Used red/pink/brown stippling with black line + dot to indicate boundary on rim in Vulcans Throne SW and Whitmore Point SE. Then went downstream to west end, and put stippling to show turkey wattle and crossing on river guide map 50.
Then tried to use rotate to place "national park boundary" in right orientation. Huge blow-up of size, which indicates what happened on Fern Glen. Need to re-do that, and more important to insert text by copying from elsewhere, without worrying about orientation or using text tool, both of which add substantially to the size.
All is now complete in clean-up and repair.
Need river edge boundary, with appropriate wording in river.
In some cases, may need to add GCNP name up above.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
GCNP river boundary 15
Renamed quads: first river guide pages, then four-letter quad name abbreviation, then map number, as in: 33-34 whtr 36113b1.tif. In this fashion, they are ordered along the river from upstream start of GCNP/Hualapai boundary.
Files sent to me were on the order of 10 mb. Mine are 150 mb. Perhaps change from indexed color to RGB mode?
Also put on land boundary for NP on whitmore point SE, with pink stippling. May need to heavy it up, and repeat black line on top.
Files sent to me were on the order of 10 mb. Mine are 150 mb. Perhaps change from indexed color to RGB mode?
Also put on land boundary for NP on whitmore point SE, with pink stippling. May need to heavy it up, and repeat black line on top.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
GCNP river boundary 14: Gateway Rapids, Vulcans Throne
The last of the clean-up.
Gateway, like Fern Glen, was produced by the USGS after the 1975, so had the correct boundary. So I removed the black center line, CO, and boundary words. Repaired the dark blue river edge, contours, river water (still doesnt lay down as nicely as I would wish), and the south bank boundary line. Then added + along the Park boundary.
Vulcans T is an old, old map, and has a stippled boundary on the north bank from the days of the second Monument. However, removing this using the Selective Brush (A) followed by Enhance0->adjust color->replace color (with new color background set by light =100%) was a snap for the red and pink. The browns that were left matched the land contours, and so only a little clean-up was needed. Then the pencil & magic eraser for the center line and CO. There was a black boundary on the north side, which had to come out, and "indian" was wrongly placed. "Reservation Boundary" was ok; the only time. Then the water edge and river water needed to be repaired.
So unless I have missed something, the new south shore/river edge boundary is the major thing that needs adding, along with appropriate labels. A stippled land boundary for the Park is required on two maps.
Gateway, like Fern Glen, was produced by the USGS after the 1975, so had the correct boundary. So I removed the black center line, CO, and boundary words. Repaired the dark blue river edge, contours, river water (still doesnt lay down as nicely as I would wish), and the south bank boundary line. Then added + along the Park boundary.
Vulcans T is an old, old map, and has a stippled boundary on the north bank from the days of the second Monument. However, removing this using the Selective Brush (A) followed by Enhance0->adjust color->replace color (with new color background set by light =100%) was a snap for the red and pink. The browns that were left matched the land contours, and so only a little clean-up was needed. Then the pencil & magic eraser for the center line and CO. There was a black boundary on the north side, which had to come out, and "indian" was wrongly placed. "Reservation Boundary" was ok; the only time. Then the water edge and river water needed to be repaired.
So unless I have missed something, the new south shore/river edge boundary is the major thing that needs adding, along with appropriate labels. A stippled land boundary for the Park is required on two maps.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
GCNP river boundary 13: Fern Glen Canyon
Goal today was to prepare the map at the upstream start of the Hualapai Reservation to see what looks good for the Park boundary. It is a small piece of river, with the boundary correctly drawn on the south shore.
So I had only to remove the center line& boundary labels, and then repair the river and shore.
I then played around with some representations to show the Park & its boundary. To emphasize the boundary, I tried + style crosses, using lasso and paste from selection. Worked pretty well. Was not able to get the pattern to work, but in any case, I think placing the crosses, a slightly delicate and tedious job (110 miles, about 9 crosses/mile), does bring out the boundary better.
Also tried to make Text tool work. Hard to identify typefaces, so just chose the simple verdana.
It is a fairly cranky tool for me so far if I tried to place or move text different from start. Used custom rotate to put label along river shore. Also worked GCNP label up above rim.
Layers for text were useful, since I threw out one attempt.
Sent samples to publishers.
Friday, February 19, 2010
GCNP river boundary 12: Whitmore Point SE, Vulcans Throne SW, Whitmore Rapids
The challenge was to remove the incorrect land boundary running east from Parashant Canyon. I used the magic eraser to take out the black lines. Need to get star in right place. It also lightened the dark brown, which was ok since it was not the contour.
Then (after reading the manual and trying a few things), I used Selection Brush A to select the whole boundary, and went through a series of Enhance->adjust color->replace color to choose the red and pink, setting the replacement color to be background. Nice tool, it shows what is going to happen before you ok it. A layer that I thought I needed earlier got in the way, but after deleting it, fine. Had to repair a line using click, then shift+click. Finally, repaired dark brown contours, However, the stippling has light brown in it and in-between contours are a mess. End result is acceptable at the guide magnification, though further clean-up would be good. Fortunately, only this quad is affected because the ones to its east are either missing the boundary or correct. Odd.
Almost the shortest piece of river, VT went very quickly, although again, the switch in mode was necessary to have the defined brush work. I dont know how to lay down multiple color in one pass, so have to go over with dark water and light water. As on some others quads, there is black here too. Idiosyncratic USGS. Perhaps their cartographers were all prima donnas, never deigning to use each other's choices.
