Evaluation of Map Symbols by Screen Resolution and File Format Through Scale

Evaluation of Map Symbols by Screen Resolution and File Format Through Scale Cynthia Brewer and Chelsea Hanchett, Penn State Barbara Buttenfield, Boulder Lawrence Stanislawski, CEGIS Penn State Research Assistants: Stephen Butzler and Halina Sundy

Multiscale topographic map design Supports hydrographic generalization evaluation Draft design for mapping from TNM data Suited to multiple formats and resolutions 91 ppi (desktop), 120 ppi (laptop), print PDF, ArcView plan to test cached tile web Preview (ArcGIS 10)

Scale series by subbasin Humid Flat: Upper Suwannee, FL-GA Hilly: Pomme de Terre, MO Mountainous: South Branch Potomac, W V Dry Flat: Lower Beaver, UT Hilly: Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red, TX Mountainous: Piceance-Yellow, CO Urban St. Louis, MO: STL Atlanta, GA: ATL New Haven, CT: HVN (in production)

FL-GA 1:24K

FL-GA 1:50K

FL-GA 1:100K

FL-GA 1:250K

FL-GA 1:500K

FL-GA 1:1M

ATL 1:24K

ATL 1:50K

ATL 1:100K

ATL 1:250K

ATL 1:500K

ATL 1:1M

TX 1:24K

TX 1:50K

TX 1:100K

TX 1:250K

TX 1:500K

TX 1:1M

CO 1:24K

CO 1:50K

CO 1:100K

CO 1:250K

CO 1:500K

CO 1:1M

Quality rating categories A - Label appearance and readability B - Label positioning and generalization C - Point symbol appearance D - Point generalization E - Line symbol appearance F - Line generalization G - Area symbol appearance H - Area generalization I - Terrain appearance J - Terrain generalization K - Vertical integration between layers L - Overall appearance of map (Goldilocks)

Quality rating categories A - Label appearance and readability Too small or large Letter forms corrupted (at angle) Too light or dark Styling poor (too narrow, italic, bold, letter spaced) Individual characters unaligned (uneven) Letter form is jagged (due to rendering) Different case would better suit feature (change to lower case) Leading too close or far within a label Poor font choice

Quality rating categories H - Area generalization Areas too small to suit scale (outline closes in on area fill) Too many area features (cluttered) Area shapes too complex (or too simple or unrealistic) Gaps between areas too thin Hierarchy of area symbols would better suit feature type More categories of area symbols would better suit feature type Category or hierarchy of symbols is not clear

Quality rating categories K - Vertical integration between layers Boundaries misregistered (e.g., county and state line do not align) Flowlines not in valleys within terrain Water bodies not in flat areas of terrain Suspect road routings in relation to ridges and valleys Boundaries miss road or water features that likely guide position Points in middle of major roads Land features located in water and water features on land

Systematic color categories for symbols Human themes: points: emergency hospitals schools transportation built-up areas Rd Or Pu admin reserves hillshade Br Gy Yl YG Cy Gn Natural themes: wooded areas forest reserves parks boundaries Bu hydrography

Four related Penn State talks Cindy, Progress on Electronic Topo Map Design Decisions Chelsea, Multiscale Design: ScaleMaster Decisions and MXD Settings for Symbol Evaluation Cindy, Evaluation of Map Symbols by Screen Resolution and File Format Through Scale Andy, Tapered Symbols for NHD Flowlines Systematically Adjusted for Dry Versus Humid Zones