Western United States

[snodsy]

Here the finished map, may tweak a few things. Thanks for the input. Now go out and see some of these incredible places!WesternUSA_17.jpg

[ChickPea]

This turned out really well, and I loved watching it come together.

Also, I think I need to brush up on my US geography. I thought Idaho was much further east. I think I might have confused it with Iowa. Oh well, I learned something new today!

[- Max -]

Really nice Snodsy I'm not a big fan of the bevel effect on rivers. the digital effect clashes with the hand-drawn look of the map.

[Wired]

I've got to concur with Max. The map itself is really, really cool, but the bevel makes the rivers pop out rather than sink into the territory.

[snodsy]

Ok I'll take the bevels out, but I like that rivers are into the ground, I guess I should work on my shading then! I really wasn't happy with the forest at first, they seemed like slimy massing slithering across the landscapes, I knocked back the highlights and it helps and then added some legs to the forests, now they kind of look like little centipedes running around. Not sure how to fix that yet.

[Ilanthar]

Great map snodsy! If I ever have a chance to visit the US, my main interest would certainly be for those magic sites .

[snodsy]

Delta partners with Air France they do a NON STOP from Paris to Salt Lake City $1371 round trip - rent a car and your on your way. I've only hit a few of these - Glacier, Teton, Yellowstone, Joshua Tree

[Hai-Etlik]

I'm noticing some inaccuracies near me. You have Victoria sitting at the end of the Saanich Inlet rather than at the south tip of Vancouver Island. The rivers on Vancouver Island don't line up with anything real. It looks like maybe you might have combined lakes Cowichan and Shawnigan. The US Canada border seems to be too far north; the mouth if the Fraser is in British Columbia, not Washington. You've also linked Lake Okanagen (in the Columbia watershed) to Shuswap lake (in the Fraser watershed) and you've labelled Lake Okanagen River as the Columbia River: the Okanagen river flowing out of the lake is a tributary of the Columbia while the main stem is to the east running through the Arrow Lakes. Portland also seems to be quite a ways off from the Columbia when in real life it is right on the river.

Also, why would you include Victoria, but not Vancouver? The map is of the US, but if you are going to include things outside it, you should be consistent. I suppose Victoria is a capital while Vancouver isn't, but it's also a MUCH bigger city. If you're showing cities outside the US for context or as supplementary information, then you should probably include cities of equivalent importance to those inside the US while if they are not important, you shouldn't include any. Showing cities inside and outside but changing the rules about which are shown is inconsistent in a way that hurts the map. If you are concerned with capitals, then it would be best to mark them distinctly. The intent of the map seems to be as a guide for tourists looking for interesting landforms? Significant cities near the US border, or those with significant tourist appeal are probably fairly useful to that, but just the capitals is not.

It's also not very clear what the numbers next to the features mean. On the mountains I'd assume an elevation, and given the values and that it's the US, I'd assume feet. You should be clear about this. The other landforms and cities are less clear, especially as elevation is much less important and much more ambiguous for them. Normally if I saw an integer next to a city on a map with no clarification, I'd guess it had something to do with population.

It's also odd that you've doubled up between point symbols, and representative symbols integrated into the map. This introduces an ambiguity as to which is correct (is Crater Lake at the dot labelled "Crater Lake", or is it where you've actually drawn Crater Lake.) the dot seems more likely, but introducing such an ambiguity does hurt the readability of the map. Similarly, using the dots for features that are not points is a problem For instance you have "Rocky Mountain" which I'm assuming should be "Rocky Mountains" as a point down in Colorado. The Rockies are nearly 5000 km long extending from northern British Columbia to northern New Mexico with numerous subranges (I think where you've marked them is the Front Range); this map really misrepresents that.

[snodsy]

Thank Hai-Etik, I'll definitely make those changes to the Canadian border and the Okanagen River. I'll probably label Vancouver and Canada as well. I think Victoria seems right to me.?

Not sure how I want to handle the elevations text yet. The elevations started as a way to help me draw, if my drawings were better I probably wouldn't need them at all, since the map should depict the level changes. I'll probably leave them off, although they do add a level of information to the map, but to your point it should be noted as feet above sea level.

The Rocky Mountains should be labeled Rocky Mountain National Park. Other representative points such as the Guadalupe Mountains should be treated different as you stated, as well as the Great Basin and North Cascades. Maybe add the Sierra Madres and large Sonoran Desert in Mexico, however you can start splitting hairs at some point. Is the Mojave Desert, Death Valley, Glacier representative symbols or point symbols. Keeping them all the same simplifies the map for it's purpose of showing destinations/attractions in the West, but I do get your point and will make sure I've at least feel comfortable about the distinctions. Thanks for taking the time to look at it and respond.

[Hai-Etlik]

I think Victoria seems right to me.?

It's close, but it should be where the "m" in "Olympus" is. I probably should have said east tip or southeast tip rather than south tip. The southernmost point is an ammunition depot for the navy.