Jump to content

 
Photo

Inset Locator Map

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
razornole

razornole

    Legendary Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 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

Oh the joy of a 3.5 x 2.5" map.  Five point fonts and highway shields.

 

Attached is a locator map that will accompany a legend on a 38 x 26" folded map.  Interested in legibility and if it makes sense to someone not familiar with the area.  Included in the map are some landmarks, major roads & cities.

 

Thoughts, concerns, suggestions?

 

Thanks,

kru

Attached Files


"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

#2
Dennis McClendon

Dennis McClendon

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:map design, large-scale maps of cities
  • United States

Yes, I think both those criteria are satisfied.  I'd suggest making a bigger dot (with a star?) for Little Rock, and possibly medium-size dots for Ft Smith and Fayetteville.  

 

Personally, I would invest 10 minutes to trace the highways and possibly the rivers in Illustrator, simplifying them quite a bit.  They're just way too detailed for this scale, especially the interstates.


Dennis McClendon, Chicago CartoGraphics
chicagocarto.com

#3
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

Agree with Dennis on simplifying the line work. There is more detail (too many vertices) for what you'd normally want in a locator. I'd think about abstracting the area boundaries a little too. It's often easier to read the area on large scale map like a locator when the boundaries are generalized.

 

I might also zoom into the are of interest more. You're showing a lot of territory outside of the map boundaries but since you have a locator to your locator you may not need that much outer area. Maybe just the NF, hwy 40, hwy 540, Ft. Smith, Conway, Fayettville. Something like that.


GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#4
razornole

razornole

    Legendary Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 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

Thanks for the comments.

 

I see what y'all are saying with the generalization.  A lot of things are generalized, and I was worried that I made them too general.  Guess not.  That is good, it is easier to make it more general then it is to add detail.

 

Normally I wouldn't even consider putting rivers on a locator, but since this is a whitewater map of the Mulberry River I thought I would include several.  I am still oscillating whether to take all the rivers off.

 

The coverage area was/is dictated by "geographic integrity".  I wanted Little Rock on there for balance and triangulation between the Rock, the Fort, and Fville/Sdale/Rogers.

 

Thanks again,

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

#5
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

I understand. My feeling about locators is, that's what they are for, locating. It's best to take them down to that almost graphic level in many cases to make sure they work best for their intended purpose. It's not important that the features be really accurately represented in terms of their shape or complexity, just that they be recognizable for what they are (and recognizable as the variant of the fully detailed version), and in the correct relative positions so the user can tell where they are looking at.

 

To that end  the locator doesn't even need to be to scale really and if it helps to push things together or bump up the size of some features to make it work I think that's ok.


GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->