What layers are essential for a good overview map?
I am thinking about the scale of a sub-watershed.
This question is very open-ended. It is highly dependent on what you are overviewing, what sort of data you want to show. You should consider who your audience is, what information you want to convey, etc.
Could you give a better example of what you are trying to accomplish? Also, sub-watershed level is very vague, since watersheds are broken down by level already (at least in US you have HUC-2 level to HUC-12 level).
I am thinking something like this.
Am I missing anything major that you can see?
I am thinking a general map that shows location of lots.
As Ian Murray says, this is quite open-ended, but here are some subjective opinions I have:
- I think a good map should function as a standalone product (e.g. if it fell out of a report and someone picked it up, would it still make sense?). The first thing that strikes me is that if I didn't happen to know where Ashland is, this map would lose me immediately. I would add an inset map showing Ashland in its larger context, at least within the county, probably within the state.
- add the coordinate reference system. While you're at it, some other useful info would be, date, author (you), reviewer, data sources, client name, etc.
- it's a little hard to differentiate between forest plan units (e.g. where does Cottle Philips begin and end?). I don't know if that's important to your story.
- Should add labels, at least, for Ashland and I-5
Feedback can go on and on. You need to decide what you need to say and how others not as close to the project as you are, will view it. If you have a client or supervisor, ask them - they probably already know what they want and no matter what you do, there will be changes.
You may be interested in checking out Cartotalk, where you can upload maps for feedback.
Thank you for the feedback.
I'll go ahead and mention a few things as well
Retrieving data ...