Open jeffreyameyer opened 6 months ago
Please don't spend a ton of time on this, per our discussion at our carto meeting, and pending #701
from call
Review Schweiz as an example. Disappearing in terrain a lil bit
using centroids points can consider also label hierarchy and changing things maybe based on area or somethin gsomething . Area has been generated for centroids data
Initial iteration comparisons in adjustments - I will tweak a little more. old country lines / labels:
new:
Upping the contrast in color, width, darkness, saturation combos is tricky as in water areas, the boundaries become severely contrasted. So, it will help a lot when we no longer have maritime boundaries.
Actually now that I thought about this, perhaps it is best to pause the iterating here until maritime boundaries can be removed.
Whoa! My apologies - not sure how I missed this.
I like the new approach, but I'm wondering if we could de-emphasize the 2nd level boundaries (or maybe, both) even further. This map I came across for another purpose has a very stark contrast that I thought was interesting:
And, also agree that we may want to wait to combine with the removal of the maritime boundaries.
I think we could de-emphasize the boundaries (and I personally love finding where to de-emphasize things to remove contrast in data-heavy maps) a lot but I'll follow this up with a note on this particular design:
Comment: The above map looks to be intentionally emphasizing the symbology points and city labels as the main focus of the map, so they chose to design the map in such a way that de-emphasized the state boundaries to remove their importance but "still have them there". I will say in my opinion, these state lines were de-emphasized a little too much - the dashed pattern, light color, and thin line almost create an effect that there is something wrong with loading/data until eventually the eyes realize it is in fact a dashed pattern and not an issue. If I were to de-emphasize, I would still want it to be clear it exists and not cause this initial "cognitive confusion' :)
My question: Would OHM users want them to be de-emphasized a lot? Or should we only de-emphasize at low and mid-zooms, but ensure they are "emphasized just enough' at higher zooms where they use the boundaries as reference for adding data?
The above map looks to be intentionally emphasizing the symbology points and city labels
Good point - I was so focused on the nice contrast between country and state boundaries I didn't think about that a lot. I also think I was ignoring the red clusters, because we obviously don't have those.
My question: Would OHM users want them to be de-emphasized a lot?
My response: what do you :) want the map to look like at this zoom level? What would you be psyched to show off?
My take?
In demo style , in map-styles repo --> will be in next OHM update
De-emphasizing states at higher zooms
State boundaries still clear at high zooms:
meeting notes
bring state boundaries in at 5 rather than 6
Spain: increase visual contrast for states, at mid-level z
Style change requested
Currently, it can be difficult (for my old eyes) to quickly distinguish between countries (admin_level=2) and states (admin_level=4). See this example here of the Confederate States:
browser z=4 - some contrast, but could be clearer:
browser z=6 - whoa... almost completely lost: