I’m excited to share a map project I’ve been working on and would love your input on its overall design and functionality. My aim is to create a map that balances visual appeal with clear, informative data presentation. Specifically, I’m looking for feedback on:
* Overall design and layout
* Color schemes and visual hierarchy
* Clarity and effectiveness of legends and labels
* Any additional elements that could enhance user understanding
Whether you’re coming from a cartographic, GIS, or data visualization background, your insights would be invaluable. Please let me know what works, what could be improved, or if there are any elements that seem confusing. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful critique!
* (Source) Data was sourced from various online databases, mostly Wikipedia
* (Tool) Adobe Illustrator
Could you share more details or a link to the map? It’s hard to provide feedback without seeing it.
Aesthetically beautiful.
Hard to come up with criticism, but I think the circles + added contrast + large names make certain cities look way larger and more important than cities that are not circled. First example that comes to mind is Budapest vs. Belgrade… not that different population in reality but it looks like a massive gap here.
This aligns with your theme of focusing on human populations rather than borders and man made constructs.
Possibly choose EITHER the circle or the very intense contrast so that the observer can still see populations outside of these economic zones. Or circle cities with 5+ million population only?
Again really nice and interesting graphic 🙂
I think this is a great visualization. You definitely achieved highlighting population over geography, especially for Eurasia and the Americas. If I had to find one criticism, I would say the light gray for sub-Saharan Africa makes it seem less populated/noticeable than it actually is. Overall, super interesting and informative!
You’re doing too many things at once. Way too disorienting.
I like how you used the original indigenous names. As a Mexican, I approve of the name Tenochtitlan (imma be downvoted to hell by whitexicans)
I like the general look, and the richness of detail. There are two things I would consider changing:
1. Make it clear exactly what your criteria are. Alpha cities are a valid list created by a larger organization, but then you supplement with your own preferences. Why not just expand to include the list of Beta cities instead?
2. The inconsistent language choices are a distraction. I certainly agree with using the local language for labels, but it’s unclear how you chose languages for entire continents and oceans. And while I can respect the idea of using an indigenous place name where one is available, it seems inconsistent with your stated goal of representing human habitation. Yes, there were once people who called it Manahahtaan, but the reason it’s on your map as a prominent world city is the people who call it New York.
I really appreciate your map design that you published recently. I absolutely love it and would like to print it and hang on my wall.
Why did you decide to make it very tall, with E-W going top to bottom, versus very wide, with N-S going top to bottom?
This is really great, thanks for sharing! You’ve definitely achieved the goal of showing human settlement rather than political borders. Visually, the map is very aesthetically pleasing. I think one aspect you can improve on is the effectiveness of the main description blurb. It feels a bit too detailed and lengthy, which makes it harder to quickly grasp the map’s main point. If you want people to see and read that main description first, maybe making it a bit bigger so it stands out would also help. Also, I agree with the commenter that said the gray choice for Africa is too muted. In general, I never like using gray as a color for a map as it makes it seem “grayed out” instead of an intentional color choice. I like the idea of the Pan-African colors being used as a symbol there, but I don’t think the effect is totally achieved with gray. Overall though this is really unique and well-thought out!
I’m interested in this. It’s a fascinating and compelling idea.
This map impossible to read on a computer screen because the typeface is so small that you have to zoom in, but once you zoom in then it’s impossible to see the broader shape. And we don’t have the ready-made familiarity with your shape.
Why use this orientation? I think “aligning towards dawn and the planet’s spin” doesn’t really mean anything (what does the verb “align” actually mean? why does that meaning indicate vertical rather than horizontal? left vs right?) and it also doesn’t seem like a goal that resonates with your primary purpose “the anthropocene”. I think you’d get more mileage out of your anthropocene angle by letting the reader’s brainpower be devoted to that topic, not the orientation.
I’m suspicious of your shading. You didn’t put shade/intensity in your key so I don’t know if you’re being honest or not. Are you focused on CITIES rather than PEOPLE? Or do the two end up being the same? How far does the shading go? Does the shading represent population density? Or is the shading something you did just around each population center? You say that the cities depicted account for less than 1/4 of the world’s population, so I think this might be a map of CIVILIZATION (i.e. cities) not of PEOPLE.
