Moderator: Cartographers
isaiah40 wrote:We want the nitpicks now!!!
The Bison King wrote:Isthmus of Corinth. Add it. There's no reason it shouldn't be there.
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.
koontz1973 wrote:Territ line, Ulan Bator - it has the only sharp edge to it. can this not be rounded out?
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?
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.
koontz1973 wrote:Some of the sea routes are slightly pixelated. look under Greece and a couple of other places.
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.
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?
The Bison King wrote: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?
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:The Bison King wrote: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?
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.
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.
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?
natty dread wrote:Ok yeah but that's way, WAY larger than the isthmus or whatever actually is:
natty dread wrote:Ok yeah but that's way, WAY larger than the isthmus or whatever actually is:
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!
RedBaron0 wrote:My own lil' personal quirk would be Indian sub-continent instead of peninsula but that's just me
DiM wrote:i think this is your best work so far (graphically speaking)
PS: shouldn't this be in the forge?
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users