Accurate Maps Proposal

[Kaiser Martens]

Hello,

I have been looking into a bit of cartography on my free time and by chance noticed something useful for CNRP, and something which also, should be corrected.

We're using a map projection method which is badly off. I first suspected about this when having once looked to Nordheim, repeatedly getting the feeling that something was off. When I read the following article, I figured what had been wrong all along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

The north and the south are grossly disfigured. Some areas such as Greenland appear 14 times bigger than they are appoximately. Plus the South Pole is a mess.

I propose that we pick another projection that can more accurately describe our world, but also that we use a second, antarctic-specific map. Basically, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_Tripel_projection

Plus separately, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica-Region.png

That way, we'd be able to represent the different territories in a much, much more accurate manner.

What do you guys think?

[Subtleknifewielder]

i wish you the best in getting this implimented (I support it).

[Vedran]

I'm in favor of a separate map for Antarctic claims, one centered on the South Pole, like the one you linked to.

[JerreyRough]

I'm in support of this as well; now we need a white blank version that is also large.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

If we can find a blank map of the Winkel Tripel Projection, I say go for it. I don't make the map though...so...lol...but yeah I agree with that.

[Arkantos]

Well, any map projection we get will be distorted. That's what happens when you try to project a three dimensional sphere onto a two dimensional rectangle.

[Vedran]

Well, any map projection we get will be distorted. That's what happens when you try to project a three dimensional sphere onto a two dimensional rectangle.

It's a question of what we value more, size or shape. Some people don't like Greenland looking huge, some people don't like the edges curving in so sharply. I am undecided.

[JerreyRough]

Well, any map projection we get will be distorted. That's what happens when you try to project a three dimensional sphere onto a two dimensional rectangle.

Tis' the truth. But the Winkel tripel projection is less distorted than the current one.

The best thing to do is to have an edited Google Earth model, but the amount of work involved would not be worth it.

[Uberstein]

Hmm, this is a good idea. I support it.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

The only problem I have is that if we move to a new map style, it will be difficult trying to redo all the national borders that do not currently follow major borders today.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Hello,

I have been looking into a bit of cartography on my free time and by chance noticed something useful for CNRP, and something which also, should be corrected.

We're using a map projection method which is badly off. I first suspected about this when having once looked to Nordheim, repeatedly getting the feeling that something was off. When I read the following article, I figured what had been wrong all along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

The north and the south are grossly disfigured. Some areas such as Greenland appear 14 times bigger than they are appoximately. Plus the South Pole is a mess.

I propose that we pick another projection that can more accurately describe our world, but also that we use a second, antarctic-specific map. Basically, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_Tripel_projection

Plus separately, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica-Region.png

That way, we'd be able to represent the different territories in a much, much more accurate manner.

What do you guys think?

I agree, especially about having a seperate map for Antarctica. I've brought that up a few times already, and I know a lot of people have before me, but I have no idea why it never happened, especially since a couple blank maps were posted. Anyway if a new map is made, can we try to make it one with all major lakes already drawn in?

The only problem I have is that if we move to a new map style, it will be difficult trying to redo all the national borders that do not currently follow major borders today.

I guess the mapmakers would do what they did the last time and make it fit today's RL borders.

[Centurius]

I like the idea so sure if you want to go for it

[Kaiser Martens]

Oh, I only am master of MSpaint, I cannot do it myself. I can help with the blanks though.

http://quest.nasa.gov/antarctica/tg/figure..._Antarctica.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...entered.svg.png

I'm afraid I haven't seen any better Winkel maps though.

[Teriethien]

Sounds like a very nice idea, but I'm guessing a suitable blank outline map isn't going to be easy to find.

[Tahsir]

Well, someone with a flash skill could make a editable flash globe, but that might be a little extreme.

also a problem with the winkel maps. The Ross Sea is almost completely cut off. Probably repeated on a part up North too.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[king of cochin]

We could also try to embed a Google Map script into the map page and link a KMZ where all the maps have been drawn. I had posted a script like that sometime back listing my World Cruise and my locations on map.

Link

[Lynneth]

The best thing to do is to have an edited Google Earth model, but the amount of work involved would not be worth it.

I'd totally do that if I had the means for it.

Otherwise, I'm for this change, as long as the new map is large enough. I like the size of the current map.

[Lynneth]

Doublepost, but hey, I've got maps. The thumbnails can, as with all my larger pictures, be clicked.

The following two are 6250x3819 pixels.

The first is 463 KByte big, the second 297 KByte.

The following two are Xbox, at 12500x7639 pixels and a much larger filesize, depicting the previous maps but bigger, doubling the length of each side.

The first is 1332 KByte big, the second 817 KByte.

I converted the .svg from here into .png: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wor...eg_centered.svg

For country-borders, you can orient yourself on this map:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f...mp;width=2000px

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_blank.svg <- Unfortunately, this .svg is hard to convert to a .png, the country-borders becoming several millimeters thick.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...ps_of_the_world <- has various maps, including Winkel Tripel projections. Below the picture itself, there's generally a link to make variously-sized .png versions of the maps.

>>SVG rendered as PNG images in different resolutions:

>>200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.

Like this.

Should you want a larger .png version of a map on that page, point me to it, tell me how big you want it, and I'll try making it.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Lynneth

[Sabioviejo]

Tis' the truth. But the Winkel tripel projection is less distorted than the current one.

The best thing to do is to have an edited Google Earth model, but the amount of work involved would not be worth it.

Its possible to layer the current map in Google Earth. I tried it a few times. Its not pretty because its not optimized for Google Earth, but it works.

I'm all for using another projection, I complained about the projection we use a few months ago. But its a lot of work to redraw the entire map. Added to that every mapmaker uses different tools and there isn't really a standard way of editing the map.

Next to that, we need a large blank world map with enough borders on it for this to work.

[Markus Wilding]

Call me a xenophobe, but what's wrong with the current map as it is? It's worked before, and the only time we've changed it (to my knowledge) was when LVN took it over and threw up that goofy "correct" map.

That doesn't mean that I would be opposed to a new map, lord no. I'm just saying if people aren't complianing about what's broken, why try an' fix it?

The only problem I have is that if we move to a new map style, it will be difficult trying to redo all the national borders that do not currently follow major borders today.

Also, this.

[Cody Seb]

I support this.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Been proposed before, been accepted but nothing done. Lets see about it this time.

[Sabioviejo]

Looking at it, this could easy translate in a 8/10 hours of work. You can't simply copy nations to the new map. And afterwards there is gonna be like 6 patches to the map because people are not satisfied, or the mapmaker messed something up of forgot something.

Its not a bad idea, you just need someone with too much spare time to execute it.

Also, we really need more then just country borders, people are gonna complain when mapmakers draw borders freehanded.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Sitethief

[Sargun II]

You'd need a border of more than just countries, you'd need one without all the !@#$%* black lines, one that is large enough to be the world map and enough patience to endure the hundreds of messed up borders that go along with it.

We only have one of those four.

[Elrich von Richt]

This would be a pointless waste of time in my opinion. While the projection is not a 100%, there is no reason to change the map.

The current one is just fine.