Map A - Northern Maze [Jo land]

[- JO -]

Some more mountains... and lakes...

The coast line is thiner, as Thomas suggested, and I think it was a good idea !

I put a black border to the rivers and the lakes, I'm curious to know what you think of that ...

Northern Maze 04.jpg

Some more mountains will appear in the northern island, and some "hills" around the flat places... but the main pieces for the relief are consider done...

[- JO -]

Hello !

Some more mountains... nearly finished here...

But I need advises about the forest : I tried some trees with a brush, but I'm not sure it suits an ISO map... What do you think ?

Thanks for your help !

Northern Maze 05.jpg

[- JO -]

I have found three solutions for the forest, I'm sure of none...

What do you think ?

A)
Northern Maze Test Foret 01.jpg

B)
Northern Maze Test Foret 02.jpg

C)
Northern Maze Test Foret 03.jpg

[Mouse]

Uh-hu, you too then?

(I've just finished making tree suggestions on Sapiento's thread, so I should be getting good at this LOL!)

Ok. IMHO I would say neither of the first two, since this is a top down map and they are side view symbols. However, I'm not sure about the plain shading...

Have you considered top down symbols like very faint suggestions of the tops of the trees?

[- JO -]

Uh-hu, you too then?

(I've just finished making tree suggestions on Sapiento's thread, so I should be getting good at this LOL!)

Ok. IMHO I would say neither of the first two, since this is a top down map and they are side view symbols. However, I'm not sure about the plain shading...

Have you considered top down symbols like very faint suggestions of the tops of the trees?

I thought of it, but on this scale it can only be a figurative symbol and not representative ... It is this question of scale that prompted me to make these symbols of trees ... but You're right, it's not an excellent solution. My problem is that at this latitude, it can only be conifers, and I find it less obvious to make a symbol of a conifer seen from above (a symbol directly comprehensible, in any case). What do you think of different shades of green?

[Mouse]

Since the map is already going to be quite busy with all these millions of hachures, I think I agree with the two-tone green idea.

Others may have better ideas, though

[J.Edward]

Ooooh, this is looking nice JO
Yeah, top down maps do present you with many complications not present in perspec and iso maps.
I am not sure what I would do if i was doing those style mountains.
Have you checked what was done for old maps that did use that style?
Maybe there is already a style you could utilize for trees.

[Falconius]

I like b of those three. I'm not sure why people have a problem of using clear symbols in top down maps simply because they are profiles. If realism was, for some reason, a concern you'd never see the trees at all. I hate to break it to people but satellite photographs aren't that interesting until all the details get cleared up in the form of a map and you can see what you are looking at. I used to have this big Alberta province resource atlas and they did stuff like B a lot. It works fine. Where it gets troubling is if there is too much interference with other detail, which is why that atlas had like a hundred pages.

[snodsy]

I like just the green area, two shades would work also as you stated, and not a tree profile. I've seen conifers show as a spiral. I agree with John on looking at old maps, also maybe LANDSCAPE DESIGN symbols might spur an idea?

[- JO -]

Since the map is already going to be quite busy with all these millions of hachures, I think I agree with the two-tone green idea.

Others may have better ideas, though

Thanks Mouse... I have to try with two-tone green, but I think the difference of tone must be very subtile : after all, it's a map and not an illustration, so if I want to stay coherent, I have to use method that are used for maps

Ooooh, this is looking nice JO
Yeah, top down maps do present you with many complications not present in perspec and iso maps.
I am not sure what I would do if i was doing those style mountains.
Have you checked what was done for old maps that did use that style?
Maybe there is already a style you could utilize for trees.

Thanks J. ... Actually, I have looked a lot of map, that's why I used plain green, like on this one :
etat-major-1000x288.jpg
And that's why I tried the B solution too :
rixensart_ferraris_village.jpg
Though I'm very aware that there is a huge difference of scale between my map and those exemples..

I like b of those three. I'm not sure why people have a problem of using clear symbols in top down maps simply because they are profiles. If realism was, for some reason, a concern you'd never see the trees at all. I hate to break it to people but satellite photographs aren't that interesting until all the details get cleared up in the form of a map and you can see what you are looking at. I used to have this big Alberta province resource atlas and they did stuff like B a lot. It works fine. Where it gets troubling is if there is too much interference with other detail, which is why that atlas had like a hundred pages.

Thanks... maybe the B solution is the less bad solution ? I'm not completely convinced. But your words sure helps to make a decision... As the examples above shows, tree symbols are often used on plain green surfaces to indicate woods

I like just the green area, two shades would work also as you stated, and not a tree profile. I've seen conifers show as a spiral. I agree with John on looking at old maps, also maybe LANDSCAPE DESIGN symbols might spur an idea?

Thanks Snodsy ! I'll definitely look in Landscape Design