|
Summary: This has already been addressed on the Unlostify maps.
I think we agree with each other for the most part.
First to clarify a couple of things though... there are, in fact, 8 panels of key across which every symbol on the map is denoted and described.
That said, it sounds like the issue is one of formatting. Specifically, you'd prefer it if the legend was a straight-up chart rather than:
Set of 2-10 Related Icons
Descriptive Text
Set of 2-10 Related Icons
Descriptive Text
If so, I can certainly appreciate where you're coming from. The format on my old Jeff's Map sacrifices the skim-ability that a chart-style legend has in distributing the symbols over a wider area. That's not very good if you see a symbol on the map and want to make sense of it.
It may be a bit of a surprise, but that’s actually the format I used for years and years. So why did I change it on my 2014-era Jeff's Map's (like the one you have)? Simple - because I found that the chart-style format had a big downside – if one doesn't already know how to use a symbol it was very hard to figure out how they ought to make use of it.
Over time this got to be a realllllly big problem. I was finding that most people either didn't understand a good 25% of the symbols on the map, or worse yet, thought they understood them but actually didn't. So I started adding a few lines of descriptive text below each set of symbols to address that problem.
Really, each approach to formatting the legend has its advantages and disadvantages. One is design better if you want to identify a symbol that you’ve found on the map, and the other is better if you want to understand what a symbol means and how you can use it to plan or have a better trip.
The real kicker though is hopefully you can see that I’m in complete agreement with you about the flaws with the approach I used on the 2014-era Jeff’s Map you have. In fact, I picked up on this problem years ago, and you guessed it, addressed it on the Unlostify maps by adding both styles of legends.
(Specifically, there’s the more traditional chart-style legend entitled ‘Quick Reference’ – a simple list of symbols that you can use to identify something on the map – as well as a more descriptive legend elsewhere that takes a deeper dive into some of the more unique symbols to explain what they mean and how you can use them)
—
One last comment. I hear your frustration with the fact that I tried something different on the 2014-era Jeff’s Map - after all, why fix what isn’t broken? The thing is, every single map you’ve ever used is a broken mess.
Why? Maps are weird simplifications and generalizations, and full of completely contradictory goals - even on the most basic level (e.g. “I want more detail, make the scale larger” vs. “I don’t want the map to be too unwieldy, make the sheet smaller”).
In fact there are - I kid you not - literally thousands of small choices that make up a map that one needs to balance out and think about carefully. What ends up happening is that you try one set of choices, and, well, it turns out they’re flawed. Then you try another set, and another set, and another set…
The result is that in designing maps one has two choices: they can just accept the flawed design they already have, or they can constantly try to fix and improve upon those flaws. I work hard to do the later.
Yes, sometimes I’ll make make decisions that I end up regretting, but the key is working diligently to constantly evolve and improve the design and to learn from my mistakes.
(If you want to see this in action, just compare the map you have - my 7th generation of map design - to any of the designs that preceded it).
Alas, this is the frustrating thing about outdated versions of my work still being available. I see all the flaws in it, I’ve already fixed most of those flaws, yet it’s still being distributed. It really is disheartening =(
_________________ I make maps 
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
