[taken]The Destroyed Lands map

[Tom_Cardin]

I enjoy the worldbuilding process that goes on behind my maps. Thinking of locations which are going to attract travellers, locations where great battles were fought, places that inspire imagination in others.

And something I have only recently been getting inspired by myself is the history of the land as shown in the map - young mountains are jagged, as they get older, natural erosion tends to round and smooth them. Rivers cut down through rising ground leaving behind canyons, etc. It's great to capture moments in a world with a map.

[NeonKnight]

Sounds like fun.....I WANNA get back into mapping!

[Gamerprinter]

So let's suppose this becomes the next challenge, or a challenge in the near future. That brings into question what we generally define as a region. Is it defined by the amount of area represented? Is it defined by borders (i.e. political or geographical)?

If, for instance, we had a small coastal valley that was generally comprised of one significant town and a few smaller towns but was bordered by mountains, would that be considered regional or would it be more along the lines of local? What about an area defined as a "National Forest" or "National Recreation Area?"

I ask more because I'm curious rather than looking for a clear-cut definition as I suspect this definition differs from one person to the next. Because the potential challenge is defined as a "regional" map, it seems to me that this would be a somewhat important definition to be clear on in regards to the challenge.

Maybe a better way to ask would be this;

If one were to depict the destruction in the Mt. St. Helens area after it blew its top, would that be considered a regional map or a local map?

GW

Good question, I hadn't read this before. I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.

Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.

So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.

Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.

I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.

GP

[Greason Wolfe]

Good question, I hadn't read this before. I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.

Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.

So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.

Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.

I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.

GP

No worries there, sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the posts even in a single thread. Well, at least for me it is.

I am hoping this becomes a challenge, though, as I have an idea for this sitting on a back burner, so to speak. Haven't started any mapping, but I do have about 3/4ths of a short story done based on this same sort of situation and this would give me a good excuse to make a map for the story.

GW

[Gandwarf]

This will be the next challenge. I will post it up in a couple of days. Thanks for the suggestion, GP!

The Lite Challenge will get another theme and will start 2 weeks from now.

[mearrin69]

This will be fun. I loves me some post-apocalyptic fare...from any era.
M