PDA

View Full Version : Cooperative project revival



Azelor
08-14-2013, 03:11 PM
Will there ever be another Cooperative Worldbuilding Project like the first one?

I thinki I would be interested but I'm not sure my skills are good enough.

Korash
08-14-2013, 11:45 PM
It was not for lack of skill that the CWBP became inactive. One of the driving forces was the Wiki that went with it and unfortunately, when the Guild suffered a severe hack/spam attack, the wiki got hit and for the worse. There were a lot of work done, both map-wise and in the wiki, by some great talent and it is a shame that it got dropped the way it did. If we ever do this again I am sure that we would do it taking into account some of the lessons learned.

One thing that I know for sure is that once again ALL COMERS would be welcome. As in the last one all sorts of styles were used, and given the vast talent (present and potential) here at the guild, I doubt that there will too much demand that one style rule over another.

Having said all that, all I can say is that I hope there is a new CWBP down the road, but I can't say for sure that there will be. :(

Diamond
08-15-2013, 12:29 AM
I wouldn't mind contributing to a new CWBP. I've abstained on the old/present one because, as you've said, so much info was lost. It makes it hard (for me anyway) to tell where to contribute, and the areas/things that do need to be mapped are mostly things that don't interest me overmuch.

Azelor
08-15-2013, 12:29 AM
If we gather enough people, it might work.

Corilliant
08-15-2013, 04:14 AM
I liked the look of where the old one was going...shame how it ended up.
*volunteering his meagre skills*

leen
08-15-2013, 08:57 AM
i would love to contribute some maps and facts... hope theres going to be one in the near future!

AlexSchacher
08-16-2013, 02:55 AM
I too would be willing to join on a big coop project. Sounds like a lot of fun!

Azelor
08-17-2013, 06:25 PM
Would it be better to continue to map on the same world : http://www.viewing.ltd.uk/Temp/CG/ThinkBig/Region/CWBPWorld_Jan2013.jpg
or start a new one from scratch ?

Ghostman
08-18-2013, 06:59 AM
I'm in favor of a fresh start. That way I would actually be interested in participating.

JSP
08-19-2013, 11:34 AM
I would love to participate in any way I could. Joining into the old one seems rather daunting to me, as I have no knowledge of anything that went into it. Either way, though, this sounds like a great thing to be a part of.

JSP

Azelor
08-19-2013, 01:41 PM
It was not for lack of skill that the CWBP became inactive. One of the driving forces was the Wiki that went with it and unfortunately, when the Guild suffered a severe hack/spam attack, the wiki got hit and for the worse. There were a lot of work done, both map-wise and in the wiki, by some great talent and it is a shame that it got dropped the way it did. If we ever do this again I am sure that we would do it taking into account some of the lessons learned.


How can we avoid it ? I mean, if we lost the information it was because no back up where made. Someone or more than one person could be assigned to do this task.

Falconius
08-19-2013, 07:07 PM
A fresh start seems like the best idea to get something going. I'd also be interested in participating.

languard
08-20-2013, 01:38 AM
Now this is pie-in-the-sky rambling, but we might be able to use Perforce/Hansoft to do the versioning/backup of the project. I teach game design, and we're implementing these technologies on our school. To my knowledge, it wouldn't cost the school any addition money in terms of licenses to create a community project, and since community outreach is part of our mission, the school might go for it. I'll need to ask around though to see if this is a possibility.

If not through the school, perhaps the Cartographer's Guild staff could create a Google community for it? Won't have as good versioning, but it would prevent catastrophic data loss.

languard
08-20-2013, 11:21 PM
For those that we involved last time, about how many people were active in the world building? Perforce has a 20 free usrr version of its document management system. That would give us a very secure and safe storage of te documents, and exellent versioning incase we need to undo changes. I'm also looking at Google communities to see if that would work as well.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

Azelor
08-21-2013, 01:32 AM
Well thanks for the info languard but right now the project is not even planned. I was just asking if people where interested. I told myself to wait till there is 20 people or something before devoting more time to the project.
I have no idea how many people where involved last time and I don't really know how many people are sufficient to start it.

Thurlor
08-21-2013, 02:30 AM
I'd love to participate as long as there is no real pressure to finish what I start. I realize that seems lazy but my hobbies tend to be cyclical.

Azelor
08-21-2013, 04:04 PM
Some basic questions about the world:

1- what projection should be used?

Mollweide projection, minimize area distorision but alter the shapes but I thikn it's accepteble
Mollweide projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection)

Winkel tripel projection, a compromise that reduce all distoritions but none of them are accurate
Winkel tripel projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_tripel_projection)

Robinson projection: another compromis that is pleasing to the eyes but with more distorition with reality compared to the other two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_projection

Kavrayskiy VII projection: mostly used in the USSR apparently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavrayskiy_VII_projection

Van der Grinten projection, because it looks cool, and it used to be National geographic default map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Grinten_projection

Equirectangular projection, also known as plate carrée: pretty simple to find coordinate
Equirectangular projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection)

Miller cylindrical projection: it tries to reduce Mercator excess
Miller cylindrical projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cylindrical_projection)

Mercator projection: no need for presentation
Mercator projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection)

I just want to said that the projection will only have an impact on the main map. It will be created in order to fit the projection. Then if we work on the map, there should no problem. Also, feel free to suggest other that you think might be good for the map.



Other questions

2- what kind of landmass do we want ? and where on the map?

3- what about the univers surrounding it... how many satellite orbit around the planet ?

4- 1 or more stars in the system?

5- planet tilt

6- will it be an earth-like climate? colder, hotter...

Lingon
08-22-2013, 04:41 AM
Just dropping in to say I'd be interested in this as well, though it depends a little bit on if there are any expectations on how much you should contribute with or if you can just map an area when you feel like it… I don't want to let everyone else down by not having time to do my part.

But it seems like a lot of fun.

Ghostman
08-22-2013, 09:50 AM
1- what projection should be used?

If all the individual overland maps are done in equirectangular projection then the main map (overlaid with the user-created parts) can be reprojected to any other projection afterwards.



2- what kind of landmass do we want ? and where on the map?

3- what about the univers surrounding it... how many satellite orbit around the planet ?

4- 1 or more stars in the system?

5- planet tilt

6- will it be an earth-like climate? colder, hotter...


Something fairly Earth-like might be the safest option for a cooperative project. That way there'll be an interesting variety of different terrain and local climate conditions for people to choose. Whereas something like eg. a "waterworld" type planet or one that's all deserts would be problematic. There may be more leeway when it comes to things like suns/moons/other planets, depending on how realistic (if at all) you want to get with the astrophysics and all.

Azelor
08-22-2013, 02:33 PM
If all the individual overland maps are done in equirectangular projection then the main map (overlaid with the user-created parts) can be reprojected to any other projection afterwards.



Something fairly Earth-like might be the safest option for a cooperative project. That way there'll be an interesting variety of different terrain and local climate conditions for people to choose. Whereas something like eg. a "waterworld" type planet or one that's all deserts would be problematic. There may be more leeway when it comes to things like suns/moons/other planets, depending on how realistic (if at all) you want to get with the astrophysics and all.

I was thinking that we could make the map using a projection, Mollweide for example, and then make rectangular divisions for the separate maps. So all maps would be made using one unique projection. That way, the space occupied on the map is the same as in the "real" world. But it's not the best regarding travel. Maybe this would be a bit wierd, I don't know.

You have a point about the world. If we want a lot of people to participate it's better to have something we are familiar with. We could still have elements that are different.

Hai-Etlik
08-22-2013, 03:37 PM
If you want to keep everything in a single projection, then Mercator is far and away the least bad option. That's why it's used for things like Google Maps and OpenStreetMap. It's reasonable at both large and very small scales. It isn't that good in between (Continents, large countries like Canada), but it's no worse than any alternative choice in that regard.

My personal preference would be to design the world first (Geology, climate, ecology, history, linguistics, etc), and then when it's designed, present it as maps. Done this way we'd be able to use appropriate projections for each map, and where they overlap, they would be drawing from the same source data and so should be consistent. So instead of stating with the smallest scale, designing everything, then subdividing doling out the divisions, and letting each mapper add/refine the details of everything within their segment, It would be starting with the most basic aspects like tectonics, and we'd get that nailed down at all scales then figure out climate, then ecology, and so on. Then when all the layers of information are done, we can make maps. Of course I admit a lot of people would find this approach less fun as the 'making pretty maps' part is delayed until the very end, and not everyone is interested in all the different things that would need to be dealt with.

Azelor
08-22-2013, 06:55 PM
Ok so we will keep fancy projections for later.

But isn't Mercator worst than Equirectangular projection since there is more distortion ?

What software is best to start the map and for the climates? They used fractal terrain the last time if I'm correct.

