electronic topographic map design€¦ · c. brewer, nationalmapping.us autocarto, november 2010...

C. Brewer, NationalMapping.us AutoCarto, November 2010

Performance of Map Symbol and Label Design with Format and Display Resolution Options Through Scale for The National Map

Cynthia A. Brewer, Pennsylvania State UniversityChelsea L. Hanchett, Penn State -> ESRIBarbara P. Buttenfield, Univ. of Colorado-BoulderE. Lynn Usery, USGS/CEGIS

Penn State Research Assistants:Chelsea HanchettStephen Butzler, Paulo Raposo, Andrew Stauffer, Halina Sundy


Multiscale topographic map design

• Draft design for mapping from The National Map data• Suited to multiple resolutions

– Onscreen 91 ppi (desktop)– 120 ppi (laptop)– Print 400 ppi

• Suited to multiple formats– PDF– ArcMap– Cached tile (web)– Print

• Supports hydrographic generalization evaluation

250K100K

24K 199824K older

Existing US paper topo design

No longer produced


Outline for talk

• Map Sample Overview• ScaleMaster – Design Through Scale• Evaluating the Maps

Other project talks at AutoCarto:• Stanislawski and Wilmer talks, Wed 10am session• Stroh, Thurs 8:30am session


Map Sample Overview


Missouri – 24K map data from

The National Map,all dynamic content

ArcMap to PDF to screen capture


Missouri, 50K map with 50K LoD

Missouri50K map with

50K LoD hydroVisual evaluation of hydro in map

context

PDF export

13

2

AutoCarto, November 2010C. Brewer, NationalMapping.us

ATL 24KArcMap capture

CO 35KArcMap capture

TX 50KArcMap capture

UT 80KArcMap capture

FL-GA 100KArcMap capture

WV 100KArcMap capture

ATL 250KArcMap capture

WV 1MArcMap capture

UT 500KArcMap capture


ScaleMaster – Design Through Scale


ScaleMaster for multiscale topographic mapScaleMaster.org


ScaleMaster key to each change


ScaleMaster key to each change

ScaleMaster.org


Categories of design change

ContentAdd Features (C+)Eliminate Features (C-)Reclassify Features (Cc)Reorder Features (Co)

LabelingAdd Labels (L+)Eliminate Labels (L-)Adjust Appearance (La)Adjust Position (Lp)

GeometryAggregate (Gg)Collapse (Gc)Displace (Gd)Exaggerate (Gx)Merge (Gm)Simplify (Gs)Smooth (Go)

GC – replace with generalized dataset

SymbolAdjust Color (Sc)Enhance (Se)Adjust Pattern (Sp)Rotate (So)Adjust Shape (Ss)Adjust Size (Sz)Adjust Transparency

(St)Typify (Sf)

Adapted from Roth et al. review; see ScaleMaster.org


Categories of design change

ContentAdd Features (C+)Eliminate Features (C-)Reclassify Features (Cc)Reorder Features (Co)

LabelingAdd Labels (L+)Eliminate Labels (L-)Adjust Appearance (La)Adjust Position (Lp)

GeometryAggregate (Gg)Collapse (Gc)Displace (Gd)Exaggerate (Gx)Merge (Gm)Simplify (Gs)Smooth (Go)

GC – replace with generalized dataset (LoD)

SymbolAdjust Color (Sc)Enhance (Se)Adjust Pattern (Sp)Rotate (So)Adjust Shape (Ss)Adjust Size (Sz)Adjust Transparency

(St)Typify (Sf)

Adapted from Roth et al. review; see ScaleMaster.org


Evaluating the Maps


Quality rating categories

A - Label appearance and readabilityB - Label positioning and generalizationC - Point symbol appearanceD - Point generalizationE - Line symbol appearanceF - Line generalizationG - Area symbol appearanceH - Area generalizationI - Terrain appearanceJ - Terrain generalizationK - Vertical integration between layersL - Overall appearance of map (Goldilocks)


Quality rating categories

E - Line symbol appearance– Line appearance too similar to other line symbols– Line too wide (or too narrow)– Line form is jagged (due to rendering)– Poor pattern choice (e.g., dash)– Poor multilayer pattern combination (e.g., dash, centerline, line

casing)– Poor color(s)– Interference from other features above or below line– Poor symbol-level drawing (line should be above or below

another feature type)


