For each lab, Shannon, Tommy and I will find examples of great maps that you guys create and post on your websites, we'll post them below the table as announcements. If you are enrolled and have not already added your website to the list, please do so here
. Good job and keep it up.
Your Peer's Websites
If you want to see the websites from the 2010 class, click here
Great Map Nominations
did an excellent job on this lab! Michel not only understands the importance of georeferencing but also was able to display and explain the data being displayed. Using the aerial image we obtained for the blimp lab Michel was able to give the image a spatial reference and was able to align the blimp image with an underlying master image. (See Below)
For task 3 Michel used the control points to a T! Using the bing basemap you can see that the georeferenced image is correct and reading through the write up you can tell that Michel used some serious critical thinking for this data set.
did an excellent job for this lab! He utilized the three raster datasets to accurately analyze the percent of the slope, vegetation type, and distance to water. What we expected to see in this lab is a high correlation of the areas with high probability of ungulate activity to strongly reflect the three raster inputs. His results for ungulate probability is clustered in the areas you would expect; such as near the water, high concentrations of vegetation, and where the terrain is more gradual. Dave effectively demonstrated this in his final figure.
Justin Britton did an excellent job on this project you can see that his DEM analysis skills have advanced and his ability to think critically and scientifically have really began to shine. Not only was his watershed appropriately delineated but his morphometric analyses accurately displays the physical characteristics of the watershed.
His Strahler stream order classification was compared to the GIS Portal data (which is trusted stream data) to ensure that his derived data was accurate relative to the GIS Portal data.
Justin was able to identify the landscape characteristics of the watershed and accurately asses the morphometric analysis preformed by properly using the Zonal Statistics tool. Using the slope analysis he was able to identify the steepness of the terrain, using the curvature tools he was able to display the divergence and convergence of landscape features. His morphometric analysis is rather exceptional and thorough, excellent job on this lab Justin!
had an exceptional submission for this weeks lab! He compared point densities between the liDAR versus survey points, in doing this he was able to demonstrate where the survey point density is the highest (in the channel and near beaver dams where they should be). The liDAR was quite the opposite, because in the LiDAR data points were more concentrated on the river banks and fewer point densities in the creek.
This is a perfect example of why you would want to use the rtkGPS survey method rather than using LiDAR data. Not only is the resolution better, (LiDAR 1 meter, rtkGPS 10 cm) the amount of survey points obtained using the rtkGPS survey method is much more flexible in terms of choosing where you would like more accuracy by simply taking more points in that area. Excellent critical thinking and data analysis Eli!
Lisa Winters did a great job with lab 7! When comparing the difference between DEM's she made it clear what we are looking at and what resolution each image is along with a short paragraph describing the map.
You can tell that she hasn't forgot about the 6 C's when she created her Water Depth Analysis map. She has a meaningful title, legend make sense, the scale is in even numbers, a short yet descriptive paragraph, and of course the projection and sources are there as well.
For Task 2 and 3 her DEM/LiDAR comparison map and channel morphology map are equally good. She used critical thinking throughout the lab, great work Lisa!
There were a lot of great maps for this lab! Keep up the good work.
had a great way of displaying and describing the difference between resolutions. She was able to put quite a bit of information on a single map. She had a short, yet descriptive paragraph, which mad it easy to understand the difference between the DEM's resolution. Being able to describe what resolution is and the difference between them is important. Remember it is very important to know what resolution to use for a given project, knowing this can and will save you (and the computer) from a headache .
had a unique way to display the difference between the contour lines and the variation between them. Using this symbology (and a good looking legend) makes it easy to see that there is only a little difference between the 2 meter and 5 meter datasets. Looking at the base map underneath you can see that it is close to the 10 meter data set which shows that this may be the best dataset for this particular topographic base map.
Jonathan Fusaro has an extremely thorough map book that people should really take a look at. In his map book he uses the PDF join to combine the contact list with the map pages! He organized his map book in a really unique way, where he was able to connect the contact list to it's corresponding map page. He also had and excellent map that has really focused at the public audience. Click here to instantly view his map book or click on the image bellow Reid Camp also had a very unique technique to creating a emergency evacuation map and gave a priority level to the land parcels. He based his symbology by categorizing how much of the parcel that was within the river buffer, this is the scale he used:
Extreme: >75% within buffer
High: 50-75% within buffer
Moderate: 25-50% within buffer
Low: <25% within buffer
Nicole Cappuccio created a simple, yet easy to read map. Her table of campground sites and description of files were also very well done; professional, clear and easy to understand. Great job Nicole!
Anthony Frenzel Also was very creative in the way he setup his map and legend. His inset maps look good and give a good idea of where this campsite is going to be located. Anthony did an excellent job at fitting four data frames in this map without overwhelming the reader with information.
For this lab it was difficult to decide who had the best map because of the similarity between all of the maps. Although some people took extra time to think critically and then were able to display their critical thinking through their maps. For instance Adrian Roadman
Did an excellent job with here map, but it is noteworthy to look at how she put an "Other" category on her pie chart equal out to 100%. This makes more sense than the 58.29% pie chart total asked for in the lab. Good critical thinking goes a long way in GIS.
also thought outside of the box by turning her map sideways. This gave here more room to work with when it came time to add her title, north arrow, and most of all here legend. When dealing with a legend of this size it is sometimes difficult to figure out a good cartographic way display a rather large legend. By simply turning her map side ways she took this sometimes difficult task and made it easy on herself.
Remember that consistency is key in making maps. This was an all around great map. It has a clear and descriptive title and the symbology is consistent from the Raw Survey Data map to the Projected survey map. Linsey Blake did a very excellent job with this project!
This map has a good descriptive title, legend, North arrow, inset map, scale, and follows along with the 6 C's. The things that stood out to me (besides the great map) was that the image being used as a base map is not referenced and the text scale bar should probably not be included since it may be inaccurate. Make sure to reference ALL data sources