Hai-Etlik
08-22-2013, 08:12 PM
But isn't Mercator worst than Equirectangular projection since there is more distortion ?

The best way to think of it is that all reasonable projections distort the same amount, they just distort different things in different places. It's really more a matter of what they preserver rather than distorting. Mercator preserves bearings, and angles in general (it's "Conformal") . Equirectangular preserves the cardinal directions (but not other bearings), and distances north-south (but not distances in other directions).

Conformal projections like Mercator can be zoomed in on, and things will be approximately the right shape. Hence the use in web maps. It does make things the wrong size but if you know the latitude you've zoomed in on, you can just alter the scale and get everything looking pretty good, although the bigger the area you look at, the more the scale will vary. A map of Canada in Mercator looks fairly wonky as the arctic islands are WAY to big compared to the mainland. Equirectangular will result in everything being stretched out east west. You can pull the same scaling trick as with Mercator (only scaling east-west though) to squash it back, but you'll still get variation in stretching/squashing with latitude within the map. This is more obvious and unpleasant looking than the all directions scaling of Mercator.

Mercator is useful for zoomable maps, for navigating along paths of constant bearing (Following a compass), and for dealing with the shapes of things over a global scale. Equirectangular is mathematically simple, and that's about all it has going for it as it is otherwise ugly and doesn't preserve anything particularly useful that other projections don't do better; it's mostly useful as an intermediary that's easy to transform, not for finished maps.

Azelor
08-23-2013, 10:12 PM
You made a good explanation Hai-Etlik, thanks for the clarification.

So anyway, what kind of landmass people would like too map?

1 massive continent with small islands surrounding it
Archipelago with scattered islands
earth-like continents or something similar

or something else...

Lingon
08-24-2013, 06:24 PM
I have a thing for super-continents, so that'd be my vote :) And it could have a really big archipelago somewhere too; doesn't have to be one or the other. How about two massive continents, fairly close to each other, with an archipelago in between?

Of course, maybe I shouldn't be speaking to loudly as I hardly even know what the CWBP is, or if I'll be able to participate… but those where my thoughts :)

languard
08-26-2013, 02:39 PM
What about using software that maps thingsto a sphere for the core world map? The one I'm familiar with us Fractal Terrains by Profantasy, but I know there's others out there. The advatage to this that the main world map would have no distortions, and we could project it out in many different formats.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

Azelor
08-26-2013, 02:44 PM
Yes I was considering using FT for the main map since it's easy to crate worlds with this including altitude, temperature and precipitations. And it's possible to change projection without any effort. Then export the map in jpeg in another program for the next step.

Azelor
08-26-2013, 04:32 PM
And by the way, with fractal terrain , is it possible to smooth the terrain at a specific place?

waldronate
08-26-2013, 08:30 PM
There is a roughness painting tool and it also allows for selections where you can adjust the roughness, if that helps.
Tutorial for Cartographer’s Guild (http://www.ridgenet.net/~jslayton/CGTutorial/index.html) was done in direct response to the last community project world.

Azelor
08-27-2013, 01:20 AM
57246

what do you think of this ?

Ghostman
08-27-2013, 11:32 AM
I like the landmass shapes. Counting 3 rather large lakes/inner seas but other than that it's looking good!

Azelor
08-27-2013, 12:34 PM
I could fill them or open them to the sea.

Azelor
08-28-2013, 12:59 AM
Here is a picture of the temperature, I did some modification because I had too much landmass, more than 36% of the map according to my calculation. Now it's less than 33% and that is without consideration with inland water, wich should make for the remaining % to get a ratio similar to earth. I will post the others soon but they are too big right now.

57262

standard climates

57263

custom climates (tundra and alpine are grey and it seems to be a problem)

57264

Gaia

57265

rainfall

57266

all made with fractal terrain using hammer projection.

waldronate
08-28-2013, 04:37 AM
Be sure to take FT's rainfall and temperature results (and the climate information derived from them) with a pound of salt. FT doesn't model any kind of water or air transport (and their associated heat and rainfall), so the results are not even close to "realistic".

My hope in providing the rainfall, temperature, and climate tools was to allow users to paint them in as they needed, but it seems that very few users attempt anything like that.

And the Gaia coloring is completely ad hoc, based on nothing at all (the rainfall and temperature adjustments have asbolutely no impact on that particualr shader). If there's one feature that I would have left out of FT, it's the Gaia shader.

