LAB 04: GENERATE! > ASSIGNMENT

Lab 04 asks you to compose a map around an original raster image. You should i) generate a raster-based analytic image of at least two separate point datasets, and ii) use vector and/or raster geoprocessing (clip, merge/dissolve) to select and represent an analytically appropriate geographic area. Finally, your map should iii) show that you’ve thought about what that analysis means with respect to the relations between the distribution of observations (e.g. mussels by scientists, plastic sightings by citizen scientists), geospatial data, and raster-based representation. 

IMPORTANT NOTE

One important note for this week’s assignment not reflected in the formal deliverables below: as you draw on the cumulative knowledge built up from these first four labs, try to begin honing in on sites, scales, and geospatial methods that that can provide a platform for your final project (and midterm pitch). This lab is meant to give you a platform for developing further work with your group toward the final project.

DELIVERABLES

Post a PNG or PDF of your WIP to the Work-in-Progress channel on Are.na, including a short write-up of about 300 words. Follow the formatting guidelines in the syllabus, and the detailed drawing and write-up guidelines below.


Drawing Guidelines

• Generate original an analytic image (or images) through the set of vector and raster geoprocessing tools described in the tutorial, scaled to an appropriate geographic area of analytic interest
  
  • use selection and geoprocessing tools to clip your original point data to an appropriate  area of BEFORE generating your image so that it is analytically relevant!
  • Your geographic area can be based on an original, custom watershed polygon you create (using the Watershed Boundary data provided in the Additional Data folder last week) OR the extents of another limiting dataset (e.g., the EPA sites cover a smaller area than the Zebra Mussel dataset, and could provide a clipping boundary for the mussels)

• Include styled hydrologic data relevant to your drawing, e.g., lakes and rivers.
  
  • Note that depending on the scale of your map, you may want to use more detailed hydrographic features that include lower classes of river, streams, etc. Take a look at the FFR (Free Flowing Rivers) data included in the Additional Data from earlier weeks, or brave the USGS National Hydrography Dataset through their download portal.

• Include at least one additional layer that helps give context to your map, and label if needed

If you're ready to experiment further:

• Experiment with multiple rasters overlaid on top of each other using blending modes in the Symbology > Layer Rendering > Blending mode dialogue (hint: it’s hidden all the way at the bottom, so make sure to scroll down)

Write-up Guidelines

Same as always: Write-ups should generally offer a short (around 300 words) but critical reflection on your technical and conceptual workflow. This means thinking about your experience with the technical process, design decisions regarding tools used and graphic choices, and a broader, critical consideration of how the exercise connects to themes, genres, and questions of spatial media.

Here are a number of possible prompts to guide your reflections; you do not need to answer them directly, nor do you need to answer each one.

As you work through the tutorial, consider a set of questions regarding your  technical workflow: 

• What are the implications of different data collection and sensing techniques for this lab?


• Why is it important to make sure your datasets are spatially consistent with each other before using the analytic techniques we explore in the tutorial?

• What are the strengths of moving from vector to raster through this sort of analysis? Drawbacks?  

• Are there any "break-downs" in your workflow? If so, what kinds? Are these break-downs traceable to knowledge-based constraints or tool-based constraints?

Consider a further set of questions regarding your conceptual workflow.

Recall the basic journalistic “5W+H” questions regarding the genealogies of these datasets; make sure to explore metadata and documentation when available, or track it down:

• Who made these data, and for whom?


• What exactly do these data represent?


• When was the dataset originally made? Has it been modified, or is it entirely new? How many versions have there been? Are there plans to update it?


• What geographic extents (where) does the data cover, and how are those extents determined?


• Why were these data made, and with what purposes and users in mind?


• How are the data made in the first place? How are those representations geometrically and graphically constructed from the data? How are they classified, and what are the bases for those classifications?

In light of your genealogical interrogation of the data and reflection on your technical workflow, consider:

• How are the sensory affordances of different kinds of bodies (mussels, professional and citizen scientists) encoded into these data?

• What is the difference between “environment” as an object of sensing and a “sensing/sensory environment”? How is this difference reflected in the various datasets we’ve looked at this week? How is it reflected in your map?


• How might the situated and uneven nature of sensing inform how you compose your map? 

• What can this exercise do in helping us reflect on how sensing is bound up with relations of Land as described by Liboiron? In other words, why is sensing important to Land?


• Are there areas of interest that are emerging for you after these labs? Where, and why?