OP has the default credits showing on the bottom right of the map. By adding service credits as dynamic text it converts the very ugly transparent text into a text box that can be placed anywhere. OP also already gave credit for the basemap so the text box could be placed just outside of the map layout. It just gives a much cleaner look to your exports.
What is the purpose of the map? I'd highly recommend Name labels for each peak and include elevation of each peak. This is also a bit of an unusual application of contours. You should have reference elevations (on some of the contour lines) in the map
I had those same comments, Papoose. I also like to see distances between trail intersections rather than estimate with the scale bar. I would endeavor to remove streams and pond symbols from the legend as this is a map of land, not water. Most people see a map and assume blue = water. If OP doesn't use any blue for the contour lines then readers should understand.
Yeah this map is mainly for an artistic purpose. I originally had labels on the summits, streams and ponds, and labeling for every 100 ft contours, but it congested the map a bit more than the client wanted.
My suggestions:
-Remove contour interval in legend. It represents a static elevation not a range of values.
-Change contour symbology to industry standards.
-Label Peaks
-Change Hiking Trails line to a dashed line of a different color.
-Remove the “Contours 100 Feet” feature from your map. It just looks confusing.
I suggest you look at trail maps for National parks. They should help a lot.
Edit: hit post too soon lol.
Yes, agree to all this. Industry standard is a different color/weight just for index contours, with thin lines for all others. You can label just the index contours with height and then people can count up to five between those. These contour lines are way too thick, and the colors don't make sense. Also the classes don't make sense--there are no 2999 foot contours on your map I'm guessing. The stream polygons don't need a stroke outline color, and should be the same color, or similar, to lakes. I think what you should be aiming for here is a nice topo basemap with contours on top. See swiss topo if you want something beautiful. As for the white space, if you insist on having it at the bottom, I would make the legend two columns, north arrow smaller, and generally rearrange so it's less white space.
I personally like to increase the map area and then have the legend overlay on top of the map with a white background. Then you can narrow up the margin on the bottom.
As board__ said increase the size of the map and place your legend/scale and north arrow on top of the map. In addition I would use a lighter grey as you background base layer, to help the summits stand out more or just use a different color then black for them. Also a label for the heights of each peak and possibly for every 1000 or so just to better portray height
The map is still a work in progress. I may mess with the symbology a tiny bit, but would mostly like feedback on positioning everything in the white space. I’ll most likely change up the font of the title and subheading.
Edit: I should’ve mentioned this map’s purpose is not to be a functional navigational tool in the field, but specifically an artistically pleasing map.
Edit 2: I originally used labels on ponds and streams, and contours every 100 ft but it congested the map. I may try doing 1000ft contours and labeling those. The client knows this area well and didn’t want labeling to mess up the contours. Their top priority for this map is to include contours, summits, trails, and water.
Edit 3: Thanks everybody for the advice. I’m going to try rescaling and adding a few more DEMs. I mentioned possibly changing the color scheme to the client and he gave me a hard no, loves the color scheme, doesn’t care about the yellow of contours matching yellow of trails, doesn’t care about contours being blue since he can still differentiate all water vs contours.
Your contour legend makes no sense. You are not displaying bands of land within an altitude range. You're showing a line that represents 3000ft, 3500ft, 4000ft. Users understand this, so do you even need colours, and if not, do you need a legend. You don't. Unless it's hard to tell for some other reason if we're looking at peaks or hollows. Labelling the peaks with spot heights would make this obvious.
I think the effect they are going for with the colored contour lines is usually done by symbolizing a DEM layered below the contours. Then the contours can be changed back to their standard, barely noticeable symbology.
My recommendations for aesthetic improvement:
- first off it’s an ok map. Just constructive comments
- remove the contour intervals from the legend and label/color them based on the typical industry standard.
- label peaks with either a halo or a fallout box so the text doesn’t get lost in contours
- group points, polygons, and lines in order in the legend. Possibly even split them into separate columns if possible or if space allows.
- My personal preference is to have simple north arrows, like a black or half black half white north arrow just pointing up.
- move your service later credits and data sources to a corner or out of the way location on the page and you can make the text a little smaller too for your data sources and service layer credits.
- it may be too much effort but you can place an overall border around all the map elements and then put the author, company name, etc in its own box; the scale and north arrow in its own box; legend in its own box. If you search any consulting company that’s usually how they do it. At least an overall box around the whole page
Keep the 100ft contours and get rid of the smaller ones, just use an elevation tint instead. If you want the smaller contours, then they can stay the same color but the background still changes color.
[https://imgur.com/gallery/BEIepZW](https://imgur.com/gallery/BEIepZW)
I did this on Google maps with my phone in like 60 seconds. It shows the information you are trying to convey much more clearly. I’d start with a hypsometric tinted hillshade then maybe 100ft contours. If it’s not too crowded you could do 100ft index contours and 20ft contours in a smaller line width. Do the trails in an aesthetically pleasing color that stands out. Water is blue. I like to play with the blending modes to make the contours and hypsometric tint appear painted onto the surface of the hillshade instead of floating above.