Azelor
08-28-2013, 12:55 PM
Don't worry I already know about that but the map do look pretty good even if they don't make any sense. Gaia show the wet places in yellow while it's a color associated with deserts.

I might eventually do more realistic maps of this world, I just need to know what people think of it so far since it's supposed to be a community project.

Ghostman
08-28-2013, 06:07 PM
The first attachment in your post doesn't seem to show.

Anyway, is there much reason to actually stick with the generated land elevation data? We could simply flatten the map to show only the coastline, then place features such as mountain ranges and rivers where we want them.

Azelor
08-28-2013, 06:22 PM
It's possbile and very easy. I just have to put one color for the land over the sea level.

You mean to flatten and then make all the elevation with FT ? Im not sure how to do that

Here is the actual terrain elevation:

57284

Edit: Ok it's possible if I combine FT with Wilbur to flatten the land and then import it back to FT. It's true that the program tends to put mountain ranges at weird places.
So, based on the following map, where should the mountains be located? It's like asking: where are the tectonic plates ?

57293

(this is not the flattened version, it's the same map but uses 2 colors only)

Azelor
09-07-2013, 05:07 PM
I did some modifications. Finally I was able to flatten (equalize) the land to make plains but it's rather complicated. That's why the ocean and the land are in 2 separate files. So the ocean is not just 1 meter deep.
That's because I used the grayscale map to modify it in photoshop. I lowered the landscape at some places and increased it at other in odre to craete plateaux.

Yes it's pixelized, I have found a way to improve the rendering of the coast but I will use it later.

57548

If the general elevation is alright I might consider adding some mountains or just increasing the roughness might do. I am not sure if it would be best to put some more. Then I'll do the rivers and add some lakes for less monotony.

Your comments are welcome.

57636

Azelor
09-10-2013, 01:40 PM
The black picture was intentional. You will see it's gonna be so awesome ... but later

For now, I made the maps showing major oceanic currents and winds. It's still a major improvement from my first try, but still need more work. It's inspired by randigpanzrall work's wich is probably inspired by my own previous work. Similar style maybe by accident but he did a better job than me.

winds in january, blue blobs are low pressure zones, red are high pressure

57659

winds in july:

57660

the oceanic currents, I will add the colors later and will probably need to delete some arrows, they are too many.

57661

If these maps are alright, I will make the climates and precipitations.

Azelor
09-11-2013, 10:31 PM
Are the maps correct?

Azelor
09-14-2013, 06:13 PM
I've thought about moving the thread to the regional/ world mapping because it would be more appropriate since it's not the same project...

Anyway, I would like to know what kind of setting people prefer.

Fantasy with a lot of magic or little magic or none at all?
Same physic laws ?
What is the level of technology? it could be in the Ancient era, medieval, renaissance, industrial if we prefer some steampunk setting.
Is there something that could make the world feel special and different from the others ?

Any preferences ?

Kronus
10-20-2013, 01:11 PM
I've thought about moving the thread to the regional/ world mapping because it would be more appropriate since it's not the same project...

Anyway, I would like to know what kind of setting people prefer.

Fantasy with a lot of magic or little magic or none at all?
Same physic laws ?
What is the level of technology? it could be in the Ancient era, medieval, renaissance, industrial if we prefer some steampunk setting.
Is there something that could make the world feel special and different from the others ?

Any preferences ?

I love the idea of a CWBP :-) and I'd like to join in, even though i'm merely a beginner in the world of cartography.

Personally, I would prefer a fantasy/medievalish type setting with maybe a little magic? But of course, that is a matter to be decided by everyone.

Also another factor that comes to mind. Races.
What, who will the world be inhabited by?
Different races living in different regions in the world?
But that could prove to be complex depending on the amount of races.
For example, languages, appearance, customs, history (?), etc..
Or maybe just one race. (humanity?)
Again, maybe a vote could decide?

I'm not really qualified to take that big of a role since I've only just begun experimenting with and developing my cartography skills :-D , but I'll be glad to help in any way I can.

Thanks,
Kronus.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2

Azelor
10-20-2013, 09:22 PM
Well I suppose I could use polls but it's rather limited.

DearCyrus
11-11-2013, 11:37 PM
The overall map looks good so far. I will be keeping an eye on this I am not too sure how the CWBP works because I am new to the site, but I'd love to help out if I can.

Azelor
11-14-2013, 07:16 PM
The overall map looks good so far. I will be keeping an eye on this I am not too sure how the CWBP works because I am new to the site, but I'd love to help out if I can.

