Moderator: Cartographers
the.killing.44 wrote:=D> Announcement? It'd be viewed more there, I believe.
mibi wrote:maybe you should note that if you don't want to do the xml, there are people willing to do it.
sailorseal wrote:come on, now i am all sticky
tlane wrote:mibi wrote:maybe you should note that if you don't want to do the xml, there are people willing to do it.
that sounds like a good idea, and maybe you could pm people and ask if you could put there names up, as examples of people who can do xml.
great job
cairnswk wrote:oaktown, because i believe centering is part of the xml process. I'd like to see something about having to have two images Large and Small of the xml centered with the standard "88" numbers as part of the process BEFORE the xml stamp is issued.
Also important is that if you put continents inside of continents you must but the inner continent by itself before the continent(s) you put it inside.
oaktown wrote:We started it months ago and let it sit on the shelf all this time,
the.killing.44 wrote:ļ»æAs an addendum to cairns's comment, include that images with 888s are also necessary.
.44
qwert wrote:888 needed?
Yes you must provide images who will show how 3 digit numbers standing on map. These is some old rule in MAp production. If they look good then you are very close to get XML stamp.
WidowMakers wrote:the.killing.44 wrote:ļ»æAs an addendum to cairns's comment, include that images with 888s are also necessary.
.44
Actually they are only necessary when the map is very crowded. If there is a possible overlap of names, borders or other "88", then the "888" test is required. It is on a map by map basis.
For instance I don't remember having to do "888" for the USA map pack, but I did need to do them for Midgard.
yeti_c wrote:tlane wrote:mibi wrote:maybe you should note that if you don't want to do the xml, there are people willing to do it.
that sounds like a good idea, and maybe you could pm people and ask if you could put there names up, as examples of people who can do xml.
great job
Don't do that.
C.
oaktown wrote:suffice it to say that three digit numbers should be able to fit on a map without any clarity issues. I tend to check when I'm doing the army coordinates, so unless it is questionable I won't require mapmakers to post the image.
Let's just say it's good form to do so... but not expressly required.
cairnswk wrote:a lot of players also play with BOB on, and some use the "colour indicators" r,g,b,y etc.
cairnswk wrote:oaktown, i'd prefer to stick by the old method where 88 and 888 are required.
oaktown wrote:cairnswk wrote:oaktown, i'd prefer to stick by the old method where 88 and 888 are required.
I don't think it is written anywhere that the mapmaker is "required" to show versions of their maps with 88s and 888s, is it? Like most other "rules" around here we've come up with this informally - why 888? Why not 555? Why not a two digit count with am "r" or "g" to demonstrate how the map would look with color codes, which is how I play every game?
The rule - which again I don't think is written - should get to the heart of the why we want mapmakers to show the 888s, not the minutiae of actually showing them; something like this:
......
Most of our "rules" around here are really expectations that began as community agreements... might be time for a blue ribbon panel to figure out what all of these "rules" are.
edbeard wrote:needing to post those images is just busywork, cairns. they can easily be checked by the person or persons doing the XML check when they're also checking for centering issues and that the XML has no errors (syntax, border, or bonus related).
....
yeti_c wrote:cairnswk wrote:a lot of players also play with BOB on, and some use the "colour indicators" r,g,b,y etc.
Just to point out - Colour codes are actually part of the site these days - so 100% of people could use the colour codes... not just the BOB acolytes.
C.
cairnswk wrote:gees, i never thought i'd have to fight so hard to keep some old traditions alive.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:cairnswk wrote:gees, i never thought i'd have to fight so hard to keep some old traditions alive.
If you make a tradition a rule, it is no longer seen as a tradition
...
gimil wrote:cairnswk wrote:gees, i never thought i'd have to fight so hard to keep some old traditions alive.
If you make a tradition a rule, it is no longer seen as a tradition
If we want to go down the road of adding more rule this this one (which I am going to argue is a little petty), then all we do is add more red tape from things that are more or less common sense.
cairnswk wrote:yeti_c wrote:cairnswk wrote:a lot of players also play with BOB on, and some use the "colour indicators" r,g,b,y etc.
Just to point out - Colour codes are actually part of the site these days - so 100% of people could use the colour codes... not just the BOB acolytes.
C.
i'm sorry C....but don't take it personally, it wasn't aimed at you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users