eric-barber
Uploaded by
23 SLIDES
358 VIEWS
230LIKES

### "Optimizing Multiscale Mapping: Techniques for Feature Elimination and Labeling" ###

DESCRIPTION

This study explores systematic approaches for eliminating geographical features and optimizing labels in multiscale mapping. It reviews various techniques, such as pruning, thinning, and filtering, specifically using tools like USGS hydro tools and ArcGIS. A case study on populated place labels demonstrates how to dynamically adjust label sizes based on population and scale. Emphasizing the importance of database-driven cartography, the paper advocates for systematic elimination practices to improve clarity at varying scales. It highlights design decisions, content, and label changes, showcasing the impact of feature elimination on map readability. ###

1 / 23

Download Presentation

### "Optimizing Multiscale Mapping: Techniques for Feature Elimination and Labeling" ###

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Remove features for multiscale mapping Select, Eliminate, Refine, Filter (e.g., definition query on size), Prune (new USGS hydro tools), Thin (new ArcGIS road thinning tools) Concept is not treated systematically in literature or tools Be systematic about use of elimination through scale (39%!) Database-driven cartography needs importance attributes for all feature types to drive elimination of labels and features

  2. ScaleMaster.org – multiscale design decisions

  3. Populated place labels – case study

  4. Dynamic labels in ArcGIS, no annotation GNIS pt CDP MCD County Incorp.

  5. GNIS pt CDP MCD County Incorp.

  6. GNIS pt CDP MCD County Incorp.

  7. GNIS pt CDP MCD County Incorp.

  8. Elimination matters! GNIS pt CDP MCD County Incorp.

  9. Label sizes by population and map scale Details…See Brewer presentation from ICA Commission meeting on Generalisation and Multiple Representation last week aci.ign.fr Label pattern for incorporated places (C5) only

  10. Hydrography case study

  11. Hydrography data for smaller scale ‘Display’ and ‘Geometry’ changes • Pruning (remove in database) C- • Simplification Gs • Collapse (centerline replaces river area) Gc • Selection on size (remove in database or remove symbol) C- • estimated upstream drainage area (UDA) • polygon area • Reclassify (categories, taper by UDA) Cc Also, symbol lightness, width, label size, label removal… Sc Sz La L- Brewer and Buttenfield, 2010, Geoinformatica

  12. Hydro change through scale • Fuller map design context (captures from ArcGIS screen) • Compare geometry/display change to display only solutions • 11 slides, with toggling through versions at each scale

  13. 24K hydro data (OK at 36K)

  14. 24K hydro data (not suited to 72K)

  15. 50-200K LoD (OK at 72K)

  16. 50-200K LoD (OK at 144K)

  17. 50-200K LoD (not suited to 289K)

  18. 200-500K LoD (OK at 289K) Geometry solution

  19. 50-200K LoD (display-only solution at 288K)

  20. 500K-1M LoD (OK at 578K)

  21. Elimination decisions in ScaleMaster

  22. Remove features for multiscale mapping Of 94 changes in draft ScaleMaster: 30% label changes (including removing labels) 26% symbol changes 14% geometry changes (not yet applied to all themes) 31% content changes Content and label removal are 39% of design decisions in this draft multiscale mapping (20K to 1M) To>

More Related