ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/land/paleo_map/3600/
The FTP link has access to reasonably good quality source maps, if you want to try rolling your own.
Your missing Ceuta, just wanted you to know that.Latest patches to the 2020 maps.
View attachment 599750
View attachment 599751
- Consistent border and coast colors on subdivisions map (coasts are #000020, borders are #000000)
- Added mini-legend to subdivisions map
- Changed secondary subdivisions (England, Greenland) to white
- Added Portugal regions
- Massive Italy patch: changed state borders, moved Italian-Slovenian border, moved Vatican and San Marino to more accurate locations
- Slight changes to Romania subdivisions
- Added 3 new states to Sudan and fixed some others in Darfur and Kordofan
That cannot possibly be the colour we are using for that level of subdivision.Anyone want secondary subdivisions for NWT, Nunavut, and Quebec? No? Too bad, Waluigi time.
View attachment 600982
Tbf we don't really need second-level subdivisions on the WorldA mapThat cannot possibly be the colour we are using for that level of subdivision.
does that include the municipalities of greenland and england's counties?Tbf we don't really need second-level subdivisions on the WorldA map
I think if you tried to draw England's counties at worlda scale, you'd have more pixels of border than pixels of territory.does that include the municipalities of greenland and england's counties?
in that case we should probably remove themI think if you tried to draw England's counties at worlda scale, you'd have more pixels of border than pixels of territory.
I think he was probably referring to the regions of England, which are on the map.I think if you tried to draw England's counties at worlda scale, you'd have more pixels of border than pixels of territory.
If we're looking at the 10 'regions', then it is worth noting that these are used only for statistics purposes, and have no role in government administration, which is the usual criterion on what boundaries to draw.I think he was probably referring to the regions of England, which are on the map.
It's still useful to know what they would look like on a worlda, in case someone made a TL where the UK had regional devolution.If we're looking at the 10 'regions', then it is worth noting that these are used only for statistics purposes, and have no role in government administration, which is the usual criterion on what boundaries to draw.
Well sure, but it belongs as a patch resource file, not as one of the official "year" maps.It's still useful to know what they would look like on a worlda, in case someone made a TL where the UK had regional devolution.
The same thing could be said for the regions of Iceland which do appear on the map.If we're looking at the 10 'regions', then it is worth noting that these are used only for statistics purposes, and have no role in government administration, which is the usual criterion on what boundaries to draw.
Source for those coastlines?also, the 3100 BC map is so ancient, that we need a coast patch for it
Excellent question, with no clear answer. I'll fix that.how the stinky poo is this spelling error here
"fascist"
If by the "europe worlda" you mean this thing, ye. But it's not really a worlda, per se.
Agreed.Tbf we don't really need second-level subdivisions on the WorldA map