Contextual Modeling Topographic Maps
Part 1: Documentation & Methodology
The objective of this project was to 1) create a scale map of CFA Lawn and The Cross on campus and 2) to create a model of an “invisible” object taken from a view under a microscope.
This process methodology will cover the first part only. It was made to provide context for the objects and completed as a group project by the class. My instructors who guided us through this process were Austin Lee and Steve Stadelmeier.
a.) Plane Surveying: comprised of sections I & II
I. Introduction
The primary methodology we learned in order to map out the elevation was through 17th century plane surveying. We had a short introduction first through watching a series of videos by the Scotland’s Rural Past project, found here.
After reviewing the video at home, I summarized the observed process into the following notes:
II. Class Demo: will include sections i, ii, iii & iv
In class, we further reviewed explored the process through a demonstration on surveying to locate the locations of objects in the room.
i. Setup
After finding a clear place with a good view of a generous portion of the land in question, we set up a plane table. In order to make sure the table was level, we hung a plumb bomb from the bottom of the table and marked its direct location below it with a piece of tape. We put a level on the table to make sure the table was flat, moving it around on different sides to make sure that minute adjustments to the legs would not throw off any of the other ends of the table.
Next, we placed a sheet of paper on the table, sticking a pen on the center to keep it from moving.
Knowing the relative size of the room, we were able to decide on an appropriate scale and unit of measurement.
ii. Measuring
We used a sight to measure (which was unnecessary in this case) in order to better simulate the process of spotting far distances across the field.
Then, we rolled out a long measuring tape from the center of the measuring plane to the landmark in question, trying to keep it generally level. This way, we were able to get the most accurate distance from the table to the landmark.
iii. Recording
In order to get the most accurate measurements, we viewed the landmarks through an Alidade we conveniently placed on a ruler. We lined up the side of the ruler and the sight to the pin in the center of the measuring plane for consistency’s sake. Remember to remember which side of the pin the ruler was placed on, because it could compromise the accuracy of the angle. This is especially relevant when handing off the drawings between right and left-handed users.
After sighting through the alidade, we recorded the set distance gotten from step ii.
iv. Conclusion
Repeat sections ii and iii as often as needed, at every angle and landmark-worthy point of the map. This depends on the level of detail the map in question requires.
In this case, we just used it to draw a rough sketch of the room and the objects in it as a quick exercise.
We later carried it out outside to measure two fields on campus.
b.) Elevation Mapping
In order to measure elevation, the class learned to use a theodolite. There’s a quick tutorial for how to do it here.
c.) Software Translation: comprised of sections I, II, and III
Now that we had the necessary information for map-making, we were able to enter the realm of digital translation. In order to make a contour map, we had to somehow map the data into a piece of 3-D modeling software. It would be difficult to manually calculate and enter each point onto the map to create a surface. As a result, we figured out a process after some experimentation.
I. Translating Elevation
First, we selected the section of the map with the CFA Lawn and put it in illustrator, and did the same with The Cross. This way, the two pieces of land we grabbed could be pieced onto the same plane, and be read in context of each other.
We then uploaded it onto Sketchup, so the program could read the elevation via color mapping.
II. Contouring
Next, we uploaded the Sketchup file onto Rhino, for which we proceeded to carry out the contours. I watched a few tutorials, one similar one being this by Jacob Boswell.
First, we made a mesh overlay.
Then, we calculated the thickness of the cardboard relative to the height of the total plane in order to find the amount of units to contour the land to. Because we changed the scale many times in between, as well as changed the total thickness and fluctuated on how descriptive the land was supposed to look like, we made many contouring attempts in order to settle on an appropriate unit of contour. Because of the nature of VirtualAndrew (on which this process was carried out) bringing it back to our own laptops, the large files we exported continuously became much more tedious and time consuming than we would have liked.
A huge reason why we went through so many iterations is because our initial stages included the CFA garden, whose extreme change in elevation threw off the scale and changed the relative elevations of the space around it.
After we figured out the problem, we cut it out, and made another series of iterations within the correct relevant area.
The above screengrabs shows an earlier iteration of the contour.
