Jump to content

 
Photo

park map- newbie looking for a little feedback

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
nkd215

nkd215

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • No Country Selected

Hi There,

 

I created this park map to indicate the basic geography and assets within the park, along with some topographic features. It is meant for the general public. This is a draft, and I already see some things I'd like to edit, but just want to see if you guys see anything glaring that would be good to change/improve! This was created in arc 10 and is approx 25mb.

 

https://dl.dropboxus...rmount Park.jpg

 

Thanks!



#2
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

The overall layout looks pretty good. You did an excellent job of getting the distances between your frames even (see lower left corner with margin, map and inset lines all roughly evenly spaced).

 

I'm not a big fan of LiDAR in recreational or reference maps. It looks ok here but I think it might look better without it. The level of detail can be distracting. But the area may be too flat for regular shaded relief so I understand why you'd want to use it.

 

Label placement looks pretty good and there is a good label hierarchy. Some of the labels could use more spacing between the main label and its prefix or suffix. And you could probably use more street labels overall. You could also increase the size of some of the labels for easier reading. The bridge labels are very small as a re some of the trail labels.

 

I don't like the dark blue for the park building labels. Normally I'd match my label color to the feature color, but I don't think you want yellow labels either. A dark grey might work. Or consider using dark grey for the road labels and solid black for the buildings, depending on what's more important.

 

I think the water color is a little over saturated, I'd try a lighter blue.

 

The legend... should say something other than "Legend"  ; )  I'm not sure you need it anyway though. You could replace it with a text box that has some important park info, contact numbers etc, plus the scale, author info, and any symbols you do need to show (like trails). But I don't think anyone needs the legend to tell them what is the park or the cemetery or the roads on this map.

 

I don't like it when maps completely mask off areas that flow directly into the mapped area, like the NW corner under the inset. If you want to keep the inset here you could keep the mask but use a transparency so we can see that roads do in fact continue beyond the city limit.

 

I think you have a good looking label for the parks dept. in the upper right, I'd make it a little bigger so it stands out more.

 

Good work so far.


GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#3
nkd215

nkd215

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • No Country Selected

Thank you so much... this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for...



#4
Dennis McClendon

Dennis McClendon

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:map design, large-scale maps of cities
  • United States

I also find the LIDAR imagery distracting.  I might go in and manually retouch out everything except the significant hills, or look to another data source for hillshading.  I-76 is such a prominent feature that I'm surprised it isn't represented by two parallel lines at this scale. My personal preference would also be for less saturated colors.   I like the typography, though.

 

As a park user, something I'd be looking for that isn't here is the location of footbridges over (or tunnels under) the expressway and the railroad tracks.  Park visitors will naturally want to know how to reach the riverbanks.

 

Seems like there should be some mention of the hostel at Chamounix Mansion, and of the Underground Railroad Museum at Belmont Mansion.


Dennis McClendon, Chicago CartoGraphics
chicagocarto.com

#5
birdseye

birdseye

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • No Country Selected

As a current Philly resident, I fear this map right now isn't nearly as useful as it could be.

 

If you're including the roads, you might also put in the parking areas. They can be desaturated and unobtrusive, but they're very helpful. Even if people don't see the map until after they've parked, the place where they've parked is something they'll look to navigate by.

 

And since you're showing the trails, you might also show the city's main foot/bike path, the Schuylkill River Trail, which is a major access route to the park. You've got it there within park boundaries, but it should be extended on out, as the roads are. And probably labeled.

 

There are many features people look for and/or navigate by in the park that are not shown here--the "treehouse" near the Japanese garden, the gazebo/overlook near the art museum, Smith playground, etc. Looks like you've got plenty of space to locate and label quite a few of those.

 

And finally, why is the zoo left featureless? Even if for some reason you don't want to show the zoo buildings, at least show the main gate? And maybe also parking?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->