La taille du symbole de la carte ArcGIS n'est pas proportionnelle

Question

<\/HEAD>Bonjour !<\/P> Je crée une carte de taille et de couleur et j'ai des problèmes avec la taille des symboles qui n'est pas proportionnelle à la valeur de la variable. J'ai essayé différentes échelles pour la taille minimale et maximale, mais le problème persiste.<\/P> <\/P> Je ne peux choisir que parmi les quatre premières classifications dans la liste suivante (tirée des pages tutoriel 😞<\/span><\/P>-Natural breaks<\/P>-Equal interval<\/P>-Quantile <\/P>-Standard deviation<\/P>-Manual breaks<\/P>-None<\/P> <\/P>Je suppose que j'aurais dû choisir "none" ou "manual breaks". Mes données sont-elles mal formatées ? Dans le champ taille, j'ai ajouté une variable définie comme des nombres ?<\/P> <\/P> <\/P>Cordialement, Oystein<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>

AlagiriVenkatachal · Answer

Hi Øystein,

Thanks for clarifying! Now, we understand what you meant by proportional size.

The classification tries to create buckets and puts your data in each bucket based on a predefined range of values that categorize these buckets. These options are configurable through classification types and number of classes. For example, in your case with Qty values of 1, 5, 10, 20, 100. The Map for example tries to create 3 buckets "<20", "20 to 50", ">50". So 1, 5, 10 get put in the first bucket (<20), 20 gets into the second bucket and 100 gets into the last buckets. Each bucket is assigned a proportional symbol size which means that 1,5 and 10 will have the same symbol size, 20 has a slightly larger symbol size and 100 has a larger symbol size. Also, the documentation that you refer to for the Size based classification lists out incorrect classifications. Manual breaks and None are not available for Size based classification.

We will certainly take your input about the proportional symbol size back to the team for consideration.

Thanks,

Alagiri

ØysteinHermansen · Answer

Thanks Josh and Alagiri!

Proportional size: I would like to have the area of the symbol to be proportional to the value of the variable. In my example, the 100 should be 10 times the area of the 10.

Classification type: I suspect this is where my problem originates. In the tutorial that Josh and Anthony linked to, you can choose between the following classification types (screenshot below). I'm however restricted to the the top five and guess i should have chosen the "none" option to get proportional size. Following the link "classification type" the "none" option is not described.

Would be very helpful if you could provide this option. A lot of users of PowerBI have complained about this error in the PowerBI maps as well, so fixing this could get you quite a few more users 🙂

Here's the link to the PowerBI forum complaining about this: Map dot/bubble sizes should scale properly (with zero= a tiny dot) – Microsoft Power BI

Oystein

abureaux_1-1739904651668.png

abureaux_2-1739904682816.png

abureaux_3-1739904793397.png

AlagiriVenkatachal · Answer

Hi Øystein,

Can you tell us what classification type and the number of classes you are using? The classification itself are working as expected, you can read more about the four Classifications available for Size here:

Classification types—ArcGIS Maps for Power BI | ArcGIS

It would be good to get some clarification on what you mean by proportional size. Are you talking about relative size of Points as you zoom in and out of the Map? Or are you talking about the relative size of the Points based on the values in the field that was used in the "Size" field well (that, a Point with a value of 20 does not have a proportional symbol size to a Point with a value of 100)?

Thanks,

Alagiri