III. Laser Cutting Preparation
After we overlaid the relevant layers of information, Marisa cropped the contoured layers to the space that we wanted to keep on the map, and manually labeled and sorted each contour layer onto its own spread in preparation for laser cutting. This tedious process took a very, very long time, multiplied by the many iterations that we prepared.
d.) Model Prototyping: comprised of sections I, II, III & IV
This section will specifically delineate the physical prototyping process. Even though the bulk of physical making took place after we completed part c.), much of it took place alongside part c.) II & III as well.
I. Maps & Map Making
Before we were introduced to the “purpose” of our map, we had a series of conversations that had us consider what made a map exactly that, a map.
We observed the tradition of maps and mapmaking, both as a tool for navigation and as a tool for providing context. These terms, navigation and contextualizing, are not mutually exclusive and oftentimes are used almost interchangeably. However, it is their difference that makes it so relevant.
For example, let us discuss the Google Maps navigation system.
In terms of wayfinding, the map is very straightforward. There’s a blue colored line that leads you from point A to point B, and others that represent paths and pathways. It’s very good at showing you where you need to follow to get there. It’s very bad at pointing out the direction relative to you. (North? East? South? West? Do you even know which direction on which street you’re on?)
In terms of contextualizing, Google maps should be evaluated differently. It is very: minimal in information, giving only relevant content for wayfinding — simplistic, which makes it easy to understand to those trained in the correct cultural language (that which most fluent with digital interfaces are fluent with). However, it does not have: any extraneous information that aren’t directly relevant to placing or navigation. It is a tool to understand space in a very specific way. A very specific, socio-politically, urban-planned, way. It does not use identifying flora and fauna in the area to guide around space. It does not have any information regarding flora and fauna outside of crude photographs on street view and a spotty estimation of its height on Google Earth Pro. It also does not have any information regarding space occupancy, thermal mapping, air and water quality, elevation, or even which direction the sun rises and sets. In short, Google maps is not a map situationally appropriate for everything.
So why do we rely on it so heavily to shape our experiences? When had most of the general public reduced their exposure to maps to a Google-centric world, with just navigation as the purpose, settling for a few colored lines to shape their whole geographic understanding of the rich space around them? How much power are we putting in Google to shape our perception?
With these thoughts in mind, I considered the knowns for our project. Our map was going to be used to present our objects that we place on there. It should be scaled roughly five by ten feet (very roughly). It should be made of a cheap-ish prototype material. It has a general accuracy and should leave the viewer a correct impression of the land and how it works with the objects.
The first major consideration we made as a class was the scale. Originally sized too large, our final scale was roughly 11 feet to 1 inch. We also had to decide on a material to build the contours out of. After talking with some architecture students, we found that the most popular map-building material was chipboard, which we considered briefly and scrapped the idea of using chipboard. This is primarily because of chipboard’s high compared to cardboard but also because of the complications that may arise from using such a thin material for adhering so many layers. The material we decided to use at the end was cardboard because of its light structure, sturdy form and low cost.
II. Buildings
After we made considerations for the map, we made the buildings. Our initial iterations for representing the buildings were made out of bristol vellum and foam core, and were composed of facades.
We then developed the building concepts along with trees (in part c.) III), and decided a laser cut chipboard look would take care of the earlier craft issues. We took our measurements from Google Earth Pro.
Then, we scaled the lengths accordingly and created a template for the buildings and building pieces.
This was done for CFA, Hunt, and Purnell.
III. Trees
Trees were initially an uncomfortable realm. Being both closer to scale to our objects that would be placed on the map and more organic in form than any other part of the map, we initially wondered how to go about representing them at all.
We explored with different materials and levels of abstraction with varying levels of success. In the end, we felt that the cardboard laser cut tree read most similarly to the language of the rest of the map.
We abstracted the tree to various levels and also played with the shape, to see where that would lead us.
In the end, we stuck with the original form.
After we nailed down the type of tree, we roughly located the trees on campus and their sizes.
We then scaled and modeled the trees accordingly. This also seemed a good time to make a small model of the fence as well.
IV. Sidewalks
The last consideration our group made was how to represent the sidewalks. Initially, we tried a laser cut chipboard overlay.
However, the color contrast was too strong and the thickness provided by the chipboard made it look like it was intentionally raising the land.
In order to preserve elevation as well as the sharpness of the edges, we traced the sidewalk onto the cardboard and ripped off the top layer in order to reveal the corrugations underneath. This became our final sidewalk representation.
e.) Final Model
fin.