Whitmore Rapids was also fairly short, but with pink stippling to be removed, along with labels for park & res & indefinite, ctr line, etc. Magic eraser for letters, pencil for removal, and then once again trouble with adding water due to interaction of mode & whatever. Something I dont get.
M. eraser only works in Indexed color, as does adding defined brush stroke. But then convert to RGB at end.
Then (after reading the manual and trying a few things), I used Selection Brush A to select the whole boundary, and went through a series of Enhance->adjust color->replace color to choose the red and pink, setting the replacement color to be background. Nice tool, it shows what is going to happen before you ok it. A layer that I thought I needed earlier got in the way, but after deleting it, fine. Had to repair a line using click, then shift+click. Finally, repaired dark brown contours, However, the stippling has light brown in it and in-between contours are a mess. End result is acceptable at the guide magnification, though further clean-up would be good. Fortunately, only this quad is affected because the ones to its east are either missing the boundary or correct. Odd.
Almost the shortest piece of river, VT went very quickly, although again, the switch in mode was necessary to have the defined brush work. I dont know how to lay down multiple color in one pass, so have to go over with dark water and light water. As on some others quads, there is black here too. Idiosyncratic USGS. Perhaps their cartographers were all prima donnas, never deigning to use each other's choices.
Whitmore Rapids was also fairly short, but with pink stippling to be removed, along with labels for park & res & indefinite, ctr line, etc. Magic eraser for letters, pencil for removal, and then once again trouble with adding water due to interaction of mode & whatever. Something I dont get.
M. eraser only works in Indexed color, as does adding defined brush stroke. But then convert to RGB at end.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
GCNP river boundary 11: Whitmore Point SE
The most complicated so far, and perhaps the longest stretch of river.
The one wrinkle I do not understand the ramifications of is the discovery that the RGB color mode caused the problem with the defined brush not showing up. When I used Indexed Color, then it did work, with the mode choices being threshhold and dissolve. Then when I saved the map as a TIFF file, PSE insisted on making it a "copy", although I could save it as a PSD, too. More to investigate.
The biggest problem is the multi-color stippling: red, pink, brown, black, blue, lying on the river, but often also across the shore. So the first step was to use the pencil as an eraser with the background color. The lettering was removed by magic eraser (which is what required going to Indexed Color), although it leaves little fragments of gray. It was necessary to keep changing pencil sizes to get all the garbage off. Then the river edge had to be repaired, although some black was left, since I didnt want to lose the edge completely before repairing it. There were few contours to fix on the shore, although there was some dotted brown (sand, big rocks?) lost.
I removed the center line, some of the county designations, the reservation and park labels that were on the river, and the label "indefinite" up on the north boundary.
I then restored the river water, single color. It is hard to get an exactly uniform wash of pixels, but at the proper scale, it doesnt seem to matter. I noticed that there are no rapids shown on this quad, unlike some others.
The job left to do is to fix the northern, land boundary. I need to remove the multi-color stippling, which will be new because I dont want to lose the contours underneath. The black line has to go too, which is easy, but again requires repair of the contours.
The one wrinkle I do not understand the ramifications of is the discovery that the RGB color mode caused the problem with the defined brush not showing up. When I used Indexed Color, then it did work, with the mode choices being threshhold and dissolve. Then when I saved the map as a TIFF file, PSE insisted on making it a "copy", although I could save it as a PSD, too. More to investigate.
The biggest problem is the multi-color stippling: red, pink, brown, black, blue, lying on the river, but often also across the shore. So the first step was to use the pencil as an eraser with the background color. The lettering was removed by magic eraser (which is what required going to Indexed Color), although it leaves little fragments of gray. It was necessary to keep changing pencil sizes to get all the garbage off. Then the river edge had to be repaired, although some black was left, since I didnt want to lose the edge completely before repairing it. There were few contours to fix on the shore, although there was some dotted brown (sand, big rocks?) lost.
I removed the center line, some of the county designations, the reservation and park labels that were on the river, and the label "indefinite" up on the north boundary.
I then restored the river water, single color. It is hard to get an exactly uniform wash of pixels, but at the proper scale, it doesnt seem to matter. I noticed that there are no rapids shown on this quad, unlike some others.
The job left to do is to fix the northern, land boundary. I need to remove the multi-color stippling, which will be new because I dont want to lose the contours underneath. The black line has to go too, which is easy, but again requires repair of the contours.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
GCNP river boundary 10; north boundary, past & future
The principal goal of this project has been to bring the river guide maps to a consistent, correct presentation of the boundary of Grand Canyon National Park along the Hualapai Reservation, in line with the GCNP Enlargement Act of 1975. However, some of the maps include parts of the northern boundary that runs east of the Shivwits, across Parashant & Whitmore Canyons, along the Canyon rim to where it turns north following the old GCNM (2) boundary on the Uinkaret Plateau. So I am also taking a look at that.
A side note: I am relieved that I started at the Grand Wash Cliffs and worked upstream. Each map has presented new, different, and usually more complicated "learning experiences" with Photoshop Elements 8. Having finished the USGS quads upstream through Granite Park, I am now approaching the big bend where the canyon trends northeast/southwest. It is in this section that the northern -- a land -- boundary shows up on River Guide maps.
Three quads are involved, and each one treats the land boundary differently.
Whitmore Point SE, starting (moving upstream) on River Guide map 36 has a piece of the boundary, although with "(INDEFINITE)" along it. I am not sure if this means unsurveyed, or unfenced, or the map-maker was ill-informed, but I consider this term misleading. However, RG map 35 is the real problem. From mile 198 (east of Parashant Canyon) to mile 194 (where this quad ends), the boundary has slipped down from the rim (the 3800'-4000' level). We need to pull its socks up so that it marches in step with what is on map 35 (and 33-4, see below).