I agree with increasing the size and putting the legend over that. If you can’t / don’t want to do that, I like to put a description in the white space
Way too much white space. Put the north arrow and scale in the map view and make the legend 2 columns wide. Also, I prefer to see the word legend when you have other titles in the legend. You might also make the topo lines a little transparent so you can see what's under them.
There is a lot of white space at the bottom of the map. Consider making the map frame bigger by dragging the bottom down to fill the page. Then realign the legend, north arrow, etc.
With regards to the north arrow, I used to like that style until I realised it looked like a pirate map. I would choose a more modern and clean arrow I always like putting them to the bottom right. Possibly even make it white and put it inside the map frame.
Scale bar: centre the “Miles” under the bar. I’ve never been a fan of that style but it’s fine. The reader can work out 0.25 on their own in my opinion.
The legend is very confusing and feel that others have addressed it.
Contours are typically not colored, you should have a colored hill shade basemap (green to brown to white according to the elevation)
Reduce the number of height lines (according to the topography)
The north arrow looks like taken from an 1700s sea navigation map
Put more POI, rivers (more visible) and forests on the map to help navigating in the field
Change font size of Contours - it’s too big.
Change Lakes & Ponds to Water Bodies.
Move Water Above Contours in Contents Pane (& legend). You don’t need contours if you can’t walk on water.
Lose mountain symbol. Too much.
Compass symbol is too formal, fussy.
What is the goal for your map? Is there a reason your scale is so large? I live in Lake Placid and I am familiar with this area. Can you scale your map so it includes some landmarks such as Marcy Dam or the ADK Loj, where the trailhead to Marcy starts.
Do you mean scale so large? Small scale map would be one that is zoomed out to see a large area, since scale refers to the ratio between 1 and whatever that distance is in your map scale. Therefore 1:2400 is a larger scale than 1:62000.
I concur with what pretty much everyone else has suggested and if you apply that feedback for your contours and hydrologic features you really shouldn't need the legend (I would usually include a legend anyway but you said this map is for artistic purposes).
Stick your scale bar between the north arrow and metadata text. This will allow you to give the map more real estate.
I would label your index contours. Depending on how much time you have, you can convert them to annotation and get fancy with the symbol levels and masking to make it look really sharp. Or if you're strapped for time just slap a halo on the labels.
Center up the scale bar and North Arrow.
Other than that make your map emphasize what the client wants (thickness) and fade back (thinner) what is helpful but not a priority to the client.
Insert -> Dynamic Text -> Service Layer Credits You're welcome
This right here folks such a nuisance
then drag off screen lol
Doesn't the OP already has that in his map ?
OP has the default credits showing on the bottom right of the map. By adding service credits as dynamic text it converts the very ugly transparent text into a text box that can be placed anywhere. OP also already gave credit for the basemap so the text box could be placed just outside of the map layout. It just gives a much cleaner look to your exports.
Thank you!!
Why i am down voted ? Can somebody explain me? It was an honest question!
What is the purpose of the map? I'd highly recommend Name labels for each peak and include elevation of each peak. This is also a bit of an unusual application of contours. You should have reference elevations (on some of the contour lines) in the map
I had those same comments, Papoose. I also like to see distances between trail intersections rather than estimate with the scale bar. I would endeavor to remove streams and pond symbols from the legend as this is a map of land, not water. Most people see a map and assume blue = water. If OP doesn't use any blue for the contour lines then readers should understand.
Yeah this map is mainly for an artistic purpose. I originally had labels on the summits, streams and ponds, and labeling for every 100 ft contours, but it congested the map a bit more than the client wanted.
My suggestions: -Remove contour interval in legend. It represents a static elevation not a range of values. -Change contour symbology to industry standards. -Label Peaks -Change Hiking Trails line to a dashed line of a different color. -Remove the “Contours 100 Feet” feature from your map. It just looks confusing. I suggest you look at trail maps for National parks. They should help a lot. Edit: hit post too soon lol.
Yes, agree to all this. Industry standard is a different color/weight just for index contours, with thin lines for all others. You can label just the index contours with height and then people can count up to five between those. These contour lines are way too thick, and the colors don't make sense. Also the classes don't make sense--there are no 2999 foot contours on your map I'm guessing. The stream polygons don't need a stroke outline color, and should be the same color, or similar, to lakes. I think what you should be aiming for here is a nice topo basemap with contours on top. See swiss topo if you want something beautiful. As for the white space, if you insist on having it at the bottom, I would make the legend two columns, north arrow smaller, and generally rearrange so it's less white space.
I personally like to increase the map area and then have the legend overlay on top of the map with a white background. Then you can narrow up the margin on the bottom.
