[Discussion] Map of the North Pacific

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
The map of TNP has been one of the more contentious RP issues in recent months. Recently, the Minister for Culture has appointed Nierr as the cartographer. Nierr has been working hard to restore the Map to it's original standard, this includes: image quality, geographical issues, and resolving claim disputes.

Issues to consider here:

Succession planning:
We should not be relying on one person to do the entire job. If that individual has to leave for some reason or another, the whole project can fall apart. Lord Lore will be assisting Nierr, but ideally I think we should have another 1-2 people with image editing skills who can keep the map updated if either one of them is to vanish. I expect Nierr may seek applications from people who are interested in participating in this.

Where to go from here?
Nierr has proposed that we either go for a hard reset of the map, or that we consider adopting a new one. Personally, I would prefer a reset rather than an entirely new map. It is my view that we have changed maps too often in the past. I welcome discussion on this subject.

As Nierr is the main person responsible for the map, I'm sure he will raise other issues for discussion.
 
Knowing this is going to be the most controversial, I believe that a reboot is in order. As McM said, we've been through multiple maps, some better than others. This one, in concept is great. I like it a lot. The geography makes sense, and all that happened was that it got destroyed by image degradation.

Now here are a few ideas I have:

When I ran the map, I had an activity requirement. I think this should be maintained, and I think it's even easier to enforce with the new citizenship laws. I believe that in order to have your nation on the map, you must be a North Pacific citizen. That way all we have to do is reference the Regional Assembly records and know who's around and who's qualified.

Second off, I think that we have two reasonable options for nation creation. Creating islands is extremely difficult, so I'm hesitant to allow that, but I'm going to defer to Nierr on that one. Our first option is to allow people to make their own claims, but they can be scrutinized for whether or not they make geographic and geopolitical sense. This can be done by cartography staff who would research applicant nations for the cartographer. The other option is for Nierr to make premade templates for nations, and nations just select which claim they would like. It would almost be like selecting a house. This allows for different visions to not contradict each other, and have claims that make sense.

As for replacing absent cartographers, as long as we maintain three people on the cartography staff, I don't think it'll be a problem. the trick will be keeping them involved. In the Culture ministry, I have an opening for this position. One of the requirements is knowledge of how to use an image editor. This will allow anyone in the Cartography staff to be able to step up in the absence of the person above them.
 
I think we should go for a more actual-map-y feel, like the South Pacific's has. Grids, cities, all of the sort. Like, you could print out the map of TSP and you'd feel like you actually have one of those awesome tourist maps you get at visitor centers. We could ask TSP for some help on that so it wouldn't be hard; plus, look at other maps like The Pacific's, or TEP's, or TSP's itself. They're much more complex than ours! That's not good for our image, and it doesn't look as cool. And in fact, Elu showed us a very old map that had a more detailed look to it so we've done it before.

Basically, I think we should try to improve the look of the map and try to cooperate with TSP and our other allies on that.

Also, I'm with Ser Plembington. I don't want to abandon my geography either, no new terrain plox.
 
I really do not care what we do with the map, be it a reset or an entirely new map. The islands that constitute Kalti are all based on real world locations of which I have blank outlines of. So for me, having the cartographer recreate my nations territory is something I am not worried about.
 
Syrixia:
I think we should go for a more actual-map-y feel, like the South Pacific's has. Grids, cities, all of the sort. Like, you could print out the map of TSP and you'd feel like you actually have one of those awesome tourist maps you get at visitor centers. We could ask TSP for some help on that so it wouldn't be hard; plus, look at other maps like The Pacific's, or TEP's, or TSP's itself. They're much more complex than ours! That's not good for our image, and it doesn't look as cool. And in fact, Elu showed us a very old map that had a more detailed look to it so we've done it before.

Basically, I think we should try to improve the look of the map and try to cooperate with TSP and our other allies on that.
Click to expand...
I would be okay with that, as long as things like city placement could be determined by the nation owning the land. It would suck having to recreate your country's history to fit pre-generated cities!
 
I do not want my geography to be changed. I have had the same island on this map and the last one and I see no reason for me to change it or why it could not be transferred to a reboot or a new map.

I have no opinion on a reboot or new map, just that we should have a map that we can all work with effectively.

How exactly is it determined if something is makes geographic or geopolitical sense? What are the standards and requirements?
 
