GIS5007 Map Evaluation Lab

We were asked to find 2 maps, one we felt was poorly designed, one that was well designed and then to evaluate each one. Here are the maps I chose:

 

Map 1:

https://www.andrewdc.co.nz/project/murky-waters-unmapped-areas-of-seafloor/

 

Map 2: 

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasive_species/eab/risk_detection_spread/modeling_eab_risk/ 

 I chose Murky Waters as my well designed map. It is a bit less conventional as it utilizes a Spilhaus Projections. This map is well balanced, easy to read and has very helpful table and text block to further communicate the message of the map. The color choices are also on point. The overall design appears well thought out and it contains the necessary elements.

  

The second map I chose as my poorly designed map is one that illustrates the risk of spread of the Emerald Ash Borer (an invasive species) in Ohio. This map is lacking in many ways. It does not have a title, any helpful text block and uses a multi-color scheme that makes it difficult to interpret. At a glance it is not at all cohesive. The risk areas were represented by multiple colors which them appear not related at all. The point symbols are not identified in the legend. This map does not convey any clear message.

Through this exercise I learned that poor maps can be anywhere. I didn't realize how much impact a good map could have until I really looked at Map 2. If this map had a better color scheme it would communicate a lot more information even at a glance. The addition of a table or text box would have communicated even more information. I also enjoyed the Spilhaus map - I had never heard of this type of map prior to this. I am now much more aware of the variety of maps out there and the importance of a well thought out, well constructed map.