Good to know. I'm also open to suggestions if others want to submit a map so we could have a couple of choices for a vote. It doesn't have to be made with Fractal terrain but the world map should be large enough.

Falconius
11-14-2013, 08:41 PM
That map looks alright although I'm personally having difficulty coming to terms with the projection, either that or I feel that the land mases should be more spread out. That said can some one break down what is happening at this point in the reopened project? What are the steps and what step are we on?

As far as I can reason the first step is deciding on the world map to use. This one looks good to me, is it the one we decided on or is it only an option with no others proposed?

The second step seems to be choosing the setting. We ought to just put up a poll for that maybe? Personally my preference is mid fantasy with elements of steampunk. I have a feeling most people would be interested in a setting that occurs before an equivalent modern historical period. We should probably determine what range that is. Maybe as a third step. Future setting may also provide more interest for those still around involved in the first one though, so bear that in mind.

The next step after that it would seem to me would be to figure out some general guidelines as to what is included in this world. Such as technologies (steampunk or not, or high magic or not, gunpowder etc.) and civilizations maybe (races)? This point may also already start to be to restrictive to potential mapmakers so we could, if we so desired leave all that up to the mapmakers as long as we stuck within a relative historical time period. Not sure that would work but it would be interesting at least.

I suggest we ought to set up separate threads for each of these steps as they come along. Starting with the world map thread. Maybe Community project 2.0? or whatever the title have an end tag 2.0 or redux or something in the subject tags for all of the new project threads so we can tell the difference between new and old threads.

Edit: I think Azelor, you ought to start the world map design thread since you've already taken up the gauntlet and made one, should anyone have any alternate proposals we'll put them in that thread with a two week time limit and if nothing is chosen before then go with what you have here as a defualt. Maybe put a pull in there to see if people agree with this plan or not and hash out the details after that?

Azelor
11-14-2013, 09:59 PM
I have the original file in the equirectangular projection, wich is the defualt projection in fractal terrain. I made calculation and the land cover around 30 % of the surface, much like Earth. Hai-Etlik made the point that equirectangular is used a base projection but the final version should be made using Mercator. This being said, it's rather easy to move the continents using the granyscale map in photoshop. After that I will also need to put the rivers manually with photoshop.

The main thing to do, right now, is to decide of the world map. This map is the only one that was ever proposed on this project, so unless somenoe else post another map, it will be the chosen one.

As for the setting, it will depend. It might have an impact on mapping or not depending on the setting and personnal style of the artist.

Falconius
11-15-2013, 09:28 AM
Yeah as I said its just me then. I agree, using a Mercator projection only really matters for the final plot map since it seems easier for you to work in this one for construction. You may also choose to put in lat and long lines overlay for the final (just steal Earth's). I noticed in the last project they split the map up into a grid and parceled off plots like that, this makes sense to a certain extent personally though I'd prefer a more fluid or general area assignment. If we had a grid (our lat and long) then we could just say I'm going to map the area 200 kms around point x,x or I'm going to map the area between x,x and x,x, the only issue would be to make sure the areas choosen by the first mappers are far enough apart not to overlap, after those get going we can overlap to existing maps.

Shall I get the world map thread started? We really need a tag for our new project's threads. 2.0 works for me though it is really blasé. Example subject line: "Co-op Overall World Map Finalization, 2.0" Ug 2.0 is terrible. We need something more search friendly anyways...

eViLe_eAgLe
11-15-2013, 12:06 PM
Just letting you know you guys have my support, and I'll help whenever I can :)

Azelor
11-15-2013, 12:57 PM
I think that seperating the map in squares is the most practical way to go. Policital divisions would be more logical maybe but they would be harder to put togheter.

I'll make some order in my things while I make a mercator version of the map (with rivers ideally) and try to find a good title.

Falconius
11-17-2013, 02:04 PM
I still disagree about deciding plots by dividing the map into a grid. It limits opportunity too much. Lets say you have an interesting feature that lands wrong in the grid and to map it you'd need three plots but you aren't really interest in the rest of that stuff, then all of the sudden it's more of a chore than something fun. Second it locks in the scale of the map, all maps will cover the exact same area without reason. Some maps might be better off covering 200 km's and some might be better covering 500 kms or 800 kms. Allowing people to define their own plots only causes a problem in cases of overlap. Even that doesn't bother me so much due to reasonable expectation that map makers often had discrepancies. It can make things interesting. We might consider some limitations such as maybe having the initial plot choice center around points and limiting the size of area that can be mapped so that they don't overlap, but in that area you can map what you choose you don't have to map the whole thing just what you are interested in doing. Once that map is done the plot point opens up again and someone else can continue keeping in concert with already completed maps.

