OTL Map Thread Mk IV., 2014-
- Thread starter Pragmatic Progressive
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
That's the GCS, an Iori production. He's been using it for years and is a very valued member of the team, so we just have someone else convert his maps into RCS before adding to the central directory (you'll notice some of his colours were adopted for gaps in the RCS, such as his Spanish colour being the RCS Muslim Iberia).
EDIT: And no we really don't need every finished map to be up there and continually updated with patches. That's horrendously inefficient when a simple link to the wiki (now much more up to date thanks to LSCatilina) and a link to the discussion thread for questions and requests does the job much clearer and doesn't need the constant maintenance.
Even the acronym game thread!?
And thanks for already cleaning up a lot of the stickied mess!
Those patches need to be posted to the wiki. The wiki is the new map hub, not a thread on this forum. It's always up to date.
Last edited:
Is there any part of the wiki that has the *most* up to date maps catalogued? I ask because currently there are maps that are still on the oldest of the worlda basemaps mixed in with newer ones, some with rivers and some without...it's generally a big mess.
I really feel like it needs to be re-organised if it's going to be promoted as much as it is. For example, the pre-1900 map dump; I get that it's a place for older maps as well as newer ones, but there ought to be a pre-1900 map dump which only has the newer maps in it. Also, a consensus on how the maps should be presented ought to be reached, i.e. if they should be posted with the massive clutter of rivers on them or not, what colour scheme they should be posted with, etc.
It's all well and good that everyone contributing is doing so to the upmost of their abilities, but as I said, since it's currently being promoted so much (usually in order to sway new posters away from older or inferior maps) there should be some more consistency.
I would love to do so myself, but I don't really spend enough time mapping anymore to really put any heart into it. Of course, I'm not demanding or expecting anything, but it's an idea.
I really feel like it needs to be re-organised if it's going to be promoted as much as it is. For example, the pre-1900 map dump; I get that it's a place for older maps as well as newer ones, but there ought to be a pre-1900 map dump which only has the newer maps in it. Also, a consensus on how the maps should be presented ought to be reached, i.e. if they should be posted with the massive clutter of rivers on them or not, what colour scheme they should be posted with, etc.
It's all well and good that everyone contributing is doing so to the upmost of their abilities, but as I said, since it's currently being promoted so much (usually in order to sway new posters away from older or inferior maps) there should be some more consistency.
I would love to do so myself, but I don't really spend enough time mapping anymore to really put any heart into it. Of course, I'm not demanding or expecting anything, but it's an idea.
Alex Richards
Donor
It's quite simple really. This set is the most up to date and the rest is just archival stuff. It includes maps for all dates we have them, with notes for if the map itself is using an obsolete basemap or scheme.
We do, in fact, have a consensus already- rivers is fine for WIPs but not for finished maps, RCS/aRCS (the variation for feudal or ancient state systems) for finalised, GCS acceptable as an interim but need converting to RCS. The problem is that people have busy schedules and dip in and out. It's been quiet for a few months due to exams and stuff (not to mention the fact that in the process of doing the 1885 map I've found a lot of islands that needed correcting).
We do, in fact, have a consensus already- rivers is fine for WIPs but not for finished maps, RCS/aRCS (the variation for feudal or ancient state systems) for finalised, GCS acceptable as an interim but need converting to RCS. The problem is that people have busy schedules and dip in and out. It's been quiet for a few months due to exams and stuff (not to mention the fact that in the process of doing the 1885 map I've found a lot of islands that needed correcting).
I still feel like a number of the more primitive versions ought to be removed. A bunch of the supposedly updated ones also have terribly blocky borders, colours that aren't used in either the RCS or GCS, etc. I get that it's an ongoing process, and that people aren't working on them 24/7, but shouldn't there be separate places for 'complete' and 'incomplete but ongoing' works?
As for the islands, does that then mean that every map so far will need updating?
I commend the hard work people have put into this, and I make good use of what maps I can.
Do we have a patch for pre-1914 Romania? Because if you compare to these online maps, http://mapsof.net/map/wwi-alliances-europe-1914-map#.U8TQa5RdUuc and , http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europe_1871_1914.jpg it looks wrong: too much Moldavia, not enough Wallachia.
Alex Richards
Donor
I still feel like a number of the more primitive versions ought to be removed. A bunch of the supposedly updated ones also have terribly blocky borders, colours that aren't used in either the RCS or GCS, etc. I get that it's an ongoing process, and that people aren't working on them 24/7, but shouldn't there be separate places for 'complete' and 'incomplete but ongoing' works?
As for the islands, does that then mean that every map so far will need updating?
