LEH zone map markings unclear

[twoSevenO]

Hi,

Can someone explain to me the markings on these LEH zone maps. This is an example from 3-32 goat LEH zone map

I'm not sure what the following mean:

1. numerous little purple dots/circles within the zone
2. blue slashes (as far as i understood the blue "X" meant it was a snow field or glacier?)
3. The numbers on the map like this "3" on the lake here

https://i.imgur.com/UL1a7yH.png

Thanks guys!

[Ajsawden]

Isn't it obvious... (that i'm being sarcastic)

Looking at the bigger maps, all of the lakes have 3's in them. There are also ones and zeros that appear on waterbodies in various places.

The blue lines are all associated with the green dashed outlined polygons.

The purple markings are also some kind of polygon. In the NW corner of the 3-32 map there are some larger purple blobs that surround water bodies.

I'm going to look into it more. BRB

[Ajsawden]

Purple markings are intermittent shorlines.
Green are marsh and swamps, havnt figured out the blue line in them yet.
The numbers appear to signify lake classes in some fashion.

https://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/imap4m/

go to this link and click on 'I want to...' It's a blue button.

Select 'Add Provincial Layers' then 'Base Maps' then 'Base Mapping 1:20000' then 'Water: Rivers, Creeks, Shoreline, etc 1:20000'

This will add most of the exact layers you're looking for.

[twoSevenO]

Isn't it obvious...

Looking at the bigger maps, all of the lakes have 3's in them. There are also ones and zeros that appear on waterbodies in various places.

The blue lines are all associated with the green dashed outlined polygons.

The purple markings are also some kind of polygon. In the NW corner of the 3-32 map there are some larger purple blobs that surround water bodies.

I'm going to look into it more. BRB

No, it's not obvious .... If you're gonna make a condescending post then your answers should be better than "some kind of polygon". I mean, why even reply if you don't know?

"purple blobs that surround water" .... uhhh, thanks genius.

[Ajsawden]

you seem really friendly. Glad I helped.

[Codes44]

Ya- I've actually contacted them about this, there are slightly better maps you can use. What I suggested to them was to mark at least use major FSR's and more landmarks like lakes, rivers, mountains etc. Those maps are just too vague with little scale to assess.

[bighornbob]

I think who ever made the maps did not click off a layer or two. The purple hash marks could be fish barriers or something that is linked too the water streams.

Those maps are only meant for boundary specifics. Use that map with another topo map and you can easily figure out the exact boundary. Boundarys will always be a road or creek or the height of land. Which those maps do. Ignore the purple hash marks and blue marks as they are irrelevant to where the boundary is.

BHB

[twoSevenO]

I think who ever made the maps did not click off a layer or two. The purple hash marks could be fish barriers or something that is linked too the water streams.

Those maps are only meant for boundary specifics. Use that map with another topo map and you can easily figure out the exact boundary. Boundarys will always be a road or creek or the height of land. Which those maps do. Ignore the purple hash marks and blue marks as they are irrelevant to where the boundary is.

BHB

Yes they could have at least provided a more comprehensive legend for the map ...

The boundaries are fairly clear but it was the other details that I realized werent making any sense.