For example. I choose plot point AB I'm allowed to make a map of anything in an area 1000 km's around that point with a defined area of lets say maximum size of 500 kms square and which can't exceed the boundaries of AB.

In my diagram here some one has chosen the point AB for their map plot. In the area available to them the decided to map a rectangle within the allowed restrictions for that area. Once that is done being mapped point AB opens back up so someone can map in that area again. The guy who chose point CB however didn't want to map the interior of the land just the coast, so he defined his map differently. Once he is done mapping the coast CB will open up again and someone can map that interior if they feel like it, they can even overlap onto his map as long as they retain his information.

Hai-Etlik
11-17-2013, 03:13 PM
I still disagree about deciding plots by dividing the map into a grid. It limits opportunity too much. Lets say you have an interesting feature that lands wrong in the grid and to map it you'd need three plots but you aren't really interest in the rest of that stuff, then all of the sudden it's more of a chore than something fun. Second it locks in the scale of the map, all maps will cover the exact same area without reason. Some maps might be better off covering 200 km's and some might be better covering 500 kms or 800 kms. Allowing people to define their own plots only causes a problem in cases of overlap. Even that doesn't bother me so much due to reasonable expectation that map makers often had discrepancies. It can make things interesting. We might consider some limitations such as maybe having the initial plot choice center around points and limiting the size of area that can be mapped so that they don't overlap, but in that area you can map what you choose you don't have to map the whole thing just what you are interested in doing. Once that map is done the plot point opens up again and someone else can continue keeping in concert with already completed maps.

Another alternative which I think I mentioned earlier which somewhat addresses this problem is to do world building and final mapping as distinct steps. First, get the information about the world in place without worrying about how it's presented. There would still be the potential for conflict if two people want to edit the same area, but as just doing the data would take less time than doing it and presentation, it would reduce the chance of conflict. Doing cycles for different aspects (Geology, weather, ecology, sociopolitical) would reduce the time any portion is 'locked' further. Then when all the data is there, everyone and anyone can go in and make whatever maps they want without any fear of conflict. The data phase would even be more amenable to the "grid" approach than the final maps. The downside is that at any particular time, only one kind of information is going to be being worked on, and the "making pretty maps" aspect is left until the very end. Also a lot of people on the guild are unused to working in the mode of mapping existing information rather than making up the information to suit their presentation.

It's also possible that the problems of Mercator at small scales could be reduced by going to the full trouble of doing each continent in its own projection, then merging them back into the master Mercator map, and then doing the large scale maps by cropping out of that. It's less work than doing every map in an appropriate projection, but fixes the cases where Mercator gives the worst results.

Falconius
11-17-2013, 03:51 PM
I'm not sure that interest could be maintained if we did world building in that manner. This is going to be a hobby project for most people not a concentrated effort that I think your suggestion would require. I think that working with a general topography wind and precipitation information as Azelor provided for his map earlier in the thread is enough to go on. That way people can go wild and the map should still work. It would also be significantly faster at filling space with detail. The advantage of your way of course is that every area gets developed at once and you have a more comprehensive overall picture of the world.

Also and this could just be me, but seeing huge differences in the world from one map to the other would be a good thing I think. Like Jack Vance's Dying Earth. In any case it would be more inclined towards the diversity we have in our own world than if every stage was cooperatively built by consensus. Another point is that depending on when it is set mapping is hardly going to be exact until the invention of satellites. If we were mapping an equivalent period to the Dark Ages for instance accuracy of detailed features, distances, and measurements going to be questionable in terms of anyones actual experience of our supposed world on the ground.

Azelor
11-19-2013, 12:30 AM
Another alternative which I think I mentioned earlier which somewhat addresses this problem is to do world building and final mapping as distinct steps. First, get the information about the world in place without worrying about how it's presented. There would still be the potential for conflict if two people want to edit the same area, but as just doing the data would take less time than doing it and presentation, it would reduce the chance of conflict. Doing cycles for different aspects (Geology, weather, ecology, sociopolitical) would reduce the time any portion is 'locked' further. Then when all the data is there, everyone and anyone can go in and make whatever maps they want without any fear of conflict. The data phase would even be more amenable to the "grid" approach than the final maps. The downside is that at any particular time, only one kind of information is going to be being worked on, and the "making pretty maps" aspect is left until the very end. Also a lot of people on the guild are unused to working in the mode of mapping existing information rather than making up the information to suit their presentation.

