Module 3 - Terrain Visualization

This week we studied terrain visualization.  We considered contour lines, DEM, hillshade single and multiple light source, and color tinting.  The above map utilized an elevation raster provided for Yellowstone National park and a land cover raster.  The elevation raster was processed with a single light source hillshade tool from the Raster function in the Raster group of the Analysis tab in ArcPro.  The land cover raster categories were generalized into fewer groups and appropriate colors were chosen for each group.  The land cover layer is displayed at 45% transparency to allow the hillshade texture to show through.  Legibility of the map text and message are clear.  Visual Contrast is sufficient to distinguish categories but not abrasive.  Figure Ground is clear between the boundaries of the land cover of Yellowstone park and the grey tones of the hillshade outside of the park.  Hierarchy is demonstrated in text size and element location.  Title is largest text and subtitle is smaller and more ornate.  The north arrow is placed within a non-focus part of the map frame.  The projections and class are in larger font and positioned above author name and date.  Balance was addressed with a centered map frame and main title, large legend is balanced with other map elements.

Module 2 - Coordinate Systems

This week in Communicating GIS we learned about Coordinates systems, Scale and Projections.  For the map above we were tasked with selecting one US State other than Florida and creating a general reference map layout for that area of interest.  The layout should be in a coordinate system appropriate for the state.  Although State Plane and UTM projections are quite common in the US, not all states fit in a single zone of said projections.  Texas has 5 State Plane zones and 3 UTM zones.  Projections for UTM and State Plane are zone specific and as such neither of these would be appropriate for the state of Texas.  Fortunately there are several projections that are appropriate for the entire state.  I chose to use NAD 1983 (2011) Texas Centric Map System.  This projections is a Lambert Conic conformal map.  The central meridian is at -100.  The standard parallels are at 27.5 and 35.0.  This projections is specific for the state of Texas and conformal, retains shape, making it an appropriate projection for a general reference map for Texas.

Module 1 - Map Design and Typography

In this the first week in Communicating GIS 6005, we worked on Map Design and Typography.  The above map was made from an unfinished map with unclear symbology and simplified to show areas of entertainment in Austin, TX.  The major roads are symbolized as 70% grey at .75 line width to not overpower the area with roads.  The hydrology layer is symbolized as a blue, golf as green.  Both have matching outline color to simplify appearance.  The community centers/recreation centers are a 12pt circle with red fill and black outline to stand out.

1.       Legibility:  Symbol Size, Text size and Font, color

2.      Visual Contrast:  Color choice – bright without a different outline color against white background

3.      Figure Ground:  Color and Size and Detail – grey for roads with labels that are smaller and lighter in text than the large event symbol with larger font in all caps for a short name field added to attribute table

4.      Hierarchical Organization:  Color, Size and Detail – The focus information, location of venues have larger, darker colored symbols with larger, black all cap labels.  The roads are not full saturation with smaller Cap/lower case labels.  The golf course and water features are bold colors not as saturated with no labels. 

5.      Balance:  I started with Travis county orientation on the map, later in instructions an indication that layer was not required.  I was able to enlarge the relevant data with the elimination of Travis County boundary.  Title at the top and map elements located within the data frame around the bottom.

The second map took an existing map designed as a conservation poster and modified to create the above report map.  The elements were resized and color palate changed to highlight the report areas of interest and the harvest values added.

1.       Legibility:  Symbol Size, Text size and Font

2.      Visual Contrast:  Color choice – Wood colors of green and brown with areas of restriction in grey against white background

3.      Figure Ground:  Color against white

4.      Hierarchical Organization:  Map is a large element of the map.  The main title is larger and centered from the subtitle giving the location.  The legend and the company logo are roughly the same size.  And the text for the lease values is large in comparison with the other marginalia. 

5.      Balance:  The map frame is located to the right with the heavy title at the top, the important information at the left and the detail information small at the bottom.

The third project was to add typology to this reference map of San Francisco.  The general features were labeled in Arial font in black and varying size. Water features were labeled in Informal Roman in Lapis blue font at differing size based on the size of the elements.  Parks were labeled in a fir green Brandly Hand ITC font.  The Golden Gate bridge is the only landmark labeled at Eris bold ITC font in black.  The topological features labeled with California FB bold font in brown.   Each of the different fonts helps tie together like features and separate those of different categories.

The fourth map was to utilize dynamic label options in ArcPro to find the best label options for the rivers in Mexico.  I used Bell MT font at 11pt in Italic and Ultra Blue with .5 line width Ultra Blue outline.  I chose River Placement with an offset of 1pt and checked the boxes for Measure offset from the feature geometry and May place label at secondary offset.  I unchecked the box for align label to direction of line, because this would turn some labels upside down in orientation to the map.

I allowed Stack label and selected Choose best for the Horizontal alignment and split after space.  The Maximum character per line was set to 17.  No abbreviated or Key number were utilized.  I removed duplicate labels within 1” but repeat minimum of 2”.  Label buffer of 16% eliminated Lacantum, and some of the clutter in the most southeast area of the map.  No minimum feature size was utilized as this eliminated Colorado label.  Line connection was to connect features Unambiguous.

 The final map of the week was absolutely the most difficult.  The task was to organize a final map that is legible and informative while adding to the previous map of Mexico rivers, state boundaries with labels and Cities including the capital, Mexico City.  This map is much more chaotic than I prefer.  My attempt at the task includes:  Rivers the outline on the text was removed.  States where outlined and labeled in leather brown. Labels are in Century 12pt in caps with possible size reduction to 9pt.  Position is land parcel with curved in polygon.  The labels allow stacks.  Minimum feature size labeled is .2” area, to eliminate the smaller states labels.  Cities were limited to those cities with population over 300,000.  Labels for those cities is Arial Narrow 12pt in black with symbol of a bright green with black outline.  Capital is in Arial 12pt in Red with a red star marking the city.