Chaeron A World in Progress

[grimleyblack]

Hey guy's,

Ever since I got a some great feedback on my previous map Leucia http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=29346 I decided to have a go at another
VyBfObN.jpg

Again I would love feed back on my work I think i still might be struggling with geographical placement, leeme know what you think

[Chick]

Your big problem is the river. Rivers run from high ground to lower ground and ultimately to the sea. They join going downstream, never split. They taper from small at the source to widest at the mouth.

That means your rivers look perfect, except they are running uphill all the way. They join nicely, they taper nicely, but they are running from low ground and ending in the mountains.

If the river end at the top right were a mouth into the sea, it would be great. As it is, it makes absolutely no sense that a river runs up to a point in the mountains and suddenly stops.

On the other hand, if your intention was that the river is running from upper right to lower left, your tapers are wrong, and the river should never split. Rivers run together, but they never separate in the downstream direction.

[grimleyblack]

Your big problem is the river. Rivers run from high ground to lower ground and ultimately to the sea. They join going downstream, never split. They taper from small at the source to widest at the mouth.

That means your rivers look perfect, except they are running uphill all the way. They join nicely, they taper nicely, but they are running from low ground and ending in the mountains.

If the river end at the top right were a mouth into the sea, it would be great. As it is, it makes absolutely no sense that a river runs up to a point in the mountains and suddenly stops.

On the other hand, if your intention was that the river is running from upper right to lower left, your tapers are wrong, and the river should never split. Rivers run together, but they never separate in the downstream direction.

Ok, I had placed the taper in the mountains to indicate to myself that were the river was starting (either from glacial melt or unseen source) if I'm understanding what your telling me the split were the lower left mountain intercepts the river shouldn't exist and neither should the lake as the water wouldn't run there, Sorry I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

[Chick]

Yes, it's all wrong

First, define where the ocean is from this map ... is it N, S, E, or W of this map?

[grimleyblack]

Yes, it's all wrong

First, define where the ocean is from this map ... is it N, S, E, or W of this map?

Its west of those mountains, Also is it not possible that due to enclosing hills that water would run off them and have no were to go but build up and form a lake?
Chaeron.jpg

I have modified the river to hopefully match what you were telling me.

[Chick]

OK, now you have a reasonable river running from the mountains to the sea. Next, add a river that is an outlet from the lake running down and joining the river (or into the swamp, as you prefer).

It is possible to have a "closed sea" such as the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea, but those are actually pretty rare and in many ways unusual. It's not just a matter of "enclosing hills", since the water would deepen until it reached the level of the lowest point between hills and form an outlet there.

Just make an outlet river from your lake to the main river and you have a natural watershed

[Deadshade]

Also is it not possible that due to enclosing hills that water would run off them and have no were to go but build up and form a lake?

.

Most lakes are formed by glaciers melting in interglacials. Some are formed by tectonic or seismic events.
But once a lake was formed, the question is how long will it live if it has no outlet.
On one side it receives water from inflowing rivers and on the other hand it looses water by evaporation.

Obviously the probability that those 2 figures are equal for a long period of time is infinitesimally small and can be neglected.
So there are only 2 possibilities.

1° If the inflow is greater than evaporation, then the level of the lake rises untill it reaches the lowest point on the boundary where it can overflow and start going to the sea. There is obviously only one such stable point so that the lakes have always only one outlet.

2° If the inflow is smaller than evaporation than the lake will disappear or get so small that it evaporates much less and matches in average the inflow. Without exception, all lakes without outlet are in this situation and it leads to complex fluctuating sizes depending on climatic conditions (temperature, humidity, prevailing winds, precipitaions)
For example it happened several times that the Gibraltar strait closed transforming Mediterranean in a salt water lake. As there is a huge amount of water, the evaporation of the ex-sea took some time but eventually almost everything evaporated leaving just the deepest parts with some water. Then the tectonics opened the strait again and water flowed in from the Atlantic. Etc.

Because of these complexities, maps generally show the lakes belonging to the first category especially if one wants a more realistic environment. Closed lakes are of course not forbidden but one must realize that they are just transient features that don't last a very long time especially if the size is small - f.ex old maps showing the Aral sea as it was are already wrong today.

[grimleyblack]

SO its been a while since my last update So I thought i'd show you guy's were my map has ended up, still a WIP but much closer to completion then I was a few weeks ago.
Chaeron_WIP.jpg