It's also possible that the problems of Mercator at small scales could be reduced by going to the full trouble of doing each continent in its own projection, then merging them back into the master Mercator map, and then doing the large scale maps by cropping out of that. It's less work than doing every map in an appropriate projection, but fixes the cases where Mercator gives the worst results.

I'm quite tired right now but if I understand, you mean that we need to decide goegraphical aspects (mountains, forest, rivers...) , sociological aspects (politic, culture, language) and other things before doing the maps. So the mappers don't actually decide what is on the map but still as some level of liberty on how to place it. That make sense to me.

(well when I mean that the mappers don't have a word to say, It's not true but they have to do it before the mapping step.)

Azelor
11-19-2013, 12:50 AM
I'm not sure that interest could be maintained if we did world building in that manner. This is going to be a hobby project for most people not a concentrated effort that I think your suggestion would require. I think that working with a general topography wind and precipitation information as Azelor provided for his map earlier in the thread is enough to go on. That way people can go wild and the map should still work. It would also be significantly faster at filling space with detail. The advantage of your way of course is that every area gets developed at once and you have a more comprehensive overall picture of the world.

Also and this could just be me, but seeing huge differences in the world from one map to the other would be a good thing I think. Like Jack Vance's Dying Earth. In any case it would be more inclined towards the diversity we have in our own world than if every stage was cooperatively built by consensus. Another point is that depending on when it is set mapping is hardly going to be exact until the invention of satellites. If we were mapping an equivalent period to the Dark Ages for instance accuracy of detailed features, distances, and measurements going to be questionable in terms of anyones actual experience of our supposed world on the ground.


Depend, we don't actually need 3 pages of descriptions for one country to strat mapping it. Just the informations relevant to the map such as culture, importants cities and things like that and geographical information.
Falconius, we could also use climate or things like this to give more freedome over regional mapping for smaller details : Holdridge life zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdridge_life_zones)
Lastly it should be possible to add some smaller elements without problem since only the larger elements are planned in advance.


And about dividing the map, your method seems a little chaotic. Maybe we could have zones that are less ramdom ? For example, mapping a specific political area. But again, we would have to decide that area prior to mapping it.

Falconius
11-19-2013, 01:14 AM
Well my goal is in providing as much freedom to the mapper as possible and not locking anything in except very general and obvious topographic features. Pretty much just precipitation (or other more specific bioclimatic projections), coastline, mountain ranges, and major rivers. Basically my preferred method would be the exact opposite of Hai-Etlik's proposed method :) . I like a little chaos, and it give the mappers freedom to keep things interesting. I think overall it may lead to some oddities but that it will also lead to a lot more diversity in the world, with a lot of ideas. It will also help solve a problem I felt the other CWBP seemed to be developing in that they got stuck in one continent. Trying to map the whole world seems unrealistic and unnecessary to me. Mapping diverse amounts of places though seems more useful.

For instance the way I provide for plot choice a mapper could indeed choose to base his map on a political zone and just map it out on his plot. While another mapper may decide he is interested in a particular geographical feature and just map the whole thing if he felt like without much regard to political boarders. All they'd have to keep in mind is the worlds general setting and the basic map information provided (world map).

We need more input from others about how they'd prefer to handle it.

Azelor
11-19-2013, 02:33 AM
I get your point. For example, mapping a desert is not as important as mapping an empire. There is probably a lot more details about the Empire than there is about the desert. So someone could do the desert as a whole despite is size.

The problem is how to merge the different zone and how do we avoid the overlap ?

Azelor
11-20-2013, 09:18 PM
That map looks alright although I'm personally having difficulty coming to terms with the projection, either that or I feel that the land mases should be more spread out. That said can some one break down what is happening at this point in the reopened project? What are the steps and what step are we on?

As far as I can reason the first step is deciding on the world map to use. This one looks good to me, is it the one we decided on or is it only an option with no others proposed?

The second step seems to be choosing the setting. We ought to just put up a poll for that maybe? Personally my preference is mid fantasy with elements of steampunk. I have a feeling most people would be interested in a setting that occurs before an equivalent modern historical period. We should probably determine what range that is. Maybe as a third step. Future setting may also provide more interest for those still around involved in the first one though, so bear that in mind.

