SEGD_Design - (Page 70) “The conventional wisdom among the mapmaking community was that 3D maps are easier to read for novice map readers, which comprise the majority of the population visiting our national parks.” 2D vs. 3D maps NPS currently uses both 2D and 3D maps. Most existing maps, including NPS trailhead maps and U.S. Geological Service topographical maps, are two-dimensional, depicting the landscape from a point directly overhead. 2D maps accurately portray the spatial relationships (x and y dimensions) of a landscape, but are ill suited for depicting the height of terrain (z dimension). Three-dimensional maps, sometimes called bird’s-eye views or panoramas, depict the landscape from an oblique angle and in perspective. They contain faux three-dimensionality and perspective that portrays distant (background) areas with diminished scale. The landscapes shown on 3D maps appear similar to the views people observe from high places, such as mountain peaks. Many cartographers believe that inexperienced users more easily understand 3D maps because they present the landscape in a realistic manner and mimic what people see while on a trail. 3D maps also provide the option for customizable viewing direction and position, make elevation changes easier to understand, and are more visually appealing. They can also be overlaid with abstract or photo-realistic information, including detailed building footprints. But 3D maps can cost 200% to 400% more to produce than 2D maps, says Patterson. “Because of all the detail you can add to a 3D map to make it more visually appealing, all the layers of data have to be in absolutely perfect register, or the final piece will be sloppy. Cartographers have to spend a lot more time finessing the data so everything aligns perfectly.” Objectives The study sought to answer several questions about the effectiveness of 3D vs. 2D maps: • Which communicates geographic information faster and more effectively? • Which imprints itself better as a “mental map” in the minds of park visitors? • Which attracts more visitors to read trailhead exhibits, holds their attention, and motivates them to go hiking? • Which do national park visitors prefer? 2D (left) and 3D maps for Zion National Park’s Emerald Pools Trails were mounted to existing trailhead signs on alternating days. Except for the 2D or 3D appearance and lack of a bar scale on 3D maps, the maps contained the same information, orientation, and design qualities. (Map design: David Schobesberger) segdDESIGN 67
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.