Moderator: Cartographers

A couple of things.isaiah40 wrote:We want the nitpicks now!!!
Got to agree here. Not a huge change and does not change the GP in any way.The Bison King wrote:Isthmus of Corinth. Add it. There's no reason it shouldn't be there.

I'll look into centering those of the sea routes that can be centered, others will have to stay as they are.koontz1973 wrote:Going to ask again for you to centre the sea routes. They do look funny this way and it should not take too long.
Meh, ok.koontz1973 wrote:Territ line, Ulan Bator - it has the only sharp edge to it. can this not be rounded out?
S. Nei mongol, ok.koontz1973 wrote:South Nei Mongol - can the name on the small map be moved to the left a tad so the full 88 and more importantly the 888 fit inside the territ.
Baikal name go to the right so the numbers fits under the name and not of to the right.
U.A.E. can the name fit into the sea like England?
Don't see the point. The names are readable as they are.koontz1973 wrote:Kashmir territ line, can you move the line 2 pixels to the left so the name fits in the territ and not on the line itself. Same with Mumbai.
I don't see any pixelation...koontz1973 wrote:Some of the sea routes are slightly pixelated. look under Greece and a couple of other places.
It looks just fine to me. Also, no one else has complained about it, I've explored other options for it and this was the version that was found the best for the map.koontz1973 wrote:I know you have played around with the Great Wall of China but it looks out of place. It is the only solid object on the map. The trees and tundra fit really nicely together but the great wall looks odd all alone.

The "point" is that it would be right. Geographic accuracy, that's the point. I don't know why you are making excuses for something that'll take 2 seconds to fix, especially when this map is riddled with geographic features that are far smaller and less significant.natty dread wrote:In the scale of the map it would be so small that it would be an unrecognizable blip... so I don't really know if there's much point in adding it?
But the counter-point is, that the piece of land is so small that it would basically just be the outlines, the land colour probably wouldn't even be visible, and even the outlines probably wouldn't show too well in that area as the sea is dark near the land.The Bison King wrote:The "point" is that it would be right. Geographic accuracy, that's the point. I don't know why you are making excuses for something that'll take 2 seconds to fix, especially when this map is riddled with geographic features that are far smaller and less significant.natty dread wrote:In the scale of the map it would be so small that it would be an unrecognizable blip... so I don't really know if there's much point in adding it?

Ok but counter counter point is, look I did it for you It looks fine:natty dread wrote:But the counter-point is, that the piece of land is so small that it would basically just be the outlines, the land colour probably wouldn't even be visible, and even the outlines probably wouldn't show too well in that area as the sea is dark near the land.The Bison King wrote:The "point" is that it would be right. Geographic accuracy, that's the point. I don't know why you are making excuses for something that'll take 2 seconds to fix, especially when this map is riddled with geographic features that are far smaller and less significant.natty dread wrote:In the scale of the map it would be so small that it would be an unrecognizable blip... so I don't really know if there's much point in adding it?
And if I were to make the piece of land larger, well, then it would kinda defeat the purpose of "geographical accuracy", don't you think?


Well if you are going to go "there" I'll point out that Peloponnese is shaped completely wrong. Sometimes it's ok to warp things just a little to fit them in. I'd rather the isthmus of corinth be a little larger than it actually is than for half of greece to be an island when it isn't. See what I mean?natty dread wrote:Ok yeah but that's way, WAY larger than the isthmus or whatever actually is:
Also so what? look at the strip of land connecting Turkey to the Balkan peninsula. That's WAY larger than it really is but you broke the rule there. Why is the isthmus of Corinth off limits?natty dread wrote:Ok yeah but that's way, WAY larger than the isthmus or whatever actually is:
Look at Sakhalin, that strip of land to the north east looks totally like what you just described. Why is it special? why shouldn't the Isthmus of Corinth get the same treatment as that meaningless strip of land on a remote island??? what do you have against the isthmus of Corinth???????But the counter-point is, that the piece of land is so small that it would basically just be the outlines, the land colour probably wouldn't even be visible, and even the outlines probably wouldn't show too well in that area as the sea is dark near the land.
natty dread wrote:Fine, just shut up about isthmus whatever already!



This was already discussed a couple of pages back... the conclusion was that since Indian Peninsula / Indian Sub-continent are both used interchangeably to refer to the same area, either can be used, and Peninsula fits better in the legend so I'm using it for that reason.RedBaron0 wrote:My own lil' personal quirk would be Indian sub-continent instead of peninsula but that's just me

Thanks, I think so too.DiM wrote:i think this is your best work so far (graphically speaking)
PS: shouldn't this be in the forge?

