6 replies to this topic

[aoakm]

All,

I've been one of the fabled lurkers for some time, and have thoroughly enjoyed the work and conversations folks have shared. I was hoping someone might help me out with an issue. For a little brochure (the 8.5x11 folded typed) I've been tasked with making a 3x4" map. Here's the background:

• The purpose is to show where this river's watershed is to a general audience familiar with the area, but not necessarily watersheds.
• 3x4 inches
• It will have text or title saying “Anacostia River Watershed”, but no description of the actual location or extent of the watershed (although the size will be included in a river facts section, as well as a definition of a watershed)
• It must contain county lines

Just wondering if anyone can offer ideas how to make this small graphic more useful to readers. Again, thanks to everyone for sharing their great work and knowledge. I'm a bit intimidated posting anything here!

-Aubin

Attached Files

•  mapv1.pdf   80.21K   247 downloads

[DaveB]

For a small map like that I would look to simplify it. Generalize features, probably drop the scale bar and north arrow, drop the legend as most items are self-explanatory, I would think, and label the watershed on the map. Could use a little work on label placement, too. The label for Walker Mill, for example, is a bit farhter from its point than most of the other city/town labels.

[Dennis McClendon]

For small maps like this, it's often a good approach to simply redraw the few lines you need rather than wrestle with GIS linework. Then you can use careful label placement rather than halos, and can get rid of distracting detail in things like highways and county lines and even the watershed boundary itself. As a general rule, anytime you have both a stroke and a fill, ask yourself if you can get rid of one (usually the stroke).

Another trick is to always look for ways that you can use negative lines as well as positive ones, to separate things into a better visual hierarchy:



At least correct the spelling of Laurel.

[aoakm]

WOW! You folks rock! Thanks for the quick help and suggestions, great instruction for future maps!

[Frank B.]

Hi,

just a quick note on the term watershed. A watershed is actually a linear feature which delineates two basins or catchement areas from each other. Think of it as a border between two states. So what you are showing in grey in your map would, in my opinion, better called Anacostia River basin or Anacostia River catchment area. I am not a native english speaker, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this is how I understand the hydro-terminology.

[David Medeiros]

Hi,

just a quick note on the term watershed. A watershed is actually a linear feature which delineates two basins or catchement areas from each other. Think of it as a border between two states. So what you are showing in grey in your map would, in my opinion, better called Anacostia River basin or Anacostia River catchment area. I am not a native english speaker, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this is how I understand the hydro-terminology.

This is an older post but thought I would add some detail to this post anyway.

In the US we refer to that as a drainage (or water) divide. Watersheds in N America refer to the catchment area and not the dividing line, so this is regionally specific. His map being in N. America would be correctly labeled as a watershed.

[GeoEvan]

Hi,

just a quick note on the term watershed. A watershed is actually a linear feature which delineates two basins or catchement areas from each other. Think of it as a border between two states. So what you are showing in grey in your map would, in my opinion, better called Anacostia River basin or Anacostia River catchment area. I am not a native english speaker, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this is how I understand the hydro-terminology.

This is an older post but thought I would add some detail to this post anyway.

In the US we refer to that as a drainage (or water) divide. Watersheds in N America refer to the catchment area and not the dividing line, so this is regionally specific. His map being in N. America would be correctly labeled as a watershed.

Thanks for clearing that up, David. Was worried I'd been using the "wrong" terminology all this time!