I'm quite sure it's not updated, in fact I've been digging in the last thread for a time.
Q-Bam Historical Map Thread
- Thread starter The Alternative
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical maps q-bam
I'm quite sure it's not updated, in fact I've been digging in the last thread for a time.
I'm talking to him now. If he has anything I'll be sure to link it.
Not meant to be passive-aggressive, it's just that the place is nearly impossible to map like the rest of the world is mapped. I probably don't know more than you guys, just enough to know that it's lacking, with very little way to improve.
My bad, reading various years in the discussion about France may have got me turned around.
There may be a more recent one that people use that I don't know about but as far as I know it's still the best. Whatever version is being used by you and The Alternative seems lacking. It was made by SomeOther and the latest version is here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...and-core-thread.220951/page-103#post-11785215 (which I admit I didn't post, since I posted the older one)
Afaik, people just kept using older versions because this one was posted so under-statedly. I may be making an ass of myself but from what I see the rivers, water bodies, shorelines, etc are more accurate and more detailed, which should help shouldn't it?
Sorry if I'm coming off rude and unhelpful, not my intention.
It what was said about medieval Africa, tough, and it was essentially better of a situation.
As for what matter North America, the main problem is that we don't have litterary sources up to the XVth. Oral sources and Archeological sources tough, are a thing.
Even without going into detail about relevance of Alden or Renfrew-Level models (which can be another discussion altogether), there is enough clues about cultural limits that can be used for mapping.
Of course it's more or less vague, but it can provide much informations (and to be honest, half of ancient and medieval borders in Europe are approximations, in spite of litterary evidence : you don't have clear borders in these region before the XVIth century) and is not really a carthographic Terra Incognita.
My bad, reading various years in the discussion about France may have got me turned around.
J.Gouw maps are usually quite distorted, and it's why I never used it at least conciouslly, because I don't really trust enough his work. Maybe I should have looked on other revisions, but
The basemap I use (I didn't corrected the rivers I modified on it, tough) is this one.
Most of the changes appears to be located in Canada or artificial lakes (which plays little role on maps, and that I try to get rid of) and maybe some rivers. It should maybe be used more, but differences are quite reduced at the point it should warrant more of a patch from this map than a change IMO. (Admittedly, I should put the rivers changes and additions I did)
But really, people should just update the wiki more : nobody wants to dig in a thread in search of a basemap.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I think that someone should make patches for the various changes to geography that have happened over the years.
I'm mostly thinking about reservoirs and other bodies of water. It's depressing how many maps are mostly accurate apart from showing a lake that was created decades after the map is set.
Here are two examples from the 1883 QBAM:
The Salton sea, created by accident in 1905.
Lake Volta, created in 1965
I find it really annoying double-checking every lake to make sure it actually existed at that time.
I'm mostly thinking about reservoirs and other bodies of water. It's depressing how many maps are mostly accurate apart from showing a lake that was created decades after the map is set.
Here are two examples from the 1883 QBAM:
The Salton sea, created by accident in 1905.
Lake Volta, created in 1965
I find it really annoying double-checking every lake to make sure it actually existed at that time.
Indeed, but there's no real possibility to identify most lakes as artificial or not. We could, that said, when identifying one, give it a different outline color (maybe 0-0-46 instead of 0-0-32)?
As someone mostly making ancient and medieval maps, it would be insanely useful.
As someone mostly making ancient and medieval maps, it would be insanely useful.
Artificial lakes and reservoirs are an old problem that was never solved and routinely pops up again.
However, IIRC, the Suez canal is a lighter shade of blue. We could use that for reservoirs and canals, as a sort of "water protectorate".
However, IIRC, the Suez canal is a lighter shade of blue. We could use that for reservoirs and canals, as a sort of "water protectorate".
Wouldn't that colline with coastal swamps and seasonal lakes (which I'm more and more convinced should be represented with different colours)?
It may. Then, we could go with a similar mechanism to the Country/Territory/Protectorate, and do a darker shade for artificial waterways.
It lets the confusion with seasonal and coastal waters, tough, which I'm not sure I find secondary.
I'd rather have artificial lakes having a different borders (0-0-42 rather than 0-0-32 being an exemple) and reserve the Core/Autonomy/Influence to Sea/Coastal/Seasonal. But that's me.
I'd rather have artificial lakes having a different borders (0-0-42 rather than 0-0-32 being an exemple) and reserve the Core/Autonomy/Influence to Sea/Coastal/Seasonal. But that's me.
I think I'd find that even more confusing, but that's me. We should probably try both ways and see what works best.
I feel like we're breaking new ground of historical map making, this is what may become standard into future history books.
I came with that for coastal editing (go for Europe directly), what do you think?
It's basically what I feel whenever I edit the aRCS (I mean, there's maybe 3 or 4 people using it, but still)
Looks good, but but I feel it could be better. What specific colors are you using again?
I like aRCS. It just needs better advertising
I tried a 25% shade but it didn't looked good and was too distinct of sea colour.
So, I ended up with 12,5, and a 102-179-255 colour for borders and the same colour than sea for filling.
Uhm, okay, let's keep it that way. Still doesn't solve the problem of reservoir. I'd think a 25% darker filling would do, but your idea got me thinking of a 12,5 darker border instead.
What do you think?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Do you mean which program we use? Either paint or paint.net, generally.
If you meant which sources we're using...it depends a lot, but as a rule of thumb, we try to avoid as much as possible relying on one regional or world map.
Personally, I use a lot of Autrement editions historical atlases, which are a quality work.
Eventually, it's a mix of wikipedia maps (interestingly, while the articles aren't that good sometimes, maps on Wikipedia can be a good base to work with), historical atlases map, a bit of Euratlas (less for drawning than listing) and a lot of non-carthographical sources such as treaties, books, articles, etc.
At this point, it's rather what we don't really want to use on the Interwebz to do maps : the infamous Centennia atlas, or the Website-That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named, in spite of its apparent popularity : these maps are either outdated, sloppy work, or opinionated stances.