The problem is obvious on the full quad: To the west rim of Parashant, all is ok, but crossing Parashant, the cartographer must have gotten tired, and couldnt make it all the way to the actual rim. Fixing that will be the challenge. However, then it will match the Whitmore Rapids quad on RG maps 34 &33, where it has once again climbed up to the main rim.
The in-between quad, Vulcans Throne SW, RG maps 35 & 34, somewhat surprisingly has no Park boundary shown at all. Three maps in a row, each different.
A bit of history about this boundary. As the legislation history from the 1910's makes clear, protecting the (local) interests is what occupies our legislators. So it was, in the late 1960's to 1974, when the GCNP Act of 1975 was cobbled together.
After the failure of the attempt to authorize Grand Canyon dam construction in 1968, several different bills were introduced, both from Park advocates like Saylor and Case, and erstwhile dam proponents like Goldwater, who was now ready to love the Grand Canyon again. Among the differences were how they answered the questions of how far downstream to go and how much of the Lake Mead NRA to include. This will be covered in more detail when I get to that part of the Canyon's political story.
In that period, Senator Alan Bible was chair of the Senate subcommittee on Parks. Bible was from Nevada. Bible was a hearty partisan of the LMNRA, and being a Nevadan, a defender of grazing interests. At a point (1971 may be right, possibly earlier), Bible and then Sup't Bean of LMNRA were consulting each other. Believe it or not, Bean eanestly advocated that every bit of the NRA deserved to be NRA; a Park just wasnt suitable. (Turf protection with NPS is no surprise, and indeed, at that same time, the sup't of Glen Canyon NRA was protesting taking any of HIS land for the Park. "Lees Ferry isnt in the Grand Canyon.", sniffed he.)
What Bible did, from his strategic position as chair, was to insist that no grazing interests were to be affected. And the result of that was that NPS map-drawers checked to see where the grazing allotments were in the Whitmore-Parashant area, and draw a boundary that made sure the allotments were excluded. Which meant, in effect, along the rim, which in this stretch is just above the river, reducing the Park to that scrawny neck that remains a testament to cow-power.
What made the result even more difficult to deal with is that the maps used in the 1973-4 fight over the Park boundary had no detail at all. Here is a sample from the map that went with the Act as finally approved (the area below "Boundary on Canyon Rim"):
Since not everyone knew of the origin of the boundary, mistakes were made in drawing maps and making policy after 1975. However, over the years, things have settled down. One reason is that LMNRA got religion and moved to end grazing. Patience in this case has been on the Canyon's side. At the end of the Clinton adminstration, Interior Secretary Babbitt pushed through the proclamation of the so-called Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument, which was laid over without eliminating all of the LMNRA that is Canyon territory. Although more than half of said Monument has nothing to do with the Canyon (much less Parashant), we can continue to hope that the so-far-successful Monument-conversion process will once again lead to the addition of appropriate land to GCNP.
Patience. Or maybe I mean persistence.
A side note: I am relieved that I started at the Grand Wash Cliffs and worked upstream. Each map has presented new, different, and usually more complicated "learning experiences" with Photoshop Elements 8. Having finished the USGS quads upstream through Granite Park, I am now approaching the big bend where the canyon trends northeast/southwest. It is in this section that the northern -- a land -- boundary shows up on River Guide maps.
Three quads are involved, and each one treats the land boundary differently.
Whitmore Point SE, starting (moving upstream) on River Guide map 36 has a piece of the boundary, although with "(INDEFINITE)" along it. I am not sure if this means unsurveyed, or unfenced, or the map-maker was ill-informed, but I consider this term misleading. However, RG map 35 is the real problem. From mile 198 (east of Parashant Canyon) to mile 194 (where this quad ends), the boundary has slipped down from the rim (the 3800'-4000' level). We need to pull its socks up so that it marches in step with what is on map 35 (and 33-4, see below).
The problem is obvious on the full quad: To the west rim of Parashant, all is ok, but crossing Parashant, the cartographer must have gotten tired, and couldnt make it all the way to the actual rim. Fixing that will be the challenge. However, then it will match the Whitmore Rapids quad on RG maps 34 &33, where it has once again climbed up to the main rim.
The in-between quad, Vulcans Throne SW, RG maps 35 & 34, somewhat surprisingly has no Park boundary shown at all. Three maps in a row, each different.
A bit of history about this boundary. As the legislation history from the 1910's makes clear, protecting the (local) interests is what occupies our legislators. So it was, in the late 1960's to 1974, when the GCNP Act of 1975 was cobbled together.
After the failure of the attempt to authorize Grand Canyon dam construction in 1968, several different bills were introduced, both from Park advocates like Saylor and Case, and erstwhile dam proponents like Goldwater, who was now ready to love the Grand Canyon again. Among the differences were how they answered the questions of how far downstream to go and how much of the Lake Mead NRA to include. This will be covered in more detail when I get to that part of the Canyon's political story.
In that period, Senator Alan Bible was chair of the Senate subcommittee on Parks. Bible was from Nevada. Bible was a hearty partisan of the LMNRA, and being a Nevadan, a defender of grazing interests. At a point (1971 may be right, possibly earlier), Bible and then Sup't Bean of LMNRA were consulting each other. Believe it or not, Bean eanestly advocated that every bit of the NRA deserved to be NRA; a Park just wasnt suitable. (Turf protection with NPS is no surprise, and indeed, at that same time, the sup't of Glen Canyon NRA was protesting taking any of HIS land for the Park. "Lees Ferry isnt in the Grand Canyon.", sniffed he.)