Syrixia & David make very good points on the potential addition of cities to the map. I think cities would be a very welcome addition, especially for RP purposes, and especially with the GNPTR popping up. It would be much easier to nail down RPing, especially in situations like that, if we identified the location of individual cities. Likewise, David makes a great point; it could wreck someone's nation's RPing if city locations were predetermined. Nations, I believe, should provide their own city locations.

Also: I claim land on both the North Pacific and RL northern Mediterranean maps. How should this be provided for, both in my case and others like it?
 
david_:
Syrixia:
I think we should go for a more actual-map-y feel, like the South Pacific's has. Grids, cities, all of the sort. Like, you could print out the map of TSP and you'd feel like you actually have one of those awesome tourist maps you get at visitor centers. We could ask TSP for some help on that so it wouldn't be hard; plus, look at other maps like The Pacific's, or TEP's, or TSP's itself. They're much more complex than ours! That's not good for our image, and it doesn't look as cool. And in fact, Elu showed us a very old map that had a more detailed look to it so we've done it before.

Basically, I think we should try to improve the look of the map and try to cooperate with TSP and our other allies on that.
Click to expand...
I would be okay with that, as long as things like city placement could be determined by the nation owning the land. It would suck having to recreate your country's history to fit pre-generated cities!
Click to expand...
Do recall however that not everyone is a cartographer. Not everyone will, or even can put that much detail into the maps. While I love the idea (and am doing something similar to my own internal geography), we would need a large number of talented staff with sufficient free time. The question is, do we have enough to do that, and the current state of affairs shows that we do not. Either we do something more within our capabilities or we get more people to assist, but they must be consistently able to do so. Of course we can do a crazy-detailed map like those of the other Pacifics, but if nobody can look after it properly, and ensure consistent quality, then we end up in exactly the same position as we are in now.

When I refounded Sasten as my main (as it always had been) and moved it to TNP (around the time of Eluvatar's and Blue Wolf II's delegacies if I recall correctly), it was specifically because my (imagined) canon at the time had Sasten as a Greenland-sized island in the RL North Pacific. A lot of my thoughts have changed since then, yet one of the things that has nagged me ever since I discovered the regional forum (and the map) is our lack of a good, well-maintained, fully competent series of maps that do more than just state a generic "I exist". If I can finally excavate myself from the piles of studies which have accumulated on top of my torso, then I may be willing to help TNP get a good-quality map when I can.

And of course, we need not change our beloved geography. Just improve the detail and add a few features to make it look more like a real map. But again, quality control is important if we want to avoid this situation in the future.
 
I will not be adding cities to the map. Your internal geography is your business to decide and not something that needs including. Further to that, to look at TSP's map and say one way or another that it's "more realistic" is wrong, because what you're actually commenting on is contrasting map styles, and unless you're going to drag their cartographer into TNP to be our cartographer, then we're not going to be using their map style.
 
I like the idea of a reset of the map. The idea of adding more detail and cities sounds great. I'd love to help, but I leack both the time and know-how.
 
I have no real opinion on a hard reset, a new map, or no reset, though I will note that some amount of my (limited) RPing in TNP thus far has been based on what the closest neighboring nations are. I think a lot of prior or ongoing RPing could be messed up if we go to an entirely new map, or radically shift where nations are located.

One other issue I think is critical to address is what relationship our map has to the perceived planet it's on. Is this a map of the whole world, complete with landmass and pole distortion, where sailing east lands you west? Or is it merely a subset of our planet, with space beyond the borders of the map perceived as fuzzy, foggy, do not enter, here be dragons? What about climate? If we're the whole planet, must national climates generally conform to earth-like norms of latitude? If we're a section of it, do we cross the equator or lie above it? The latter makes more sense given the region's name, but again, would this require northern nations to have colder climates and southern ones to have warmer ones?

Personally, I think we should consider our map a partial section of the world - so sailing east will not land you on the west side of the map. I also think it would be most sensible for it to be lying north of the equator, and for climates to be generally colder in the north and generally warmer in the south - though not with as big of a temperature differential as pole-to-equator. Something smaller. It's a big world.
 
The map, at its current state, looks unprofessional and needs work. I do not support a reboot of the map, but I do support the idea of tweaking some claims. In some areas, it looks like it was done to be done fast, not what a region's like TNP should be.
 
