15. Soil Erosion in the Rif Region of Morocco

Now it’s Your Turn

In the comments, please ask questions or make suggestions that will help the cartographer improve the map. Key things to think about include:

  • Does the map orient the viewer?
  • Does the data tell a story?
  • Does the map support the story being told?
  • Does the map make assumptions?
  • How could the map be more readable?
  • Are there any errors or typos?
  • John_H_Kelly

    The map is vivid and clear, and the introductory text is helpful and well-written. It took me a minute to “get” the innovative graphic showing soil lost to erosion in the three land cover types — but once I “got” it, I realized it works well. One suggestion: If it’s easy to do (and data is readily available), it might be nice to add something simple to the map showing the dynamics of land use change. Maybe just a couple of polygons showing “area of high agricultural use” in, say, 1980, in addition to the ones on the map showing these areas today?

  • Chuck Clark

    I too find this beautiful, even though I do not yet “get” the soil-loss graphic.

    My problem is that, like a substantial number of others, I am red-green colorblind, and the subtle shadings of the Erosion Risk scale do not read well for me on the map — all the midrange colors look the same rather than a cool tan distinguishable from a warm tan. Not sure how to fix this.

    Also, adding Gibraltar is a nice location device but it is not of the esence for your subject, If you cropped it out, and reoriented your main text into a vertical, narrower column of text, you could significantly increase the size of your main map, by nearly 50%. This would be much more helpful than a nice picture of the straits that has no bearing on your subject.

  • sarah dorrance

    2nd sentence remove ‘natural’ in front of ground cover, or use another word for natural. 4th sentence remove ‘can’ to ‘has motivated some’. In that sentence I see the message meant to be passed on (not all poor farmers move) but the language to me sounds not quite correct. I think the words near the legend that shows slope should be darkened just a bit for easier reading. This is a wonderful map, quite informative and visually appealing.

  • David Gibbs

    I think this is a very attractive map and I appreciate the inset location map. However, I am not a big fan of the “Factors exacerbating soil erosion” and “Soil lost to water erosion” graphic; I don’t entirely understand the latter and I have the feeling (though I am not sure) that the seemingly 3D perspective of it makes it harder to interpret the relative widths of those three lines. Also, I agree with a reviewer below that the erosion risk colors in the map are hard to tell apart (I am also red-green colorblind). I am assuming that the areas of high agricultural use are lowlands but am not sure.

  • Bernardo Loureiro

    Beautiful map! Three points:
    1. The blurred blue background is a bit distracting and makes the text more difficult to read;
    2. The soil loss graphic is a bit confusing, maybe because of the perspective – perhaps a more simple bar graph would work better;
    3. I would break the longer explanation text into two columns for easier reading – I’d say between 7-13 words per line makes for more comfortable reading.

  • zoom in more

  • Perrine Laroche

    Very nice map, I like colors you chose, and that non concerned territory is white!!
    I like the idea of talking about land use and practices choices that aggravate the erosion by water (because, as shown on the map the N° 1 may is the slope I guess) but admit to not well understand how the graph with words is formed? Moreover, I wondered what does “poor agricultural practices” mean?