What Bible did, from his strategic position as chair, was to insist that no grazing interests were to be affected. And the result of that was that NPS map-drawers checked to see where the grazing allotments were in the Whitmore-Parashant area, and draw a boundary that made sure the allotments were excluded. Which meant, in effect, along the rim, which in this stretch is just above the river, reducing the Park to that scrawny neck that remains a testament to cow-power.
What made the result even more difficult to deal with is that the maps used in the 1973-4 fight over the Park boundary had no detail at all. Here is a sample from the map that went with the Act as finally approved (the area below "Boundary on Canyon Rim"):
Since not everyone knew of the origin of the boundary, mistakes were made in drawing maps and making policy after 1975. However, over the years, things have settled down. One reason is that LMNRA got religion and moved to end grazing. Patience in this case has been on the Canyon's side. At the end of the Clinton adminstration, Interior Secretary Babbitt pushed through the proclamation of the so-called Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument, which was laid over without eliminating all of the LMNRA that is Canyon territory. Although more than half of said Monument has nothing to do with the Canyon (much less Parashant), we can continue to hope that the so-far-successful Monument-conversion process will once again lead to the addition of appropriate land to GCNP.
Patience. Or maybe I mean persistence.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
GCNP river boundary 9; granite park
Very strange. The stippling and the labels for the Park boundary are quite wrong, showing it in the middle of the river. Another mystery, then: if USGS amended the map after 1975, why did they put the boundary in the wrong place, when it is correct farther upstream?
As far as correction goes, the stippling is very dirty; pink, blues, brown, black. The only way to completely clean it up would be to remove it and then put down the contours and river line. Unfortunately, I need to replace the contours right away; otherwise I lose their placement. So the stippling cannot be completely removed. The incorrect boundary labels are gone, as is the center line, but I left the county names.
The pencil with various sizes worked well in cleaning up; either with background color or the mode set on clear.
The biggest problem has been replacing the river water on the stippled half, which comes off easily enough. I thought that I could use the Define Brush tool, but something very strange happens here. It worked the first time I tried it. Then I did something, and when I used the brush, it was invisible until I had done 15 or so clicks in one place. On the other hand, the default brushes worked fine. However, odd things happened to the mode; it would change from normal to threshhold (?), and not lay down the pattern properly. I will keep experimenting. Too bad, because the idea was attractive of just painting the water (one color only, though) with a brush and getting a nice random scatter of pixels. The closest so far is dry brush. But I dont trust any of them as this point.
Later: But success. Defined a brush on still another map; one color light blue. And with the brush mode at dissolve, painted the river with no trouble. Strange software; so far it has rewarded persistence; knock, knock. No joke.
As far as correction goes, the stippling is very dirty; pink, blues, brown, black. The only way to completely clean it up would be to remove it and then put down the contours and river line. Unfortunately, I need to replace the contours right away; otherwise I lose their placement. So the stippling cannot be completely removed. The incorrect boundary labels are gone, as is the center line, but I left the county names.
The pencil with various sizes worked well in cleaning up; either with background color or the mode set on clear.
The biggest problem has been replacing the river water on the stippled half, which comes off easily enough. I thought that I could use the Define Brush tool, but something very strange happens here. It worked the first time I tried it. Then I did something, and when I used the brush, it was invisible until I had done 15 or so clicks in one place. On the other hand, the default brushes worked fine. However, odd things happened to the mode; it would change from normal to threshhold (?), and not lay down the pattern properly. I will keep experimenting. Too bad, because the idea was attractive of just painting the water (one color only, though) with a brush and getting a nice random scatter of pixels. The closest so far is dry brush. But I dont trust any of them as this point.
Later: But success. Defined a brush on still another map; one color light blue. And with the brush mode at dissolve, painted the river with no trouble. Strange software; so far it has rewarded persistence; knock, knock. No joke.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
GCNP river boundary 8; diamond peak
A real bear. Something is going on with settings, tools, and layers I dont get yet. I tried to use the brush to paint over the center line, and it just produced a blur. When I used the lasso, it played little tricks. The marquee worked ok, so I got it done, but ...
Removed LMNRA entry, and all of center lines, including county. Added "COUNTY LINE" to identify what remains.
The question now is whether the problems are tied to the map or in PSE8. Here is the cropped portion of the map to show what I did:
Removed LMNRA entry, and all of center lines, including county. Added "COUNTY LINE" to identify what remains.
The question now is whether the problems are tied to the map or in PSE8. Here is the cropped portion of the map to show what I did:
Saturday, February 13, 2010
GCNP river boundary 7; granite park
Multiple challenges posed by stippling up right side of river. Also, county divider boundary is too heavy in river.
Also, the words "national park boundary" are left over (on river right) from pre-1975 mapping and need to come out.
Removal of stippling affects county divider, then river right half, then (in places) river boundary, shore background, and contour line(s). Would be cleanest if all were removed. Has to be done in right order: river edge and contours have to cleaned off and then immediately fixed to maintain accuracy. Center line can be put in as final step.
Created color swatches for background, black line, dark and light brown for contours and dark and light blue for water.
Use brush (B) with background color to clean out stippling.
Or/then select circle of water, and go to edit to define a brush (of random water pixels). Then E light blue, B and choose brush -- it is last one, called river-water. This can be used to remove and add at the same time in the river. Dont go over it a lot.
Use pencil (N) after appropriate E to repair water edge and contours and center line.
Also, the words "national park boundary" are left over (on river right) from pre-1975 mapping and need to come out.