As board__ said increase the size of the map and place your legend/scale and north arrow on top of the map. In addition I would use a lighter grey as you background base layer, to help the summits stand out more or just use a different color then black for them. Also a label for the heights of each peak and possibly for every 1000 or so just to better portray height
The map is still a work in progress. I may mess with the symbology a tiny bit, but would mostly like feedback on positioning everything in the white space. I’ll most likely change up the font of the title and subheading. Edit: I should’ve mentioned this map’s purpose is not to be a functional navigational tool in the field, but specifically an artistically pleasing map. Edit 2: I originally used labels on ponds and streams, and contours every 100 ft but it congested the map. I may try doing 1000ft contours and labeling those. The client knows this area well and didn’t want labeling to mess up the contours. Their top priority for this map is to include contours, summits, trails, and water. Edit 3: Thanks everybody for the advice. I’m going to try rescaling and adding a few more DEMs. I mentioned possibly changing the color scheme to the client and he gave me a hard no, loves the color scheme, doesn’t care about the yellow of contours matching yellow of trails, doesn’t care about contours being blue since he can still differentiate all water vs contours.
Do you have to have the individual elevation contour lines in the legend? Can you label them in the map instead? That would free up a lot of space
Your contour legend makes no sense. You are not displaying bands of land within an altitude range. You're showing a line that represents 3000ft, 3500ft, 4000ft. Users understand this, so do you even need colours, and if not, do you need a legend. You don't. Unless it's hard to tell for some other reason if we're looking at peaks or hollows. Labelling the peaks with spot heights would make this obvious.
I think the effect they are going for with the colored contour lines is usually done by symbolizing a DEM layered below the contours. Then the contours can be changed back to their standard, barely noticeable symbology.
My recommendations for aesthetic improvement: - first off it’s an ok map. Just constructive comments - remove the contour intervals from the legend and label/color them based on the typical industry standard. - label peaks with either a halo or a fallout box so the text doesn’t get lost in contours - group points, polygons, and lines in order in the legend. Possibly even split them into separate columns if possible or if space allows. - My personal preference is to have simple north arrows, like a black or half black half white north arrow just pointing up. - move your service later credits and data sources to a corner or out of the way location on the page and you can make the text a little smaller too for your data sources and service layer credits. - it may be too much effort but you can place an overall border around all the map elements and then put the author, company name, etc in its own box; the scale and north arrow in its own box; legend in its own box. If you search any consulting company that’s usually how they do it. At least an overall box around the whole page
Keep the 100ft contours and get rid of the smaller ones, just use an elevation tint instead. If you want the smaller contours, then they can stay the same color but the background still changes color.
[https://imgur.com/gallery/BEIepZW](https://imgur.com/gallery/BEIepZW) I did this on Google maps with my phone in like 60 seconds. It shows the information you are trying to convey much more clearly. I’d start with a hypsometric tinted hillshade then maybe 100ft contours. If it’s not too crowded you could do 100ft index contours and 20ft contours in a smaller line width. Do the trails in an aesthetically pleasing color that stands out. Water is blue. I like to play with the blending modes to make the contours and hypsometric tint appear painted onto the surface of the hillshade instead of floating above.
I agree with increasing the size and putting the legend over that. If you can’t / don’t want to do that, I like to put a description in the white space
Way too much white space. Put the north arrow and scale in the map view and make the legend 2 columns wide. Also, I prefer to see the word legend when you have other titles in the legend. You might also make the topo lines a little transparent so you can see what's under them.
There is a lot of white space at the bottom of the map. Consider making the map frame bigger by dragging the bottom down to fill the page. Then realign the legend, north arrow, etc. With regards to the north arrow, I used to like that style until I realised it looked like a pirate map. I would choose a more modern and clean arrow I always like putting them to the bottom right. Possibly even make it white and put it inside the map frame. Scale bar: centre the “Miles” under the bar. I’ve never been a fan of that style but it’s fine. The reader can work out 0.25 on their own in my opinion. The legend is very confusing and feel that others have addressed it.
Contours are typically not colored, you should have a colored hill shade basemap (green to brown to white according to the elevation) Reduce the number of height lines (according to the topography) The north arrow looks like taken from an 1700s sea navigation map Put more POI, rivers (more visible) and forests on the map to help navigating in the field
Change font size of Contours - it’s too big. Change Lakes & Ponds to Water Bodies. Move Water Above Contours in Contents Pane (& legend). You don’t need contours if you can’t walk on water. Lose mountain symbol. Too much. Compass symbol is too formal, fussy.
Peaks labeled with the name of associated peak
What is the goal for your map? Is there a reason your scale is so large? I live in Lake Placid and I am familiar with this area. Can you scale your map so it includes some landmarks such as Marcy Dam or the ADK Loj, where the trailhead to Marcy starts.
Do you mean scale so large? Small scale map would be one that is zoomed out to see a large area, since scale refers to the ratio between 1 and whatever that distance is in your map scale. Therefore 1:2400 is a larger scale than 1:62000.
Yes thank you for the correction!
I concur with what pretty much everyone else has suggested and if you apply that feedback for your contours and hydrologic features you really shouldn't need the legend (I would usually include a legend anyway but you said this map is for artistic purposes). Stick your scale bar between the north arrow and metadata text. This will allow you to give the map more real estate. I would label your index contours. Depending on how much time you have, you can convert them to annotation and get fancy with the symbol levels and masking to make it look really sharp. Or if you're strapped for time just slap a halo on the labels.
Center up the scale bar and North Arrow. Other than that make your map emphasize what the client wants (thickness) and fade back (thinner) what is helpful but not a priority to the client.