I commend the hard work people have put into this, and I make good use of what maps I can.
It's a record of what we have. It means someone can specifically ask for the map of 1830 to be updated if they want it, which would be a much quicker process than asking for a new map.
And yes, we will need to update all the maps. I've redrawn the entire South Pacific, and there's multiple changes due to new input (like below) where we've just used the same shapes for years without really checking to see if they can be improved (geographically, this includes a slightly redrawn Sjealland for example).
Hmm. I've had a look and while the borders on rivers are definitely correct, it looks like we're off on the bits following the Carpathians. Thankfully we now have a physical/terrain map so that shouldn't be an issue. I'll double check to see if there were any border changes that might be relevant.
Fair enough. Well, whatever happens, I look forward to the end results. Someone should petition Wikipedia to have our maps used on articles.
Alex Richards
Donor
Russian influence. Myself and Iori have a long running dispute over this which is roughly analogous to the old Susanoism debates, but basically comes down to him using an outline for influence whereas I consider that to look too much like a claim line and prefer an infill where appropriate.
Why doesn't any other modern country (Excluding Abkhazia and South Ossetia) have an outline like Armenia?
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, I think Iori only shows Armenia as he uses a stripped down colour scheme. It may also be outdated and referring to a period of stronger Russian influence some years ago. Probably needs looking into.
Was a little bored & decided to put qGIS to use...
The Americas
http://i.imgur.com/fUXBn6w.png
Includes all modern national & state boundaries, plus major lakes & rivers.
There are some mid-ocean islands missing (eg Hawaii)... but in my defence, that's only because I couldn't get any continental reference points, because I've only got a 1920x1200 monitor .
BE WARNED... this is a 1.23MB PNG. It's 10,876 x 9150. You may have issues on older machines ( ).
See the attached preview for an idea of the map, then note the actual map is 9.5x bigger in every dimension ...
The Americas
http://i.imgur.com/fUXBn6w.png
Includes all modern national & state boundaries, plus major lakes & rivers.
There are some mid-ocean islands missing (eg Hawaii)... but in my defence, that's only because I couldn't get any continental reference points, because I've only got a 1920x1200 monitor
.BE WARNED... this is a 1.23MB PNG. It's 10,876 x 9150. You may have issues on older machines (
).See the attached preview for an idea of the map, then note the actual map is 9.5x bigger in every dimension
...Apologies for double-posting, but (with a little help from the GIS Stack Exchange people) got a world map done, and I figured it needed more than just an edit.
http://i.imgur.com/TGdL1oR.png
About the same scale as the above map of the Americas (and with the same features).
Size: 4.4MB .png - 24,192 x 11,433 pixels ...
You have been warned.
+ + +
So, if anyone needs a ludicrously detailed map of part of the world, give me a poke and I can cut my map up for you .
http://i.imgur.com/TGdL1oR.png
About the same scale as the above map of the Americas (and with the same features).
Size: 4.4MB .png - 24,192 x 11,433 pixels
...You have been warned.
+ + +
So, if anyone needs a ludicrously detailed map of part of the world, give me a poke and I can cut my map up for you
.Okay, I have a question about the colour scheme;
When depicting rebels, I assume the light grey colour is to show rebels against the current government with a clear goal/alternative in mind, while the vertical lines are to show rebels against the current government without a clear goal/alternative.
So, are the coloured rebels then to do with separatist states? For example, would I use a red de facto border filled with, for example, Polish marroon if I was trying to show Polish separatists from Russia?
If it was rebels fighting for unification with another country, i.e. in eastern Ukraine, would I show it by drawing a red border filled with Russian gold, as in, the rebels are seeking to be a part of a neighbouring country?
When depicting rebels, I assume the light grey colour is to show rebels against the current government with a clear goal/alternative in mind, while the vertical lines are to show rebels against the current government without a clear goal/alternative.
So, are the coloured rebels then to do with separatist states? For example, would I use a red de facto border filled with, for example, Polish marroon if I was trying to show Polish separatists from Russia?
If it was rebels fighting for unification with another country, i.e. in eastern Ukraine, would I show it by drawing a red border filled with Russian gold, as in, the rebels are seeking to be a part of a neighbouring country?
Alex Richards
Donor
Ah, no. full colour indicates that they are the ones in de facto control of the territory, stripes merely indicates an area of significant operations (e.g. frequently car bombing and launching attacks, possibly even in control of large parts of the countryside, but government forces are still around and policing etc.). You've got Poland correct there, so long as they actually control the territory, while we're showing the situation in Donetsk as a case of being a Russian protectorate de fact existing there. You could stripe with Russian colours as well if they weren't actually getting support from Russia.