Lab 3: Terrain Visualization

 

This week’s lab introduced us or had us revisit, contours, hillshade, and land cover. For the land cover map, I included an elevation layer that I used a raster function Hillshade on. In the Hillshade function, I created two new layers, first the traditional followed by a multi-directional hillshade type. The multi-directional, in my opinion, did not work as well visually as the traditional. I left the traditional hillshade type in the map using the default settings of 315 for the azimuth and 45 for the altitude. 

The next layer was the land cover to determine the symbology for. This type of land cover was set in Yellowstone at altitudes of a few thousand feet with ground cover having trees and without trees. The land cover layer is a raster layer with 15 different features in the attribute table. When setting the symbology I grouped similar attributes, for example, lodgepole pine with lodgepole pine. This resulted in three groups making it easier to classify, which makes it easier to understand. The land cover layer has a transparency set at 25%, it was hard to determine what was best at first and it does take time to find out the best percentage. This was optimal because of the elevation colors. The elevation has no transparency, I chose the ESRI elevation #2. It does not have the distinctive greens and browns but still properly conveys elevation. Hypsometric tinting shows relative elevation but in this map, it was intended to be more supportive of the land cover layer. A method recommended by Cynthia Brewer is curvature to “deepen the valleys and highlight the ridges.” I tried it out but I will need to work on it more, it did not make very much sense when looking at it compared to the Hillshade function. 

Lab 2: Coordinate Systems

I chose the state of Oregon, mainly because I lived there once upon a time and loved it. It is also where I received my B.S. in Geography at Portland State University. Oregon has added new coordinate systems for the whole state that are broken down into different locations, the Oregon Coordinate Reference System (OCRS). These total 39 and are in addition to the other state coordinate systems, NAD 1983 Oregon Statewide which number 10. Choosing one ideal coordinate system was not necessarily hard but somewhat timely in going through several of them. There is not much difference between them, except the obvious, which is knowing that OCRS Ontario NAD 1983 (on Idaho border) will not work for Oregon Coast NAD 1983. The OCRS will be less appropriate because I am mapping the whole state and not focusing on one specific area.

I chose the NAD 1983 2011 Oregon Statewide Lambert (meters) projection. The other statewide projections I tried did not seem to affect the outcome of the reprojection at all. I chose meters instead of international feet because the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic projection used for the US states was in meters, keeping things consistent. However, for the scale bar I left the units as miles, converting between is easy enough to do.

 

Lab 1: Map Design & Typography

 

This week’s lab was a revisit of map design principles. These are Visual Contrast, Legibility, Figure-Ground Organization, Hierarchical Organization, and Balance. These are principles but also essential elements of creating a good, quality map. The maps and data were provided to us, the only thing needed to be done was to follow the principles to create quality maps. The map I uploaded is littered with labels but, in my opinion, is still legible. The contrast in the colors allows for balance and invites the reader to take a closer look at the map to gather more information.  I used a halo effect for the rivers and the capital city of Mexico City. This aids in the visual contrast as well.