Removal of stippling affects county divider, then river right half, then (in places) river boundary, shore background, and contour line(s). Would be cleanest if all were removed. Has to be done in right order: river edge and contours have to cleaned off and then immediately fixed to maintain accuracy. Center line can be put in as final step.
Created color swatches for background, black line, dark and light brown for contours and dark and light blue for water.
Use brush (B) with background color to clean out stippling.
Or/then select circle of water, and go to edit to define a brush (of random water pixels). Then E light blue, B and choose brush -- it is last one, called river-water. This can be used to remove and add at the same time in the river. Dont go over it a lot.
Use pencil (N) after appropriate E to repair water edge and contours and center line.
Friday, February 12, 2010
GCNP river boundary 6
Comfortable enough with magic eraser, eyedropper and pencil to remove all unneeded words as in LMNRA, then repair the contours, etc.
Tried to match fonts, but the closest I came was Didot, and it had squared-off serif feet, instead of rounded. Also, size is a tad off. Had to keep committed the type layer, which apparently prevents the eraser from working on text ??
Anyway, all maps down to Diamond Peak have been cleaned of junk, and are ready to have the GCNP boundary added.
Working on Diamond Peak, ran into queer stuff. The tool symbols changed, e.g., eyedropper is a square. Also using lasso now is difficult, it keeps dropping pixels when I do a copy & paste into selection. And the change size/orientation has never really worked; it goes back to the previous shape when I try to paste it. Finally, gave up on that for a while. There must be some settings I dont understand yet.
Tried to match fonts, but the closest I came was Didot, and it had squared-off serif feet, instead of rounded. Also, size is a tad off. Had to keep committed the type layer, which apparently prevents the eraser from working on text ??
Anyway, all maps down to Diamond Peak have been cleaned of junk, and are ready to have the GCNP boundary added.
Working on Diamond Peak, ran into queer stuff. The tool symbols changed, e.g., eyedropper is a square. Also using lasso now is difficult, it keeps dropping pixels when I do a copy & paste into selection. And the change size/orientation has never really worked; it goes back to the previous shape when I try to paste it. Finally, gave up on that for a while. There must be some settings I dont understand yet.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
GCNP river boundary 5; Travertine Rapids
This went more smoothly, using lasso. Then tried magic eraser, also on the center lines and on the letters of I. R. B. along river. Then repair of contour lines using the pencil. Worked well.
Only problem was that at some point the lasso behaved strangely, dropping pieces out of the interior??
Only problem was that at some point the lasso behaved strangely, dropping pieces out of the interior??
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
GCNP river boundary 4; Separation
Frustration comes with sophistication. Working with transform selection, so far it is erratic when combined with the lasso.
Separation Canyon is the most difficult so far, just in trying to remove the center line and "indian reservation boundary". The orientation keeps changing, which should be a set-up for transforming, but it is not yet reliable for me. And the words are in the river and on the shore, making removing them more complex, and the same job as with the LMNRA letters. Other tools are needed.
Kept on with lasso to finish.
Then to remove words, used lasso where in river or easy contour lines.
Tried erasing in differents ways. Finally learned that to get rid of checkerboard background, had to change transparency to No in Preferences.
Also opacity has to be at maximum to get clean erase.
Even so, stray pixels left behind.
Worked out how to use eraser, followed by brush to restore space, contours and rivershore.
Went on to big lettering of LMNRA, some easy, some very convoluted contours. Erase less useful at times than brushing letter out with ground color. Only took out letters that appear on guide maps.
Control over fine movements of trackpad not what it should be still; not a continuous flow.
Can I get Separation in here?
Kept on with lasso to finish.
Then to remove words, used lasso where in river or easy contour lines.
Tried erasing in differents ways. Finally learned that to get rid of checkerboard background, had to change transparency to No in Preferences.
Also opacity has to be at maximum to get clean erase.
Even so, stray pixels left behind.
Worked out how to use eraser, followed by brush to restore space, contours and rivershore.
Went on to big lettering of LMNRA, some easy, some very convoluted contours. Erase less useful at times than brushing letter out with ground color. Only took out letters that appear on guide maps.
Control over fine movements of trackpad not what it should be still; not a continuous flow.
Can I get Separation in here?
GCNP river boundary 3
Bat Cave and Devils Slide Rapid. More removing the center line and references to the old boundaries. Labels from LMNRA still remain a problem to be solved.
Used lasso copy and paste-into-selection, but discovered that I can move the lassoed area after copying, over the river part that needs fixing and then paste. Then when there is a similar area near it, I can reselect, and move it again to paste over another area. However, the river changes direction enough that this is not simple repetition. And of course, rapids have to be done with rapids or they get a nice smooth tongue, or look more chaotic than they are.
Spencer Canyon is very strange. Whoever cartographed it in the USGS covered the river with pock marks, making it look darker. Then the river is narrow here, and the lines of the river and the reservoir are both put in, all of which gives the appearance of their being political boundaries. As a test, I am going to include the part of the quad I worked on in this post:
Used lasso copy and paste-into-selection, but discovered that I can move the lassoed area after copying, over the river part that needs fixing and then paste. Then when there is a similar area near it, I can reselect, and move it again to paste over another area. However, the river changes direction enough that this is not simple repetition. And of course, rapids have to be done with rapids or they get a nice smooth tongue, or look more chaotic than they are.