I’m not sure I trust your categorization into “alpha citizes vs other” — not sure that the categorization is worthwhile or instructive. Also, with the zoom level, it’s impossible to see trends/clusters in alpha cities.
You use the word “dynamics” a few times — “population dynamics”, “the dynamics of urban globalization”. What precisely does “dynamics” mean? How are you showing it? I’m not seeing it.
Personally I reckon gold standard in maps of the anthropocene is the one you mentioned, NASA Earth and Night. How does this map compare to that? I don’t think anything can compare to that in terms of clarity and visceral / emotional impact. The only way to justify your map beyond that one is if you have enough data-dense information that invites study and reflection.
Looks awesome. I might suggest putting a dark border around the country borders. Keep at the same transparency that you have but make it a matching darker color. I know geography wasn’t the focus but it might make it coalesce in the mind better to know where and what we are talking about. Some thoughts and GREAT WORK!
You’ve chosen a disruptive approach to a map that is meant to challenge a norm. Does this new way of showing this data offer new insights? For me the answer is not really. It just seems like an awkward population heat map. Difficult on the eyes too.
I’m confused as to the groupings, especially between South and North America. Are these groupings supposed to suggest similarity of culture? Proximity? Mexico and Cuba might have a word to say about falling in the same sphere as Canadian and American cities. Why have there be these groupings at all if the point is to disrupt conventional boundaries? Who decides them? What is the cutoff reason for Southeast Asia versus East Asia but not Western or Eastern Europe?
Lastly. Capturing the Anthropocene, to me at least, means encompassing human impact beyond just population centers. Widespread pollution, deforestation, far flung settlements, consumption of energy, geopolitical boundaries, and even robots on Mars, are things I consider majorly impactful parts of the Anthropocene. These population centers have impacts that resonate far beyond their metro areas.
![Requesting Feedback on a Unique Map Design [OC]](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/3vxmiyyceble1-1920x1024.png)
14 comments
Hello everyone,
I’m excited to share a map project I’ve been working on and would love your input on its overall design and functionality. My aim is to create a map that balances visual appeal with clear, informative data presentation. Specifically, I’m looking for feedback on:
* Overall design and layout
* Color schemes and visual hierarchy
* Clarity and effectiveness of legends and labels
* Any additional elements that could enhance user understanding
Whether you’re coming from a cartographic, GIS, or data visualization background, your insights would be invaluable. Please let me know what works, what could be improved, or if there are any elements that seem confusing. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful critique!
* (Source) Data was sourced from various online databases, mostly Wikipedia
* (Tool) Adobe Illustrator
Could you share more details or a link to the map? It’s hard to provide feedback without seeing it.
Aesthetically beautiful.
Hard to come up with criticism, but I think the circles + added contrast + large names make certain cities look way larger and more important than cities that are not circled. First example that comes to mind is Budapest vs. Belgrade… not that different population in reality but it looks like a massive gap here.
This aligns with your theme of focusing on human populations rather than borders and man made constructs.
Possibly choose EITHER the circle or the very intense contrast so that the observer can still see populations outside of these economic zones. Or circle cities with 5+ million population only?
Again really nice and interesting graphic 🙂
I think this is a great visualization. You definitely achieved highlighting population over geography, especially for Eurasia and the Americas. If I had to find one criticism, I would say the light gray for sub-Saharan Africa makes it seem less populated/noticeable than it actually is. Overall, super interesting and informative!
You’re doing too many things at once. Way too disorienting.
I like how you used the original indigenous names. As a Mexican, I approve of the name Tenochtitlan (imma be downvoted to hell by whitexicans)
I like the general look, and the richness of detail. There are two things I would consider changing:
1. Make it clear exactly what your criteria are. Alpha cities are a valid list created by a larger organization, but then you supplement with your own preferences. Why not just expand to include the list of Beta cities instead?
2. The inconsistent language choices are a distraction. I certainly agree with using the local language for labels, but it’s unclear how you chose languages for entire continents and oceans. And while I can respect the idea of using an indigenous place name where one is available, it seems inconsistent with your stated goal of representing human habitation. Yes, there were once people who called it Manahahtaan, but the reason it’s on your map as a prominent world city is the people who call it New York.
I really appreciate your map design that you published recently. I absolutely love it and would like to print it and hang on my wall.
Why did you decide to make it very tall, with E-W going top to bottom, versus very wide, with N-S going top to bottom?
This is really great, thanks for sharing! You’ve definitely achieved the goal of showing human settlement rather than political borders. Visually, the map is very aesthetically pleasing. I think one aspect you can improve on is the effectiveness of the main description blurb. It feels a bit too detailed and lengthy, which makes it harder to quickly grasp the map’s main point. If you want people to see and read that main description first, maybe making it a bit bigger so it stands out would also help. Also, I agree with the commenter that said the gray choice for Africa is too muted. In general, I never like using gray as a color for a map as it makes it seem “grayed out” instead of an intentional color choice. I like the idea of the Pan-African colors being used as a symbol there, but I don’t think the effect is totally achieved with gray. Overall though this is really unique and well-thought out!
I’m interested in this. It’s a fascinating and compelling idea.
This map impossible to read on a computer screen because the typeface is so small that you have to zoom in, but once you zoom in then it’s impossible to see the broader shape. And we don’t have the ready-made familiarity with your shape.
Why use this orientation? I think “aligning towards dawn and the planet’s spin” doesn’t really mean anything (what does the verb “align” actually mean? why does that meaning indicate vertical rather than horizontal? left vs right?) and it also doesn’t seem like a goal that resonates with your primary purpose “the anthropocene”. I think you’d get more mileage out of your anthropocene angle by letting the reader’s brainpower be devoted to that topic, not the orientation.
I’m suspicious of your shading. You didn’t put shade/intensity in your key so I don’t know if you’re being honest or not. Are you focused on CITIES rather than PEOPLE? Or do the two end up being the same? How far does the shading go? Does the shading represent population density? Or is the shading something you did just around each population center? You say that the cities depicted account for less than 1/4 of the world’s population, so I think this might be a map of CIVILIZATION (i.e. cities) not of PEOPLE.
I’m not sure I trust your categorization into “alpha citizes vs other” — not sure that the categorization is worthwhile or instructive. Also, with the zoom level, it’s impossible to see trends/clusters in alpha cities.
You use the word “dynamics” a few times — “population dynamics”, “the dynamics of urban globalization”. What precisely does “dynamics” mean? How are you showing it? I’m not seeing it.
Personally I reckon gold standard in maps of the anthropocene is the one you mentioned, NASA Earth and Night. How does this map compare to that? I don’t think anything can compare to that in terms of clarity and visceral / emotional impact. The only way to justify your map beyond that one is if you have enough data-dense information that invites study and reflection.
Looks awesome. I might suggest putting a dark border around the country borders. Keep at the same transparency that you have but make it a matching darker color. I know geography wasn’t the focus but it might make it coalesce in the mind better to know where and what we are talking about. Some thoughts and GREAT WORK!
You’ve chosen a disruptive approach to a map that is meant to challenge a norm. Does this new way of showing this data offer new insights? For me the answer is not really. It just seems like an awkward population heat map. Difficult on the eyes too.
I’m confused as to the groupings, especially between South and North America. Are these groupings supposed to suggest similarity of culture? Proximity? Mexico and Cuba might have a word to say about falling in the same sphere as Canadian and American cities. Why have there be these groupings at all if the point is to disrupt conventional boundaries? Who decides them? What is the cutoff reason for Southeast Asia versus East Asia but not Western or Eastern Europe?
Lastly. Capturing the Anthropocene, to me at least, means encompassing human impact beyond just population centers. Widespread pollution, deforestation, far flung settlements, consumption of energy, geopolitical boundaries, and even robots on Mars, are things I consider majorly impactful parts of the Anthropocene. These population centers have impacts that resonate far beyond their metro areas.
great work! do you have github?
Comments are closed.