The next step after that it would seem to me would be to figure out some general guidelines as to what is included in this world. Such as technologies (steampunk or not, or high magic or not, gunpowder etc.) and civilizations maybe (races)? This point may also already start to be to restrictive to potential mapmakers so we could, if we so desired leave all that up to the mapmakers as long as we stuck within a relative historical time period. Not sure that would work but it would be interesting at least.

I suggest we ought to set up separate threads for each of these steps as they come along. Starting with the world map thread. Maybe Community project 2.0? or whatever the title have an end tag 2.0 or redux or something in the subject tags for all of the new project threads so we can tell the difference between new and old threads.

Edit: I think Azelor, you ought to start the world map design thread since you've already taken up the gauntlet and made one, should anyone have any alternate proposals we'll put them in that thread with a two week time limit and if nothing is chosen before then go with what you have here as a default. Maybe put a pull in there to see if people agree with this plan or not and hash out the details after that?


Ok so this is a rough plan for the future of the project:

1- Choosing the map
2- Choosing the setting (name + genre + era + important races + magic : yes/no?)
3- Important thematic maps: tectonic plates, major winds, oceanic currents, climate zones, rainfall,
4- Determining important elements of the map: mountains, rivers, desert, forest...
5- Placing major civilizations : cultural group (naming conventionlanguage, political border, cities... I would agree because I guess that political border do not always match cultural border
6- Mapping process (I guess)

The idea is to give guidelines for the mappers but there's many other that are not on the list such as place description.
7- Other thematic maps : economic, faith...
8- Creating templates for descriptions ...

Falconius
11-21-2013, 07:18 AM
Ok so this is a rough plan for the future of the project:

1- Choosing the map
2- Choosing the setting (name + genre + era + important races + magic : yes/no?)
3- Important thematic maps: tectonic plates, major winds, oceanic currents, climate zones, rainfall,
4- Determining important elements of the map: desert, forest...
5- Placing major civilizations : language, political border, cities...
6- Other thematic maps : economic, faith...

The idea is to give guidelines for the mappers but there's many other that are not on the list such as place description.

7- Creating templates for descriptions ...I think that 4 to 6 should rest in the hands of the mappers. I trust the people here to make reasonable assumptions based off of what is happening in #3, so they'd put in the desserts forest etc roughly where they ought to go. We may simply want to do biome classification in step 3 for ease though (or not since it could be pointlessly limiting). Also included in step 3 would have to be very major rivers I'd think or at least an indication.

Could you explain 7 a bit more? I'm not sure what it is referring to.

Azelor
11-21-2013, 02:26 PM
4-6: I know, it's still the same thing as before but I wonder how it worked in the old project.


Well if we are to build a world, it's seems important to me that the descriptions (for countries, cities, religions...) should have some standardisation for how the information is presented.

Falconius
11-21-2013, 04:49 PM
Ah ok i understand.

Standardization makes sense. What information would be expected? Would it be a checklist or a table or something?

It might be interesting to have overall values for things like populations etc. and then having mappers draw from the overall pool... No never mind that wouldn't work out logistically with people making maps at the same time.

Azelor
11-21-2013, 05:17 PM
Info concerning population, races, type of government, ... that sort of things.
These informations can be decided after mapping since we don't really need to know how power is transmitted or what is the legal status of slavery.

jtougas
11-26-2013, 11:32 PM
I am glad to see that people are once again taking an interest in the CWBP. It was a great project the first time and some truly incredible maps were made for it. I would be glad to offer my (meager) skills to this project with one or two (or three... ;) ) caveats: I am not much of a "cartographer" meaning that I know nearly nothing about climatology or geology or things like that. I tend to bend space and time (and mountains and rivers) to what the story in my head is telling me. I would say that there needs to be room for everyone's personal interest. There should be vast cities and trackless deserts and flying machines and dragons. I know none of this is all that helpful but I think making the definitions as broad as possible will help create the most interesting world. :)

Torq
12-06-2013, 05:25 AM
I'm not here very much these days but, for what its worth, I think this is a great project. Keep it up! Much love.

Azelor
12-06-2013, 12:38 PM
It's good to have support. Do you have any advices ?

Torq
12-08-2013, 04:43 AM
Think its important to have the continuous terrain features (particularly rivers and mountains) mapped on the master map, so that you don't get too many mismatched tiles.

Azelor
12-09-2013, 10:06 PM
Plan II for the project (suggested order):

1- