Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Iori, Nov 23, 2011.
Which one's the latter?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
MBAM: QBAM, with all distances tripled.
QBAM: Some weird hybrid K7/Robinson, with noticeable longitudinal distortion, nominally centred on 10° east, possibly with truncated polar regions (unable to verify truncation).
Worlda variant 1: unknown
Worlda variant 2: unknown
Worlda variant 3: Kavraiskiy-7, centred on 10° east, and with higher latitudes truncated at around 85°.
Note that the Worlda variants were never labelled as such. Once I had ascertained that the Worlda label had been applied to multiple projections with no clear indication of which was which, I stopped tracking it, as it was no longer relevant to my interests (being too inconsistently used). Note that these unknown/hybrid versions (Worlda and QBAM) do not match either each other or any of the common standard map projections seen in wikipedia and other map projection databanks.
I meant if you had a link to which version of the worlda was the latter. Because we did have a couple of major projection overhauls, so depending on the situation we might be talking about a case of 'old projections aren't actually a proper one.'
Gotcha. I didn't keep a record of which Worlda was the truncated K7 one. By that point, I had already decided that my K7 project would use a slightly larger map scale (1250px for the smallest one), in order to be clear which is actually K7, and which is worlda truncated K7 / worlda unknown. "Worlda" as a "brand", has too much of a legacy of inaccurate maps included under the label.
fwiw, I recall that only one of the maps on the a-h wiki was actually of the K7 projection.
Oh great, yet another map that's going nowhere then.
The fundamental problem with every 'here's a more accurate map at a different size' is that everyone neglects the fact that the main reason people use the worlda is due to the large corpus of existing historic maps (of various levels of accuracy), borders, rivers and so on.
Now over half the historic maps need updating to some degree or another anyway, at which point if there's a version of the basemap accurate to one projection, then it's a convenient time to convert to that.
Otherwise we just have a case where you're going to be saying 'actually this one's a better map to use' and everyone else is just going to go 'is there a 1900 map on that projection? no? I'll use the old one then.'
Or, to put it bluntly, we've already got a problem with having lots of basemap projects going very slowly because everyone's working on different ones rather than trying to get one finished, and this just exasperates that.
Well clearly, when that K7 style worlda map was created, it garnered essentially zero interest. Otherwise, someone would have used it as a basis to update at least one other map. So whatever else was preventing worlda inaccuracies being fixed, it wasn't the lack of an accurate basemap.
It's all very well having a large corpus of existing maps. But if it is a large corpus of existing inaccurate maps, it's not actually all that useful, since the fixup work would require at least as much effort as simply redrawing. But seeing as how that fixup work hasn't happened yet in the years since that fixed basemap was released, odds are good it won't ever happen.
And yes, there's lots of basemap projects going on. But since they are mostly expansions of qbam/mbam, they inherit all the existing inaccuracies of those two. For me, those maps are nice drawings, but not especially accurate.
fwiw, naysayers similar to you already had the effect of killing that nascent project last year. No need to continue the naysaying
Is there a North America with correct rivers?
Well, what you actually did was just start releasing the map at an absolutely humongous scale. I can't actually find anywhere where you released a worlda (or even 'slightly larger than worlda') scale map to any stage of completion, and that's the scale I'm talking about- for most people that's just too much space to try to fill and it intimidates them into not starting. Unless you're talking about this one, in which case the fact it's on a rectangle form and Antarctica being like that makes it seem like a step backwards.
Really, a lot of it's psychology. Mentally speaking, the concept of 'I've improved the coastlines/projection of this map, we've already got lots of maps using it, but we'll just have to update them' as a suggestion comes across as much less daunting than 'your projection is wrong, this one is right, we need to redo everything to this,' even if the amount of work involved is identical. If you're going to try and use the second approach, the best thing to do is to actually kick things off yourself with some historic maps.
But that's the thing, you can make things easier for yourself in a number of ways. You start with the smallest scale in the set you want to do which is immediately less daunting rather than the largest which makes the project intimidating. You start at the present and work backwards, and you produce a lot of recent year maps, each of which needs only minor alterations but suddenly means you're starting off with what psychologically feels like a significant corpus of work has already been done, because you've got 27 different historic maps, that's a good start (and having January 1st of every year since 1990 does give you the borders for a lot of the Cold War with Yugoslavia, the USSR etc.)
At the time, I did release a 1250px version. No one cared (I guess because that's when mbam fever first took hold). It's since gone into the ether I think.
How's the work on Chinese rivers so far @Alex Richards? I suppose it's infuriating in the mess of contradicting infos? Because it certainly looked this way to me.
So after three days I managed to do a patch for Antarctica, including mainland Ice Caps, some coastline fixes, extra islands and fixed ocean ice caps to their current extension.
Frustrating, mainly due to the fact that many of the Chinese province articles on Wikipedia have nice maps like this which can with some effort be transferred to QBAM, and others have maps like this which obviously can't.
Very nice, but it still has problems, namely the fact that the edges still don't match on either side of the map, eg;
(uses the old map I know, but it illustrates my point)
Apart form that though, its still a good map (and saves me work on my ice sheet patches, so thanks for that).
Also, I'd use the unclaimed land green for the non glaciated bits.
Yeah, I noticed the fail in Antarctica, could you patch it for me if you don't have lots of work to do?
Anyhow, about the Green part, there are claims in Antarctica, which is pretty confusing given the term "Unclaimed". Anyhow I'll paint it green rn.
I tought Green represented areas without state (would it be early state on a chiefdom/formation/nation model)?
My understanding is that green is the default "no organised government beyond individual communities" colour. Antarctica's (and sometimes greenland's) white isn't so much a commentary on ownership as an artistic convention.
I would, If I didn't have other stuff to do (hence the really late reply).
I always thought that the green was unadministered, not unclaimed, ie, a country could claim a load of desert/tundra/jungle ect but couldn't actually control it, as well as just showing the lack of any states in the area.
We already fixed Antartica in the M-BAM, so you can take a look from the latest release, and, maybe downscale
As a bit of a progress update, Chinese rivers are redrawn for every province except Yunnan, Tibet, Qinhai and Xinjiang.
Separate names with a comma.