Styles test... projections and color choices

[Pixie]

So, for a very long time I have been mapping the huge continent of Acur in the everpresent (in my mind, that is) world of Maward. While doing this, I have also drifted into devising some ancient history stuff for the continent/world.

To work on those historical maps, though, I realised that an equirectangular projection wasn't the best choice. This is because distances and areas are wrong by too much on such a projection. From there, my next step was to try several equal-area possibilities, trying to choose the best one to portray the continent - I am still unsatisfied, but alas.

Ramblings aside, from those projections I started goofing around. From that goofing around, two continental maps are brewing... these are it:

preview_albers.jpg
This is an Albers Equal-Area...

preview_gott.jpg
This is a Gott-Mugnolo Equal-Area

Styles are different and, in the second map, I am also trying a novel (to me at least) method to represent mountainous terrain.

While these are incomplete maps, I wouldn't call them WIPs as I won't bother to finish them until the heightmap and historical considerations are done, and that will take very long. But I am nevertheless posting them here because I am proud of them and I really would love to get some feedback - in terms of labeling, colors, projection, composition, and such.
Many thanks!

[Ilanthar]

I really like the second one. Are you going to do the mountains the same way as your Kane map? It would be probably good that way (and with that style).

[J.Edward]

I'll add a second for the second style. That looks very nice and clean.

[ChickPea]

I do really like the earthy tones of the first map, but I think whether it worked or not would depend on the other elements you include. The colours are quite bold and I think they almost say 'fantasy map', but the labelling feels a little too precise and modern for that style. It's a very appealing palette, though I'd be curious to see a slightly washed-out version too, but that may not be what you have in mind at all.

[HBrown]

The two styles are interesting. I agree that the earth tones are appealing but perhaps too bold.

It is instructive to note the difference in the overall shape of the region between the two projections, even though both are equal-area. I am unsure just how big an area you are showing, and different projections are more or less suited to different regions depending on the size of the region and its overall shape. Depending on your purposes, you might want to pick a projection that is neither equal-area nor conformal, but a compromise of the two. This is often the choice of atlas makers for large regions. Robinson's projection seems to be in recent vogue, although personally I don't care for it.

[Pixie]

Thanks for the input, guys. The two maps are candidates for further work, although there is so much con-labeling involved, that they've been thrown to the back burner.

As for the projections, HBrown, thank you for your insight into that. The continent portrayed spans from the equator (a little below it, actually, if one is to include the islands south of Kane and the two islands that comprise Campala) to the North Pole and roughly 120º from East to West. In fact, not being neither geographer or cartographer by training, I struggle when it comes to projection choices. Below, you'll find an ortographic projection centered in this continent of Acur, with a 30º graticule...


acur_ortographic_quickie.jpg

What projection would you use to portray this continent?

[waldronate]

You've probably already seen this, but http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~joch...projection.htm is useful from time to time.