Spencer Canyon is very strange. Whoever cartographed it in the USGS covered the river with pock marks, making it look darker. Then the river is narrow here, and the lines of the river and the reservoir are both put in, all of which gives the appearance of their being political boundaries. As a test, I am going to include the part of the quad I worked on in this post:
Hualapai Reservation north boundary; a comment (edited 7/11/10)
In working on the river maps to update them with respect to the GCNP boundary as established by the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975, I want to stress that I am dealing with the Park boundary, set in that Act "on south shore" of the Colorado.
The Hualapai Reservation was established by Executive Order on Jan 4 1883. Its boundary description opens as follows:
The Hualapai have claimed that this language should be interpreted to mean the center of the river. Another interpretation is that the words "on", "to", and "along" mean only to the river itself, that is, to the water's edge, the river surface not being included. Still a third is that the Reservation stops at the historic highest water line of the flooding river.
As a matter to be interpreted, Congress could certainly resolve this ambiguity, in order to establish GCNP authority over river running use, one of the things Senator Goldwater wanted to accomplish when he set the legislative process moving in Dec 1972. Therefore the Park boundary was set "on south bank" so that the entire water surface of the river was in the Park.
Goldwater also did not want to take any Hualapai land without their approval, and this possiblity was covered by section 5 of the 1975 Act.
What I want to emphasize here is that the language of the 1883 E.O. fits perfectly both before and after the 1975 Act. Before, the on-to-along triad of words left matters in ambiguity. After, the triad was specified and still makes complete sense. As in
To repeat, my goal on the river maps is to indicate the Park boundary includes all the river surface. And river runners should be made aware that from mile 164.8 to 273.1 (as specified in the 1975 Act) when they step on land to river left, they are on Hualapai land. That is the wet foot/dry foot doctrine.
The Hualapai Reservation was established by Executive Order on Jan 4 1883. Its boundary description opens as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Colorado River 5 miles eastward of Tinnakah Spring,and concludes as follows:
thence north 30 miles to the Colorado River, thence along said river to the place of beginning.These are the only references in the E.O. to the River and to the northern Reservation boundary. So far as I know, there were no arguments or legal opinons or determinations or even claims about the meaning of the above language before 1947. Please note the triad of words: on to along.
The Hualapai have claimed that this language should be interpreted to mean the center of the river. Another interpretation is that the words "on", "to", and "along" mean only to the river itself, that is, to the water's edge, the river surface not being included. Still a third is that the Reservation stops at the historic highest water line of the flooding river.
As a matter to be interpreted, Congress could certainly resolve this ambiguity, in order to establish GCNP authority over river running use, one of the things Senator Goldwater wanted to accomplish when he set the legislative process moving in Dec 1972. Therefore the Park boundary was set "on south bank" so that the entire water surface of the river was in the Park.
Goldwater also did not want to take any Hualapai land without their approval, and this possiblity was covered by section 5 of the 1975 Act.
What I want to emphasize here is that the language of the 1883 E.O. fits perfectly both before and after the 1975 Act. Before, the on-to-along triad of words left matters in ambiguity. After, the triad was specified and still makes complete sense. As in
Beginning at a point on the south bank of the Colorado...then north 30 miles to the south bank of the Colorado River, thence along the south bank of said river.No Hualapai territory has been taken, therefore; section 5 does not apply. Rather, a linguistic ambiguity has been made specific. And this is not a little or easy thing. As I look today at the phrase "on south bank", I can see how the Park Service made the mistake after the 1975 Act in claiming up to the high water mark, which would certainly have been taking Hualapai land. I believe NPS has educated itself on the 1975 Act and its history, and so no longer makes this claim; I hope not, since it would violate the intent and result of that Act. NPS has jurisdiction over the river = water surface, from the Paria junction to the Grand Canyon Cliffs. Along the Hualapai Reservation, all the land south (river left) of that water surface is Hualapai land.
To repeat, my goal on the river maps is to indicate the Park boundary includes all the river surface. And river runners should be made aware that from mile 164.8 to 273.1 (as specified in the 1975 Act) when they step on land to river left, they are on Hualapai land. That is the wet foot/dry foot doctrine.
Monday, February 8, 2010
GCNP river boundary 2
Working on the Quartermaster Quad, map 47 in the Guide. Fairly simple: the goal was to remove the center line and the words "INDIAN RES BDY" from the river. This was an exercise in using the lasso. I am not particularly adept yet at gauging what size to make the first loop, that which captures the clean river, in order to match what needs to be covered up. So I have to take a lot of extra steps. In one sense it doesnt matter since when I do the Paste Into Selection, even though the shapes do not match, it does not paste over where I dont want it. I had to do a little repair of the rapids; they show up well only at certain magnifications.
A peculiarity of this map; it shows river miles coming upstream marked by a black cross and sometimes, a number.
And the maps in the section of the Canyon that Lake Mead can affect have a line on each side that seems to relate to some water line above the old river shore; perhaps the reservoir maximum. It is a bit disconcerting since in some places it has the appearance of a political boundary, not just a contour line.
What is even more relevant will be the answer to the question of how to SHOW the boundary in that part of the channel where the reservoir can/has spread much farther than the old river channel. To go back to basics: the purpose served by the 1975 GCNP Act in setting the Park boundary "on south bank" was to put the "entire river/water surface" under a single jurisdiction. Throughout most of the Park, although the river does fluctuate due to changes in Glen Canyon Dam's operations, it is a matter of a few feet, and on the map poses no problem to drawing the boundary of the Park.*(see below) However, once you get downstream of river mile (r.m.) 235 (Lake Mead's historical high water), the maps begin to depict the differences between reservoir line and old river shore, that is, the fluctuation of the water surface measured over years (above Mead, the fluctuation is rapid in comparison: diurnal, monthly, seasonally) can extend for many yards, particularly in side canyons/notches that start out flat. The extent of the fluctuation is limited, particularly on the left side/south shore, up to about r.m. 260. From there on, the flats along the river bring about a much more noticeable gap between reservoir high and low water. At present, with the continuing drought and the reservoir way down, the Park boundary approximates the old shore more closely (though silt deposition over the past 3/4-century changes this parameter).
