River Maps: Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay watershed, rendered as an urban transit network. This is probably the most-requested map I’ve had since I launched the series; I hope you will enjoy it.

This map features the following rivers, creeks, (etc.): James, Maury & Calfpasture, Cowpasture, Craig, Jackson, York / Pamunkey / South Anna, Rappahannock, Rapidan, Potomac, Shenandoah, North, South, Patuxent, Patapsco, Susquehanna, Juniata, Chemung & Cohocton, Tioga.

Click to purchase a 20″ x 30″ print.
or
Click to download a free PDF, which you may use according to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

If you wish, you can pay me what you think my work is worth: click here to donate via PayPal.

10% of the profits I earn from the sale of prints will be donated to organizations that protect and restore some of the watersheds seen in this river map series.

Important: Zazzle, the company which does my prints, will let you shrink the map down from the original size if you ask, but I cannot guarantee it will look good if you do.

Sample Images

Click to view PDF





Click to purchase a 20″ x 30″ print.

7 responses to “River Maps: Chesapeake Bay

  1. IMGoph 30th November, 2012 at 09:12

    this is absolutely amazing, and i hate to be a nitpicker, but how about some rivers on the east side of the bay?

    i think you could add the elk, chester, choptank, nanticoke, and wicomico.

    just a thought. regardless, this is pretty badass!

  2. David Alpert 30th November, 2012 at 09:50

    Also, should this include the Occoquan?

    Second IMGoph’s sentiment – this is amazing. Great job.

  3. elizabethearly@gmail.com 30th November, 2012 at 15:30

    This is great! One question–why isn’t the Anacostia included?

    • Daniel Huffman 30th November, 2012 at 15:58

      I can’t speak to the very specific thought process I had at the time, but it was probably not included in the data set I used. There are literally thousands of streams in the area, and there’s not room to fit them all, so I had to make some decisions on which were the most significant in length. In this case, I used a data set from the federal government which eliminated the smaller features to make those decisions.

      >________________________________

      • EW 1st December, 2012 at 16:41

        Great maps! I’m also wondering about the Anacostia. And the branches of the Potomac. Shouldn’t they be labeled? All in all, though, a wonderful and useful schematic. Thank you!

        • Daniel Huffman 1st December, 2012 at 22:30

          Thanks for the kind words. Though locally significant, the Anacostia is a pretty short river. The label for “Washington,” for example, is bigger than the entire river’s length on a map like this. It would seem out of place, I think, to include something that small at this scale, especially while leaving off the hundreds of rivers longer than the Anacostia.

          As to the Potomac, I thought for a time about how to treat the various branches, which all have lengthy official names such as “North Fork South Branch Potomac River.” Through the series, I decided to just keep the labeling scheme fairly minimalistic as a style decision (and a space decision), by stripping all those sorts of qualifiers and just retaining the base name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 83 other followers

%d bloggers like this: