Week 4

      I would say my experience with ArcGIS was both good and bad. The biggest challenge I had was dealing with the changes of the updated ArcGIS we are using and the directions on the tutorial that were based on the older version of ArcGIS. I found the tutorial VERY easy to follow and understandable. I also found it really rewarding to be able to enter the information and see what I had just done on the map in front of me, especially when I would get on a roll and be able to just constantly follow the directions and keep creating maps. I also enjoyed getting to work with a program I had never worked with before. Overall I enjoyed using ArcGIS but I'm not sure if was only due to having step-by-step directions in front of me.
      The thing that I did not like about my ArcGIS experience the most was getting stuck on the translation of the directions when it was referring to the older version of the program. It was SO incredibly frustrating to not be able to find what the directions were referring to and be completely stuck, especially if there was not a TA available while I was working on it. It pretty much would put an entire halt on me working on my lab until I could get help. Also, although I really enjoyed it giving me complete directions, I was not exactly sure what I was doing to the map about half of the time. I just did what it told me to do but it would have been nice to understand what it was having me do a little bit more. Another problem I had, which may have been a personal one, was that every time I saved it, emailed it, then opened it up again in the lab it would never show up my previous work and I would have to repair my data. It was quite stressful for my work to not show up every time I opened the file.
      I do not think I know or understand the program enough to recognize what a real pitfall in the program would be. Once you actually learn to use it, I can imagine it is extremely helpful in creating a map of your own and the only downfall I could see it having is the limitations the program has on it, say if you would want to create something is does not recognize. As for potential, I think it has immense potential because it takes away the the pencil and paper of making a graph and brings such precision and organization to data. It makes it easy to edit data, if the information were to change instead of having to change it by hand on a graph on paper. I would say that any of the pitfalls it has will always be outnumbered by the amount of potential is has.
       I feel that it would take many hours playing around with ArcGIS to figure out how to really use the program on your own. I know if I were to try and make a map on the program I would not even know where to start. I probably would not have looked at half of the windows I opened. I am definitely excited though to become more familiar with the program because it really was rewarding and cool to see what I had just created.

Week 3

http://g.co/maps/n5b96

Neogeography has potential for a positive outcome when used for what it was intended. For every one to have an ability to share their travels, research, and opinions through making their own maps opens the door for much more variety on the internet. For example, instead of only having a cartographer portray a map on only selective information, you can see a map made by an artist of everywhere their art is displayed, or you can see a map of all the restaurants someone ate at while abroad. It gives an opportunity to display information in an understandable way to every interest. 

There are definitely pitfalls and consequences in neogeography. Not everyone is honest in the information they display when given the opportunity to share, like we see on sites such as Wikipedia. There is potential for neogeography to get out of hand from the misuse of the ability to share your personal information with the world, and the consequence of that is caused by our inability to filter out what is true and what is not.  There is also the consequence of the displaying of inaccurate data. Whether it be intentional or not, people will display their information as fact and then someone else will use that information for their own cause. By this happening it causes the continuous use of data that is not correct. The inaccuracy of data is something we have to watch out for when doing a simple Google search, with the continuation of neogeography, the web of lies will continue to grow.

Graph For week 2

The graph I posted on my original blog did not work.

Week 2

1. The name of the quadrangle is Beverly Hills.

2. The names of the adjacent quadrangles are Canoga Park, Van Nuys, Burbank, Topanga, Hollywood, Venice and Inglewood.

3. The quadrangle was first created in 1995.

4. The datum used to create the map was the United States Geological Survey.

5. The scale of the map is 1:24,000.

6. a.) 5 Meters on the map is equivalent to 1,200 meters on the ground.

    b.) 5 Inches on the map is equivalent to 1.9 Miles on the ground.

    c.) One mile on the map is equivalent to 63,360 inches on the map.

    d.) Three kilometers on the ground is equivalent to 12.5 centimeters on the map.

7. The contour interval is 20 feet.

8. a.) Public Affairs Building: 34°4”30’ N; 118°26”00’W. 34.075N; 118.43333W

    b.) Tip of Santa Monica Pier: 34°00”15’N; 118°30”00’W. 34.00417N; 118.50W

    c.) Upper Franklin Canyon Reservoir: 34°6”00’N; 118°24”45’W. 34.10N; 118.4125W

9. a.) Graystone Mansion: 560 feet; 170.688 meters

    b.) Woodlawn Cemetery: 140 feet; 42.672 meters

    c.) Crestwood Hills Park:  600 feet; 182.88 meters

10. The UTM zone of the map is 11.

11. The UTM coordinates for the lower left corner of my map are ³⁷63^000mN; ³62^000mE.

12. There are 2,000 square meters within each square of the UTM gridlines.

13.

 

14. The magnetic declination of the map is 14°

15. The water flows North in the stream between the 405 and Stone Canyon Reservoir.
16.