Hi Everyone,

As I'm in the process of working on a new revision of my map, I'd like some comments on my progress so far (So I don't end up doing something silly like making white lakes again lol!) Off the top of my head the biggest changes are the new fishing symbols and the new hill-shading backdrop imagery (It makes hills much easier to distinguish.) Oh, and of course there's the new UTM grid.



Also, is there anything else you'd like to see added or changed?

Jeff

Jeff... IMHO you are making this map a little too complicated. Sometimes less is more.

Make two versions, old and new.

New:
- new utm grid
- new campsites
- new portages

Old:
- new utm grid
- all other old info and names

This is just my opinion and i like to keep things very simple.... simple minded I guess.

Just wanted to say thanks for all your effort. Your map and this website are the best resources around and have helped or even saved my trips!

mikE

Tomek: Yea, I've tried to balance what I show with what I don't. Right now I think I've done a pretty good job, but to each his own. Thankfully I've designed the map such that layers can easily be turned on and off, so I can certainly make sure to export a simpler version for you and anyone else who would prefer it . In the end I want people to use the map, so anything I can do (Like exporting a simpler version,) is something I'd be more than happy to do. Thanks for this suggestion

Mike: Thanks dude! That's good to hear. There've been a lot of times where I've thought 'If only I had x piece of info (Old campsite location when a thunderstorm pops up, etc,) and providing that data in a resource you'll always carry with you means that you won't forget to make note of info like that before you leave.

-Jeffrey

I'd find it more useful if it had less than it does now, but that's just my personal way of using it. For instance, I wouldn't be interested in old portages or old campsites on most trips. Maybe on a more leisurely trip, for sure.

If anything, maybe old + new. I worry contour lines are going to really clutter.

Kind of related, but there's that free topographic system online called toporama (worth checking out if you're interested in bushwhacking into crown land lakes like me). I like how they have a way of enabling/disabling layers. It'd be awesome to have such a thing for your map, but I imagine it would be even more work than you've already put into it.

UTM Grid? Awesome.

Mark bear attack locations, but not the real ones. Just mark the best campsites as places that have had bear attacks.

Love the, "This campsite was burned out because some idiot thought they were too cool to put out their fire." What about another one, "Bronze memorial plaque was stolen from this spot," didn't someone scoff one off the Petawawa?

I don't know if it's a big job or not, but I love maps where North is up. Chrismar does this.

Great work JeffreyMap

Bryce: The real problem is that (Hopefully,) everything on the map is of interest to someone. That being said, I've already made choices not to include features that I felt would make the map look too cluttered (And did things like make 'blow up' minimaps for areas that had too much labeling like Cache L.) I'm really glad to get this feedback though. You did give me a good idea though. Right now you can infact turn off layers if you use the Illustrator version of my map or the PDF version of my map. The problem of course is the Illustrator version of my map.. requires Illustrator, and the PDF version of my map is the slowest thing ever. The problem of course is that formats like jpg don't support layering. That being said, I just came up with the idea of offering a layered Photoshop format file as well (.psd). I believe that many non-photoshop programs can read the file format, but it allows layering. That way I can continue to offer a version that's like the current one; not the most cluttered thing ever (I hope,) but with features some may not want (Fishing info, old sites, etc.) Some people might not want to take the time to use the layered file, but it'd be easier to use and much quicker. Your thoughts?

By the way, I agree with your thoughts on contour lines; I'm going to try adding them (Because it isn't that much work,) and see if I can make them look decent (I'm going to try putting them to 10% opacity so they're barely visible but give some idea of height.) That being said, if it looks like crap I have no problem dropping them.

Preacher: I've thought of that, lol! Did someone really steal a plaque? Pathetic.

North is up... it makes good logical sense, but of course that means that more non-relevant area is shown (I've currently got the new revision to be 36"*48".) That being said, it is a more logical way of doing things. It would involve me just adding more area to the map and adding the names, elevations, etc to them. Really though, this is the time to make this change if people want it. Really, except from the perspective of printing I think it's the best way to go since it's the most natural way to show it. Your thoughts?

-Jeff

Looks great dude


Canoeguy
www.canoeguy.ca

To be honest, I don't have experience with the different file formats so I can't really comment on it -- I've slowly become a computer user and less on the development side over the past few years. But it sounds like you see the vision I described and have considered the drawbacks of various approachs. I didn't even know PDFs allowed layering to be turned on/off, but I agree the PDF to be terribly slow.

It's hard to juggle everyone's preferences, but glad to see that you're asking for opinions. Keep us updated!

No worries, I think that this will be good for everyone; it makes customization really easy. When the time comes I'll find a recommendation for a good piece of software and write a tutorial. Thank you both for the idea .

Jeff

Hey Jeffrey ....

The new format looks great, and I like the grid system.

Keep it up!

Jeff P
http://algonquincanoeing.blogspot.com/

perfect, i love it, lets go with it, this is the map of the park for the 21st century, i predict it will be as significant as Dr. Bells 1908 map was for the 20th century, bravo!

It's gorgeous, JeffreyM! I can't wait to get a copy of it ... and the Photoshop PSD format idea you mentioned would be the most invaluable version of the map I could possibly ask for.

Bruce: Wow Bruce, you hold me too highly! I'll try to live up to your expectations!

J-Wolf: :D

Jeffrey

Your map was received with "dropped jaws of amazement" at Wednesday's meeting of the Chairs of the OPB and AFA. At lunch break, we did the rounds with it. The chairmen, their respective staff and other group leaders were truly impressed. We gave them a brief background on you and your membership in the ABR exec. We pointed out your email address on the map. I'm expecting you may be getting some inquiries! Well received!

Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca

Thanks Barry, much appreciated!

Jeff

I tried adding contours to the map, but I don't think it's worth keeping them. I feel that they're too intrusive - here's an image:


(The UTM grid was temporarily disabled because it makes the contour lines even harder to see.)

What do you think?

Jeff

Oh, just one little request:

can you change the portage info so it appears in just plain (bold) type, rather than in reverse?


This map is a thing of beauty, Jeff. A work of art, and an interesting book, all rolled into one. Thanks.




Barbara

Hi Jeff M


I luv the map as is and will still like the map
with any chnages you add

I do agree nowever the blue lakes are better than white lakes


Now if they came on a laminated foldable plastic coated paper (???)
they would be better than perfect??

Racoon

lol, thanks Racoon. I'm looking into printing options for next year .

Jeff

Hey Barbara,

I'll mock it up and see how it looks (I'll post a pic.) The reason I choose the inversion was to differentiate portage text from other types of text, especially since I've pretty much run out of unique colours that show up well on the background shades.

Jeffrey

Jeff, try removing the the relief shading when you add the contours and see if that helps to keep the contours clear. (I like having Contours but it's an excellent map even without them

Mike.

Hey Jeffrey...

Our Turbo is back up and running so we can see about the printing options. To those that have not seen the previous printed version, there is so much great info on this map that it has to be printed rather large to make it readable. We had to print half the map on one side of the sheet and the other half on the second side. That made the map big enough to use as a ground sheet for a tent.

We can look into more options for this.



Sean (of Ajax)

And what a great ground sheet it was (Inside the tent of course.) Nice and waterproof . It kept us dry a few times.

Mike:

I expect that shaded relief might be useful for more people since it might help them better visualize heights... but I can still provide the contour lines as a layer which you can turn on and off. What do you think?


Barbara:

I think that the inverted portage lengths are better at making the portage text easily distinguishable, what do you think?

Jeff

Jeff,

IMO, I like the contour lines, just because I like the preciseness and the scale. Also, I grew up looking at my Dad's USGS maps, and contours always seem better.

But both look awesome, I cannot even begin to fathom the amount of time that went into those.

Great job, Jeff

Tenzing

"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."

I think the bold type (non-reverse)shows up great, and is more "traditional". It's what I'm used to looking for, and expect to see for portages.

Numbers in reverse mean "highway exit" to me.




Barbara

Tenzing: Okay, I'll make sure to make it an option one can turn on should they desire it. I'll just need to spend time putting elevation marks on the major contour lines. Thanks for the compliments .

One more question; 10m or 5m intervals? I'm showing 10m intervals in the picture I posted.

Barbara: Hmmm..... I'm going to take some time to think about that. Does anyone else have a preference either way? If there is a definite trend I'll respect it.

By the way, for what it's worth I got the idea originally from the standard USGS symbols for washrooms, picnic areas, etc.

Jeff

My first weigh-in on the issue...I agree with Barbara that the plain numerals for portage distances are preferred by me for two reasons. First, they take less space and cover less of the underlying map. Secondly, I think it provides a "cleaner" look which is purely one of personal preference but to me it makes the map simpler looking and less cluttered.

On the issue of topo vs. shading I would much prefer to see topo as it offers greater detail of the terrain than shading does. If you have it in a mode where you can toggle it that would make all users happy (except the ones that don't know how to toggle the features on and off!).

As many before me have said, excellent job on the map!

Hey Jeffrey,

In the end I think all of us at AA will like the choices you make on how you choose to publish your map, as your map outshines any of the ones I have thus seen by far! Having said that, I'll tell you that I liked the "contours line version with no shading and inverted portage numbers" the best yet. (The top option from your Nov. 2nd posting at 10:00pm.) It was very clean, easy to read, and from a printing standpoint would be easier to print over the second choice you presented.

Excellent work my friend, and like stated earlier, either way I know your choices will be great!

Jeff P
http://algonquincanoeing.blogspot.com/

I have a life long interest in colecting maps. There is a difference between the maps I collect and the ones I use. The collectable maps are more for their beauty or historically importance. It is a rare map that can combine both historical interest, beauty and usefulness. Your map comes very close.

That said, I think that you gain alot aesthetically with the plainer portages (i.e. non reverse) and you dont lose much in usefulnes. So I vote for the plain red and black portage distances.

In terms of the contour lines versus shaded countours, the lines are more useful but less aesthetic, the shaded countour is much prettier and a little less useful. If I was framing this map (which I hope to do one day) I would prefer the shaded countours. I would use the countour lines version of map when I was planning a trip.

Contour lines are infinitely better than the 3d shading effect. I would toggle off the shading and put the contour lines on.

5m or 10m intervals? Ah, the dilemma.

As a climber, my heart says 5m, but this map probably won't be used in such a fashion. I think 10m would be completely sufficient. When I look at a canoe route map, I really only want to know the elevation of the portages and a basic idea of the land around me, for orienting and such. I think 10m intervals would be sufficient enough to accomplish this.

Another thought might be 10m intervals, and then a height of land listing for each portage. At the end of the day, that's my number one elevation question anyways

Again, I can't get over this map. I can't wait to show it to my dad, who has complained about the lack of detail in the FoA maps for years.

Tenzing

"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."

Why not offer both versions?..shaded for the folks that like realism, and contour lines for those that want to know how steep they really have to portage that canoe.




Markus
Etobicoke, Onterry-airy-airy-Ohhh!

I've always liked the shading effect, personally... but would use either.

I'm really interested in the idea of a PSD layer-friendly file

5 or 10, what a dilemma!

As a climber, my heart says 5m. But this map's primary function will not be aid for climbers, it will be aid for canoeists, so I think 10m is completely sufficient.

10m will be less cluttered, and will still give the necessary info. What I want to know, elevation wise, is the height of land on a portage and the relative prominence of hills, so I can use a landmark for orienteering. 10m would be fine for both.

Perhaps list the max height on a portage? Like P 2345 (415m) That way I know what hell I'm about to embark upon...

Again, I can't say enough about this map. I'm so excited to show it to my dad, who has complained about the lack of detail (especially contour lines) on the FoA maps.

Tenzing

"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."

PaPaddler: Yea, they do show more of the underlying map.. You're right.

I know some (Many) people won't bother with the layered file, so I'm going to have to choose a default, but anyone who is interested enough in getting the contours should have a nice and easy time doing so.

JeffP: Thanks dude. I'm really grateful for everyone's comments because they give me some perspective and a second opinion. Plus, it's always easier to make changes in the beginning rather than at the end.

Bruce: I try! With an overwhelming number of votes for 'Regular' portage text and PaPaddlers correct observation that they obscure the background less, I'm going to make the change. My only question is whether 10m or even 5m contour lines are useful on the trail. Sure, they show big hills, but they can also be a bit tricky (In the sense that a portage could be perfectly flat ±0.5m and you could get contour lines all over the place.) I think you'd need contour lines every 1 or 2m's to get a real impression of the trail, but at the scale the map uses it's too unreadable.

Preacher: Thanks for the vote.

Markus: Yup, I think that's what I'll do.

J-Wolf: Thanks!

Tenzing: Ah, that makes sense. If you think 10m will do, then so it shall be. The max (and min?) portage heights are a great idea. That's my ultimate goal (/What I see as much of the value in relief shading/Contour lines) - to figure out what's ahead (Why I also show the black 'hill' markers on portages I've been on. Sure they're subjective, but they're informative.)

Jeff

The max and min would be wonderful. Although, I'm going to get in trouble because I have an altimeter in my watch, and it will be heartbreaking to know how much more of a climb remains.

I do like the portage arrows, and I'm sure their subjectivity would still be appreciated by anyone walking around with a boat on their head.

My only gripe is that P 2345 on the Petawawa into Cedar has to be missing like five arrows, that hill is just insanity

God, I love maps!



Tenzing

"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."

lol! Only recently did I do that portage up from Cedar (Previously I'd only done it downhill,) and it's certainly.... different. That being said, try Heart Attack Hill by Little Osler or the White Partridge-May's L portage .

Jeff

haha at least Heart Attack Hill is aptly named. You have to wonder at Unicorn Hill

Looks like both of my trips in 2009 are going to miss heart attack hill, what a shame. That said, I'll be visiting Unicorn in May. The blackflies won't be bad at all...

Tenzing

"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."

The map looks awesome. AS long as info is in layers that I can turn on or off, then I can set it with the info I need to use! so LOAD IT UP BABY! lol
Thanks again Jeff!

LOL! No problem Tom.

Jeff

I would suggest minimum intervals. Where the contour lines are very compressed would indicate steep slopes. They only appear on land areas so they should not obstruct data significant to canoe travellers. The shading should be only of general interest to them.

These maps are fantastic!