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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by snodsy