So, what to do to indicate a boundary that has two manifestations? Physically, at any given moment a person is there, it is obvious: If you are on the water (wet-foot), you are in the Park; when you step on the south bank (dry-foot), you are on Hualapai land. Cartographically, on the second hand, the desire is to draw a definitive line. This cannot be done, as shown when the two lines of the old river channel and the Mead high water line are quite far apart. One possibility is explanatory text, indicated perhaps by a phrase on the map. Another would be stippling. A third would be to not draw a line or perhaps give the appearance of a line by writing "on south bank" in very small type in the areas with enough space. Suggestions are welcomed.
Again, I want to stress that this is not a physically real, operational difficulty: on the spot, it is the wet-foot/dry-foot dichotomy. (Mud I leave to the lawyers.)
*See the next post for a comment on the Hualapai boundary
A peculiarity of this map; it shows river miles coming upstream marked by a black cross and sometimes, a number.
And the maps in the section of the Canyon that Lake Mead can affect have a line on each side that seems to relate to some water line above the old river shore; perhaps the reservoir maximum. It is a bit disconcerting since in some places it has the appearance of a political boundary, not just a contour line.
What is even more relevant will be the answer to the question of how to SHOW the boundary in that part of the channel where the reservoir can/has spread much farther than the old river channel. To go back to basics: the purpose served by the 1975 GCNP Act in setting the Park boundary "on south bank" was to put the "entire river/water surface" under a single jurisdiction. Throughout most of the Park, although the river does fluctuate due to changes in Glen Canyon Dam's operations, it is a matter of a few feet, and on the map poses no problem to drawing the boundary of the Park.*(see below) However, once you get downstream of river mile (r.m.) 235 (Lake Mead's historical high water), the maps begin to depict the differences between reservoir line and old river shore, that is, the fluctuation of the water surface measured over years (above Mead, the fluctuation is rapid in comparison: diurnal, monthly, seasonally) can extend for many yards, particularly in side canyons/notches that start out flat. The extent of the fluctuation is limited, particularly on the left side/south shore, up to about r.m. 260. From there on, the flats along the river bring about a much more noticeable gap between reservoir high and low water. At present, with the continuing drought and the reservoir way down, the Park boundary approximates the old shore more closely (though silt deposition over the past 3/4-century changes this parameter).
So, what to do to indicate a boundary that has two manifestations? Physically, at any given moment a person is there, it is obvious: If you are on the water (wet-foot), you are in the Park; when you step on the south bank (dry-foot), you are on Hualapai land. Cartographically, on the second hand, the desire is to draw a definitive line. This cannot be done, as shown when the two lines of the old river channel and the Mead high water line are quite far apart. One possibility is explanatory text, indicated perhaps by a phrase on the map. Another would be stippling. A third would be to not draw a line or perhaps give the appearance of a line by writing "on south bank" in very small type in the areas with enough space. Suggestions are welcomed.
Again, I want to stress that this is not a physically real, operational difficulty: on the spot, it is the wet-foot/dry-foot dichotomy. (Mud I leave to the lawyers.)
*See the next post for a comment on the Hualapai boundary
An unkind thought
Thinking about how Congressman Hayden was so solicitous of BIA views about the impact of the National Park on the Havasupai, and thinking of how he worked so hard to protect the whitefolk stockmen in the area by drawing the boundary tighter and tighter in toward the rim, and thinking of how the proposal for an enlarged reservation had been approved in 1914 by the Forest Service and pled for by BIA officials, I was struck by this thought:
Had Supai been a small settlement of whitefolk ranchers who used the Great Thumb and the plateau over to Pasture Wash for grazing, and had they presented their case as did other stockmen and the BIA folk, does it not seem likely that Hayden would have drawn in the Park boundary as he did farther east to accommodate this need, and the land returned to simple National Forest? Even if he had not taken the next step and provided for an enlarged reservation? Why, in other words, was he unwilling to burden whitefolk ranchers by leaving any of their range in the Park, but did not take the same step for the Havasupai range?
We will see that in later decades Hayden would not support any proposals for a substantial increase in the reservation. In the legislative history for the original Park, we get an early view of how he sliced up his constituents, scrabbling for every acre for the whitefolk, while eschewing action to similarly provide for the Havasupai.
Generous, we would admire his solicitude when he inquired of BIA officials how to deal with Park impacts on the Havasupai. Cynical, we would see his actions as using the Havasupai as pawns in another delaying action on the Park, while slipping out of any substantial protection for the Havasuapai, a two-for-one but not a double cross; not exactly.
Had Supai been a small settlement of whitefolk ranchers who used the Great Thumb and the plateau over to Pasture Wash for grazing, and had they presented their case as did other stockmen and the BIA folk, does it not seem likely that Hayden would have drawn in the Park boundary as he did farther east to accommodate this need, and the land returned to simple National Forest? Even if he had not taken the next step and provided for an enlarged reservation? Why, in other words, was he unwilling to burden whitefolk ranchers by leaving any of their range in the Park, but did not take the same step for the Havasupai range?
We will see that in later decades Hayden would not support any proposals for a substantial increase in the reservation. In the legislative history for the original Park, we get an early view of how he sliced up his constituents, scrabbling for every acre for the whitefolk, while eschewing action to similarly provide for the Havasupai.
Generous, we would admire his solicitude when he inquired of BIA officials how to deal with Park impacts on the Havasupai. Cynical, we would see his actions as using the Havasupai as pawns in another delaying action on the Park, while slipping out of any substantial protection for the Havasuapai, a two-for-one but not a double cross; not exactly.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
GCNP river boundary 1 (edited 7/11/10)
One of the reasons for the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975 was to fold several designations (e.g. Monument, Recreation Area) into the Park, and to consolidate administration of much of the federal land covering the Canyon. In particular, it seemed important to have a single administration over the Colorado River through the Canyon, and therefore set the Park "Boundary on South Bank of Colorado River (River Mile 164.8 to 273.1)". This formalized the unifying of the rules and bureaucracy that river traffic had to deal with, and to insure that Wilderness designation of GCNP (as called for in the Enlargement Act) would include the entire river. As the conference report said, the final bill provides that "all lands--including the entire river from the mouth of the Paria to the headwaters of Lake Mead--within the revised park boundaries to be studied for possible designation as wilderness".
The USGS quadrangles that map the Grand Canyon have been produced and revised at different times. Most of the quads that cover the river from 164.8 to 273.1 (along the north edge of the Hualapai Reservation) were drawn before the 1975 Act was passed, and contain a variety of anachronisms arising from the variety of actions affecting the governance of Grand Canyon. Only from river mile 164.8 to 173.5 were the quads--for Gateway Rapids and Fern Glen Canyon--revised after 1975 to show the correct boundary.
The USGS quads are the basis for the very best map guide to running the Colorado through the Canyon, "Guide to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Lees Ferry to South Cove" by Tom Martin and Duwain Whitis, 2004 (followed by several editions), see vishnutemplepress.com. In the interest of (after 35 years) providing accuracy in the matter of the GCNP boundary, I have undertaken to update the relevant quads.
There are a number of different changes.
The center line, which separates Mohave and Coconino counties upstream of river mile 222, continues on downstream and needs to be removed.
The GCNP boundary needs to be shown on the south bank at the edge of the river surface, and on the correct rim on part of the north side.
On some maps, there is pink or brown stippling left over from some of the pre-1975 jurisdictions, e.g., the (second) Grand Canyon National Monument. It needs to be removed, and the river color or contours restored.
Various words --"indefinite", "Indian reservation boundary", "national park boundary", "Lake Mead National Recreation Area" -- are inappropriate or wrongly placed.
Since this project would benefit from conscientious application -- to get the optimum use out of Photoshop Elements -- I am concentrating on this small bit of Grand Canyon history for a while and will use this blog to record what I am doing. In part, it will be a record of failures, as I try different tools to make the above changes. For instance, today:
I was working on Columbine Falls, 36113A8, river guide map 49, ~mile 270-3. Removing the unneeded center line was a matter of using a marquee tool or selection brush or lasso to select a piece of river, copy it, select a piece of center line and paste-into-selection. Worked fine, covering the line with the mottled blue pixels. Except for the selection brush, which did not result in a paste.
I spent some time trying to remove some of the unneeded black letters, which required conversion to RGB. The background eraser left a checkboard with gray. The paint bucket got closer to the white background, but was not good enough either. The trick here is that contour lines run "under" the letters and have to be drawn in. Next time.
The USGS quadrangles that map the Grand Canyon have been produced and revised at different times. Most of the quads that cover the river from 164.8 to 273.1 (along the north edge of the Hualapai Reservation) were drawn before the 1975 Act was passed, and contain a variety of anachronisms arising from the variety of actions affecting the governance of Grand Canyon. Only from river mile 164.8 to 173.5 were the quads--for Gateway Rapids and Fern Glen Canyon--revised after 1975 to show the correct boundary.
The USGS quads are the basis for the very best map guide to running the Colorado through the Canyon, "Guide to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Lees Ferry to South Cove" by Tom Martin and Duwain Whitis, 2004 (followed by several editions), see vishnutemplepress.com. In the interest of (after 35 years) providing accuracy in the matter of the GCNP boundary, I have undertaken to update the relevant quads.
There are a number of different changes.
The center line, which separates Mohave and Coconino counties upstream of river mile 222, continues on downstream and needs to be removed.
The GCNP boundary needs to be shown on the south bank at the edge of the river surface, and on the correct rim on part of the north side.
On some maps, there is pink or brown stippling left over from some of the pre-1975 jurisdictions, e.g., the (second) Grand Canyon National Monument. It needs to be removed, and the river color or contours restored.
Various words --"indefinite", "Indian reservation boundary", "national park boundary", "Lake Mead National Recreation Area" -- are inappropriate or wrongly placed.
Since this project would benefit from conscientious application -- to get the optimum use out of Photoshop Elements -- I am concentrating on this small bit of Grand Canyon history for a while and will use this blog to record what I am doing. In part, it will be a record of failures, as I try different tools to make the above changes. For instance, today:
I was working on Columbine Falls, 36113A8, river guide map 49, ~mile 270-3. Removing the unneeded center line was a matter of using a marquee tool or selection brush or lasso to select a piece of river, copy it, select a piece of center line and paste-into-selection. Worked fine, covering the line with the mottled blue pixels. Except for the selection brush, which did not result in a paste.
I spent some time trying to remove some of the unneeded black letters, which required conversion to RGB. The background eraser left a checkboard with gray. The paint bucket got closer to the white background, but was not good enough either. The trick here is that contour lines run "under" the letters and have to be drawn in. Next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)