The problem is almost every single claim needs tweaking, especially with all these islands everywhere.

Nierr, as the one who's now in charge of the map, could you explain what a reboot or a redraw process would look like? I think that would clarify what we are talking about.
 
Scandigrad:
The problem is almost every single claim needs tweaking, especially with all these islands everywhere.

Nierr, as the one who's now in charge of the map, could you explain what a reboot or a redraw process would look like? I think that would clarify what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Please.
 
A reboot would be an entire reboot. No added islands, no claims, just the base map, and we'd go from there with a much much more strict set of rules for adding islands or extra land masses.

I'd also suggest that the landmasses be moved closer together - like so - so if we do get to a point where we need to add landmasses, we have much more room to do it.
 
dmb615:
The map, at its current state, looks unprofessional and needs work. I do not support a reboot of the map, but I do support the idea of tweaking some claims. In some areas, it looks like it was done to be done fast, not what a region's like TNP should be.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, how does it look unprofessional?
 
As an additional question, can we discuss the map's scale? 4 square kilometers per pixel seems... well, a wee bit gigantic.
 
The scale is something I never included and that was by design. It was added during the time I wasn't in control of the map and is indeed something I've gotten rid of. We can have a conversation on scale but if we're going to also talk about co-operation with other GCRs with regards to RP, then we'll have to take a look at their scales as well.
 
May I ask why you thought a scale was a bad idea?

I feel that a scale is a good thing; it makes a nation deal with the strengths or weaknesses of their topography. It universalizes something, and puts all nations on a level playing field so to speak.
 
Scandigrad:
May I ask why you thought a scale was a bad idea?

I feel that a scale is a good thing; it makes a nation deal with the strengths or weaknesses of their topography. It universalizes something, and puts all nations on a level playing field so to speak.
Click to expand...
This
 
Scandigrad:
May I ask why you thought a scale was a bad idea?

I feel that a scale is a good thing; it makes a nation deal with the strengths or weaknesses of their topography. It universalizes something, and puts all nations on a level playing field so to speak.
Click to expand...
Because people tend to have two reactions to the scale of a map. The first is that they will ignore it and get anywhere they like however quickly, regardless of the distances they will have to travel.

The second reaction is to complain about it. It's too big, it's too small, it doesn't fit my claim/factbook/whatever. It doesn't make people deal with their topography, it makes them complain about it.
 
In all honesty my nation, I know the general sense and scale as I have it drawn out in my Factbook. I'd personally prefer to have a scale as it helps somewhat with role play scenarios and how far apart some areas are.
 
dmb615:
The map, at its current state, looks unprofessional and needs work. I do not support a reboot of the map, but I do support the idea of tweaking some claims. In some areas, it looks like it was done to be done fast, not what a region's like TNP should be.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Look at the Kusari Islands for example.

No offense, Nierr, but they look more like glorified pentagons than islands.

Again, no offense.

Also, no offense.

NO OFFENSE!

(Just saying)
 
Scandigrad:
May I ask why you thought a scale was a bad idea?

I feel that a scale is a good thing; it makes a nation deal with the strengths or weaknesses of their topography. It universalizes something, and puts all nations on a level playing field so to speak.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And that said, whatever happens to the map, please make sure my land isn't harmed. (If it's helped to make it look more like the map in my factbook, however, that's OK.)
 
Syrixia:
Look at the Kusari Islands for example.

No offense, Nierr, but they look more like glorified pentagons than islands.
Click to expand...
I can only do so much when people add landmasses and island chains to my map that don't make sense in any kind of geological sense whatsoever.
 
Syrixia:
Scandigrad:
May I ask why you thought a scale was a bad idea?

I feel that a scale is a good thing; it makes a nation deal with the strengths or weaknesses of their topography. It universalizes something, and puts all nations on a level playing field so to speak.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And that said, whatever happens to the map, please make sure my land isn't harmed. (If it's helped to make it look more like the map in my factbook, however, that's OK.)
Click to expand...
If the map is reset, anything that was added will be removed.
 
Also, if a reboot is done, will any attempt be made to maintain the basic location of nations that already reside on the map?
 
Nations would have to submit claims again but I would give priority to those who wanted to claim the same area again, if two nations claimed it.

E.g. Say someone else claimed the area you currently have on the map. Now I would say that that claim can't be accepted until you either submit a claim for land elsewhere or say you want the same land again. If you choose the latter then you'll get that land, if you choose the former then the other person gets what was your land.
 
Regardless of what happens to the map I would have to resubmit my map claim as I have completely redone how my nation looks (island wise at least).
 
Nierr:
Nations would have to submit claims again but I would give priority to those who wanted to claim the same area again, if two nations claimed it.

E.g. Say someone else claimed the area you currently have on the map. Now I would say that that claim can't be accepted until you either submit a claim for land elsewhere or say you want the same land again. If you choose the latter then you'll get that land, if you choose the former then the other person gets what was your land.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with that.
 
Nierr:
Syrixia:
Look at the Kusari Islands for example.

No offense, Nierr, but they look more like glorified pentagons than islands.
Click to expand...
I can only do so much when people add landmasses and island chains to my map that don't make sense in any kind of geological sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So you're basically foregoing your duties to make sure the islands look as good as possible because of your opinion of them.

No offense, but that's what it sounds like.
 
No. If I wanted to forego 'my duties' to make the islands look as good as possible I'd resign.

But sure, jump to conclusions, whatever.
 
Nierr:
Nations would have to submit claims again but I would give priority to those who wanted to claim the same area again, if two nations claimed it.

E.g. Say someone else claimed the area you currently have on the map. Now I would say that that claim can't be accepted until you either submit a claim for land elsewhere or say you want the same land again. If you choose the latter then you'll get that land, if you choose the former then the other person gets what was your land.
Click to expand...

I am okay with that. Sounds like a very reasonable approach.
Syrixia:
Nierr:
Syrixia:
Look at the Kusari Islands for example.

No offense, Nierr, but they look more like glorified pentagons than islands.
Click to expand...
I can only do so much when people add landmasses and island chains to my map that don't make sense in any kind of geological sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So you're basically foregoing your duties to make sure the islands look as good as possible because of your opinion of them.

No offense, but that's what it sounds like.
Click to expand...
Let's not jump to conclusions. Nierr has been working hard to restore the map to it's original quality and to maintain a geographical standard.

I was going to suggest that Nierr give us some options and then I add a poll to the topic. Any objections?
 
I think it's a good idea to have some kind of scale for the map, because it's useful for those of us who do care about minor details like that.[note]Says the person who mapped out her island with 2500 individual squares just to be SURE it was length-width proportional...[/note] At the same time, though, since this is generally accepted to be a modern tech world, some of the details can be kind of glossed over. Ships will be able to cross the distance in a matter of, what, a couple weeks probably, with planes much faster than that.
 
Perhaps if we want to discuss the realism of where people want to make their own island chains, there should probably be a better indication of where a realistic place to put said islands would be. I think that the tectonic plate map and the physical map should both be expanded, better detailed, and merged into one "geographical map". We're getting geographically senseless claims because it is difficult to make sense of where a geographically sensible location would be to put them. That and just general apathy.

I also concur with Sillystring that there should be a defined scale to the map. It will help with making reasonable claims (think of how it would look if Switzerland were to be inflated to the size of Canada and placed directly beneath it, all the while supposedly maintaining its original measurements), as well as simply assisting in actually drawing the map as well. Besides, keeping things to a defined scale will help make it look more professional. That's one of the things a lot of people have wanted.

I do however think that the current size of the map (5,000px x 5,000px where 1px = 4 km2 therefore a of the map = 100,000,000 km2 therefore each side is 10,000km long) is actually a reasonable size, given how many nations inhabit TNP, despite the planet having to be the size of Neptune in order to accommodate such a size at near-Earth proportions. If IRL Canada was a rectangle, at its absolute maximum dimensions it would take up an area of ~ 2,600px x 2,300px, roughly 1/4 of the area of the map. The nations who have staked claims here are far, far smaller than that (e.g. McMasterdonia, who's claim, if taken to scale, would be slightly smaller than RL Germany.) Having such a large map is good, because it leaves us with plenty of room for new nations. I would recommend that Nierr's suggestion for reducing the size of the ocean between the main continents be followed; having an ocean the size of continental USA right in the middle of the region is not terribly conducive to international trade, warfare and normal geographic constraints, even if we are, by name, an ocean. That would also free up some space to place more continents and islands as well.
 
I have to agree with the idea of the hard reset with the continents closer together. I think that will allow the best position to start from going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top