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).