I remember this mapping assignment with strong feelings. This was our fourth assignment, and we were into our fifth week of the semester, and I was struggling a little when it came to these maps. I was also feeling inadequate, as I had not yet made friends in the class and was perceiving everyone around me to be plugging along just fine. Of course, actually, everyone was learning this new skill as I was, and we all probably would have benefited if we had started talking to each other a lot sooner. So the map that gave me such terror was actually pretty simple: provide a size comparison between the state of Texas and the Canadian province, Nunavut. Along with this, the skill we were to learn was that of projection, both on-the-fly and permanent.
The requirements for this map were similar as those of the previous labs, but also required us to get a dose of ArcCatalog and create a table that listed all of the data that we were using for the Canada map, and their original projections, and then the projections we reprojected them to, which needed to be a conformal projection. These were to be permanent reprojections, while the Texas map didn’t require permanent reprojections, but instead on-the-fly projections. Presently, this doesn’t seem hard at all. At the time, wrapping my mind around it was impossible. The biggest issue was merely that I didn’t understand that on-the-fly projection could trump permanent projections. So even though I reprojected all of my themes correctly, I never changed the coordinate systems of the data frame, so I never saw a difference, until I learned what was going on later.
One big thing: this was where we were supposed to learn the difference between the “Define Projection” and actual “Project” tools. My professor warned us all, multiple times to be very, very careful that we understood the difference between the two. While I certainly had an unfortunate experience with this map, I do thank the heavens that I understood the difference almost immediately. It would probably have been the straw that broke the camel’s back otherwise.
Otherwise, this map is one of my favorite maps I’ve created so far. I won’t lie – it’s because I find it pretty. The raster I used to show the physiography of Canada utilizes the same color spectrum as most physiography maps, but never before have I wanted to wax poetic on one. That might just be a dedication to Canada’s physical appearance, and I’m not even ashamed. In terms of other map elements, we were also required to show the railroads and major roads of Canada and it took me a while to figure out which colors worked best, but I feel pretty good about my bright purple for major roads and midnight blue for railroads. And I must shout kudos to esri’s ArcMap railroad symbology. Well done.
Otherwise, we were also supposed to clearly highlight Nunavut and clearly show Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut. You’ll note that someone has definitely learned to use the “select” tool, as Iqaluit is the only city on there. The only one. Hurrah for me, because when I first took a stab at this map, I still had the selection skills of Lab 2. As for highlighting Nunavut, I think I don’t do so as successfully as say, Texas is highlighted in the inset. This is partially due to the fact the physiography needed to be clear, but was also really strong. So even though Nunavut has a different overall coloring, a red outline, and two large names shouting out to the viewer, the eye is not immediately drawn to it. To rectify that, I would have probably made the physiography a lot lighter with transparency, so that way Nunavut would have stood out more. I also would have done something about the outline, such as a black outline to strengthen the border of it.
The inset of the Texas map was pretty easy. Texas was red, outlined in black, and the rest of the visible states were yellow, outlined in gray. Not too hard to make that work, given physiography wasn’t necessary. The only aspect I found giving me issue was the scale, but once I adjusted the data frame for the Texas map, I was able to have them at a matching scale. Based off of the map, I hope you all agree with me that Texas, while my favorite big state, is still definitely smaller than Nunavut. If you don’t, I’ve failed because Nunavut has some 500,000+ miles on Texas. No, not EVERYTHING is bigger in Texas…
As for my technical aspects of the map, such as the legend, scale bar, and North arrow, I’m pretty satisfied with my space usage and placement, though I definitely would have done well to somehow fit that scale bar directly beneath Canada, so that way the ends lined up with the edges of Nunavut. I just did the finger test myself and they totally would have matched up and would have saved a lot of readers the irritation of keeping their fingers the same width apart as they moved them to Nunavut.
What cracks me up now is how this map turned from a pain in my rear to truly, one of my favorite maps. Under the rules of our class, I was allowed one free lab that could be turned in late with no late penalty. As we already had one lab due a week, I sat on this lab all the way to Spring Break to work on it with no other requirements breathing down my neck. I remember redoing the assigned tutorials and changing the projections and realizing just how not hard this assignment was. I was able to have fun with it, and realize that a colored background wasn’t always the best way to go. I understood things I hadn’t gotten before. Lastly, you can bet getting that map done and turning it in was the best kind of relieving success.
Most of all, I learned the importance of doing your work when you’re assigned it, and crawling before you walk. The struggle to understand a concept may be torture, but once you learn it, you learn it. It helps set you up for the next struggle, with a lot more ease than if you hadn’t survived the prior one.