On another hand, the map exists to illustrate access and recreation opportunities for the public. We made an exhaustive effort to accurately map the trails, access points, and facilities of every open space—as well as cultural features in surrounding developed areas. Because terrain undulations are such a defining part of the area, we included elevations of most trail junctions as well as major and minor peaks. There are over 3000 labels. To keep the map from being covered in label ink, and because most of these names and numbers only need to be readable when the user focuses on a narrow area, the text is small and fairly light.

The regional Diablo Trail is the foremost focus of access and recreation opportunities, as well as a unifying element to the conservation efforts of the organization. It winds through many of the parks. This map presents it to the public for the first time. The title, narrative text boxes, locator map, and yellow highlight aim to emphasize this feature.

Text and icon colors/sizes/weights too subtle? A very inhibiting demand on this map was information density. This is not a spacious national park or remote forest—the west side in particular is very busy with people and features to accommodate them. I am interested in feedback regarding the balance between not bombarding the user with large, dark text and making things readable.

Sheet too large? The spatial extent of the area was fixed; the feature density demanded a scale at least this large.

Contour interval: 100', index every 500', vastly wider than the USGS 20' or 40'. Since the area is quite hilly, the contours are still spaced closely enough to illustrate terrain shapes. I hope the relief shading and spot elevations (junctions and peaks) aid in that.

Filled polygons (even though transparent) mask elevation shading and tints--a difficult design decision. We considered an inner glow effect on the boundaries, but we wanted the display of preserved acreage to be loud and clear.

Unnatural, yuletide trails-on-parks colors? We wanted the trails to really stand out. For the same reason, roads and highways are intended to be clear, but somewhat in the background of the visual hierarchy. My deep apologies to the four-or-so percent of people who are red-green color-blind; we will try to find a better color pairing next time.

Weird typefaces? For the trail names I wanted something more unique than a standard sans-serif. And since there was no budget for this production, I looked for a unique, respectable, free font. I am very interested in feedback and advice on the use of other font weights, colors, styles, and faces, as well as how to differentiate features while keeping a unifying feel across the map.

Don't like the elevation colors? It is very difficult to please everyone (or even oneself!) in this subjective amalgam of many parameters. Additionally, the use of colored polygons for parks adds another factor to the feel. (Whether to block out the hypsometric gradient with the park color or have it change the park color is another point of discussion.) In theory, elevation tinting hints at vegetation changes due to elevation-dependent temperature and precipitation. Over an area as relatively narrow (both vertically and horizontally) as this one, color changes much more dramatically with the seasons than with distance. Although the entire area is green in the spring, for much of the year it is hot, dry, and golden (the balance between yellow and brown—and sometimes the black of fires—is subtle); thus the general yellow color in most of the non-park area. The spectrum goes to white at the top, aping hypsometric tints that include glaciated mountains. While the higher elevations on this map do not have snow or ice for about 360 days of the year, I justify the white with those few days of snow-dusted peaks.

The compass rose is unnecessarily large! A discussion for another day (regarding adornment, signature, tradition, etc.). I do agree that north arrows / compass roses are often overused/abused; that they can be a simple line with an arrowhead (or two lines, if magnetic declination needs to be shown); that they should perhaps be left out entirely (if north is directed to the top of the page). For this map it is important to trail travelers that we show magnetic north, and true north is very slightly off of grid north (UTM).

The scale bar is so plain! Lacking a justifiable flourish to this linear necessity, I'll make this design my ode to minimalism. I think a bar of alternating black and white filled rectangles is too loud. I understand the fondness for the USGS (et al.) scale bar with intermediate marks and alternating centerlines. But I feel subdivisions and extensions (making zero not at the left end) can take away from the at-a-glance use of the scale bar, and the subdivisions can be estimated mentally. The trail distance labels and 1km grid throughout the map provide considerable scale reference.

Coordinates? The primary navigation coordinates are the UTM (Zone 10) numbers along the edges. I used kilometers instead of meters to avoid all the unnecessary zeros. The A,B,C...1,2,3... grid labels the boxes instead of the lines, for less precise, quicker reference (to a wider audience).

Blocking out vs. multiplying park color with elevation color: I opted to multiply. I felt the effect on the park color was subtle enough to not interrupt the cohesion of its symbology, but just noticeable enough to provide another indication of the elevation change within the parks. Perhaps any effect of the latter is too subtle, but I wanted to err in the direction of the other option (full knock out of the elevation color).