I sat down for a while this weekend and got a lot of work done... I finally was able to add wetlands to my map. I also added and decided against showing parking lots because the data didn't show a good representation of the total number of parking lots in the study area. I fixed/narrowed down vacant lands after realizing that the original queries I had done were incorrect. I limited roads to "within" Colonie using Select by Location. I added in Siena College as a reference point using coordinates from Google maps. Lastly, I have been playing with the idea of using a basemap.
Here are a few of my options so far: The first image is the newly queried vacant lands with wetlands, the second is adding in roads, highways, railways, and parking lots, and the third is adding the basemap beneath it.
Plans for the upcoming week
This week I plan on looking into the percentage of all impervious structures, rather than just transportation corridors using a new data layer that Dr. Meierdiercks has given me. I also plan on setting up a meeting with my client, Dr. Mangun, and discussing how she would like the map to look in the end. I will have a few different final options made up for her to choose from, highlighting different aspects.
Questions
Should I bother doing a union between vacant lands and wetlands or would it be better to differentiate the two? Should I bother doing a union between roads, parking lots, and railways to show all transportation corridors in one layer?
Wow, this is awesome it looks so much more evolved than before! It also works well that you have three different options for Dr. Mangun to choose from as you move forward. You also just gave me a great idea which is that I may have to limit roads and other layers I have so that they fall just within the park boundaries just as you have done. I think differentiating between wetlands and vacant lands could be useful, instead of doing a union. For your other question, I think it may make more sense to have all of the transportation corridors in one layer by using a union, because all three forms of transporation are essentially correlated. Great work this week!
ReplyDeleteThis looks great! I like the 3rd option with the basemap since it shows reference areas, but of course it depends on what your client prefers. I also think it depends on what your client would like in order to answer the question of whether or not to do a union for wetlands and vacant lands, as well as for transportation. If she has specific needs for showing where exactly each area is, than obviously leaving them separate is the best option. So discussing these questions with her is the best thing to do!
ReplyDeleteExcellent progress, Nick. If you don't do the union you can just use the same symbology for both layers. It'll look like one layer even though they'll still be two.
ReplyDelete-Prof. M