Scale and--

[Alex]

Well, like I said, most of my learning has been either in uni, via lectures and course specific notes or maybe the occasional text book. Or by reading online resources usually targetting people with a basic understanding of mathematics (beyond mere numeracy and arithmetic, but still within the capabilities of advanced high school math in most cases, or undergrad level otherwise) If anything, I'd suggest you looks for books on the history of cartography. Introductory Geography text books, preferably used so you don't spend a ridiculous amount, may be a good idea if you can track them down.

Alright, thanks. I'll look for some books on cartography and Introductory Geography -- Hopefully a library has them so I don't have to buy them.

Well, that's just the most direct way to understand it. You can still do it right without a mathematical understanding, it's just easier to do with such an understanding, at least in my admittedly somewhat biased opinion as a bit of a math geek.

I would still like to learn the direct way, so its on the list to learn. But I would also like to know of the other options for right now. Where might I go to learn of them?

That depends on how dense the graticules you are using are, how good your eye is, how steady your hand is, and how careful you are. It's like placing a grid over an image, and another grid on a blank page, and then drawing the image on the blank page using the grids as a guide, except that the two grids are distorted compared to one another. Depending on the context, that very imprecision may be something you want. Early cartographers didn't have access to modern surveying and drafting capabilities so they had to freehand it over grids like this so if you want to mimic them, you probably don't want to be too precise.

So the imprecision isn't that bad (in terms of what I mentioned above) to mimic? I could be careful, but I'm not sure if my eyes are good enough to catch. But practice and learning makes perfect, I say.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

If you want to try this method, you would draw things in on the world map, keeping in mind how the projection distorts things. The Mercator template makes things bigger at the higher latitudes, and the Stereographic one makes things bigger toward the edges. Then, when you want to draw a map in another projection, you would lay a graticule for that projection over your canvas, and draw the features from the original map using the two different graticules as guides. If a coastline crosses 120° W at about 45° N, on the first map, then you would draw the corresponding coastline crossing 120° W at about 45° N on the new map.

I misspelled in my post and just read what I'm said. Sorry about not being clear.

I meant "are there steps to follow for your templates? Like which template you start in first etc etc"?

That's your call. You haven't posted it so I don't really know anything about it. Even having looked at it, the best I could do is point things that might be relevant to your making the decision.

Oh? Then I will try to finish it and post it. *I guess if its bad, I'll re-write it all. :p*

Alex~

[Hai-Etlik]

I would still like to learn the direct way, so its on the list to learn. But I would also like to know of the other options for right now. Where might I go to learn of them?

The books about the history of cartography, and the intro geography texbooks I mentioned would be my suggestion. Like I said, I didn't learn it this way so I don't have much advice.

I meant "are there steps to follow for your templates? Like which template you start in first etc etc"?

They are just SVG images. You can load them into any editor that supports SVG. They do have some extensions that should give you a basic layer structure to build from if you load it in Inkscape, which is the editor I use. Both are intended for full globes so either would be a good starting point. The Mercator template is probably easier to work with. I'm working on a Ruby program to generate graticules for the Equidistant Conic projection suitable for continents.

[Alex]

The books about the history of cartography, and the intro geography texbooks I mentioned would be my suggestion. Like I said, I didn't learn it this way so I don't have much advice.

I haven't found anything for the history of cartography, but I have found "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geography". Hopefully that will be a good choice. xD

They are just SVG images. You can load them into any editor that supports SVG. They do have some extensions that should give you a basic layer structure to build from if you load it in Inkscape, which is the editor I use. Both are intended for full globes so either would be a good starting point. The Mercator template is probably easier to work with. I'm working on a Ruby program to generate graticules for the Equidistant Conic projection suitable for continents.

Oh, so there are no special rules to follow? Like placement? I'll try drawing my world on it now, was messing with the files. GIMP loads them (good that I did not encounter some errors -- my GIMP acts weird since its reinstall), tried Inkscape but it won't install for me. >.>

Ruby program? As in the Ruby programming language? If so, I have heard of it, and seen it in action. I have not learned it, of course. I give you, sir (?), a super thumbs up for that and giant "good luck".

Alex~

[Hai-Etlik]

Oh, so there are no special rules to follow? Like placement?

Well they both distort size. On Mercator, things get bigger toward the poles, and on Stereogrpahic they get bigger the further you get from the centre. Also mercator doesn't go all the way to the poles and it distorts them all the way to infinity.

There are of course particular ways that continents form and the shapes and relationships they take on, but that's Geology which is a completely different field. What we've been talking about is Geodesy. A Magical Society: Guide to Mapping (which you evidently already have) is also good and should serve you well. If you want more detail, a book on Physical Geography. I snagged a first year Pys Geo textbook at a used bookstore and it's quite helpful.

Dealing with the shape of the world in a satisfactory way involves some alien concepts, but they are fairly simple once you get them and it's not too much work to implement it to a reasonable degree of accuracy (for fantasy mapping). Once you get to physical geography, you are looking at a whole new situation. There's always another factor to consider and another detail tempting you to incorporate it. It's tempting to map out the tectonics in more detail, to refine the climate model to incorporate some additional influence like seasonal variation. This can be a bottomless pit of study, research, and effort if you aren't careful. Just be ready to say "that's good enough". Chances are, few people will notice if your monsoons are off course or if the arc of a subduction zone is wrong. Remember that this is just one end of a spectrum, and at the other end are people with PhDs and research fellowships developing massively complex and detailed models of specific real world fault systems or 1 square km sections of rainforest.

[Lukc]

Listen to Hai Etik if he says "it's good enough", he's probably right.

[Alex]

@bolded:

Oh my! Then I will be extra careful when it comes to that, though I wouldn't mind learning more of it -- its the way I am.

@Lukc:
I am.