral. You could follow the BBC map example at http://www.bbc.co.uk...dex_embed.shtml and get detailed city location information from National Geographic maps of that time at http://maps.national...e-map-1915.html. Other countries joined the Allies and Central Powers during the war, so you might want to put a date in the map legend. For example, I believe Italy joined the Allies in 1915.

Also, I am pretty sure that Great Britain never included Ireland. Great Britain is usually defined as the island made up of England, Scotland, and Wales (see http://en.wikipedia..../Great_Britain).
You could change the label to UNITED KINGDOM, because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom until 1922.

The maps look good, and these are minor suggestions.

#12
Hans van der Maarel

Hans van der Maarel

    CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.
  • Netherlands

Still showing Constance instead of Koblenz on the third map.
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics

#13
P.Raposo

P.Raposo

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Penn State
  • United States

Lovely work woneil - those seem as though they'll work well on e-reader screens. Nice treatment of pattern fills in the revisions. I agree with razornole about making the water the same on all three.

Perhaps a little simplification of borders, coastlines and rivers across the maps would help? The relatively coarse resolution e-readers sometimes have might really pixelate those if they're very sinuous, and I figure you don't need super-accurate river bend positions for this subject matter.

#14
woneil

woneil

    Will O'Neil

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Falls Church, Virginia
  • United States

Many thanks again to all for these comments and recommendations, which have done much to help me make the maps better. In some cases I am not going to take action on what in other contexts would be very good suggestions simply because of the specific needs the maps are geared to. But I do appreciate them and have made note of them for future reference.
Will O'Neil
Author and amateur cartographer

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/w.d.oneil@pobox.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->