WV1:24K


WV1:50K


WV1:100K


WV1:250K


WV1:500K


WV1:1M


Example ratings aggregation


Experiment design

5-inch map patches examined:• by 3 raters (2 so far)• at 6 scales • for 9 subbasins (8 so far)• at 2 resolutions • in 3 file formats (2 so far)

• 2 x 6 x 8 x 2 x 2 = 384 evaluated (Aug 2010)• 3 x 6 x 9 x 2 x 3 = 972 combinations planned


Quality ratings – preliminary results

A - Label appearance and readability 231 14B - Label positioning and generalization 226 14C - Point symbol appearance 156 10D - Point generalization 37 2E - Line symbol appearance 287 18F - Line generalization 142 9G - Area symbol appearance 142 9H - Area generalization 111 7I - Terrain appearance 56 3J - Terrain generalization 59 4K - Vertical integration between layers 110 7L - Overall appearance of map 79 5

Comments on problems: # %

Total comments: 1636


E - Line symbol appearance 18 = 11 Arc + 7 PDFA - Label appearance and readability 14 = 9 Arc + 5 PDFB - Label positioning and generalization 14 = 8 Arc + 6 PDFC - Point symbol appearance 10F - Line generalization 9G - Area symbol appearance 9H - Area generalization 7K - Vertical integration between layers 7L - Overall appearance of map 5J - Terrain generalization 4I - Terrain appearance 3D - Point generalization 2

Quality ratings – preliminary results

Overall, 1.4X more problems in ArcMapviews than PDF


Format Makes a Difference

ArcMap120 ppi

PDF120 ppi

MO250K

enlarged


ResolutionMakes a

Difference

ArcMap91 ppi

ArcMap120 ppi

PDF120 ppi

MO250K

enlarged


Example comments: Line symbol appearance, area generalization

E/CO/100: line too narrow (flowlines); interference from other features above or below line (flowline, reservation, roads)E/STL/24: line appearance too similar to other line symbols (state/county); poor colors (ramps); poor symbol-level drawing (roads, railroad)

H/FL/500: areas too small to suit scale (waterbodies); too many area features (waterbodies); area shapes too complex (waterbodies)H/UT/500: Too many area features (reserve); Area shapes too complex (area hydro and incorp place); Areas too small to suit scale (NA reservation)


CO1:100K


Example comments on Labelsappearance/readability, positioning/generalization

A/ATL/250: poor curve or angle to label (road, flowlines); multiline label needed (waterbody)A/STL/24: Different case would better suit feature (change to lower case)(EMS); Too large (ctr); Poor styling (EMS spacing too wide)

B/WV/100: interference from other features (roads, contours); poor curve or angle to label (roads)B/STL/50: Too many features of one type are labeled (schools); Difficult to understand location of named feature (EMS); Hierarchy of labels would better suit feature type (pop and incorp place)


STL1:50K


What’s Next

• Refine hydro LoD 50K~200K(e.g., braiding, centerlines, islands)

• Next hydro LoD, perhaps for 200K~800K range• Generalize additional layers• More categories of importance for pruning through

scale (e.g., airports, populated places, local roads)• Evaluate Preview of appearance for cached web display• Continue evaluating design, adjust, re-evaluate• Attend to vertical data integration


Gould CenterGeography Penn StateSummer 2010

From left:Chelsea HanchettAndy StaufferHalina SundyCindy BrewerSteve Butzler

James Wilmer

Ha’sbirthday


Acknowledgements

USGS Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS), 2007 to present

ScaleMaster funded by ESRI, 2003-2006

ResourcesProject resources: ScaleMaster.orgLynn’s USGS Center: cegis.usgs.govCindy’s website: www.personal.psu.edu/cab38babs’ Meridian Lab: greenwich.colorado.edu

Thanks:

Larry StanislawskiTom HaleUSGS-CEGIS

Charlie FryeESRI

electronic topographic map design€¦ · c. brewer, nationalmapping.us autocarto, november 2010...

Documents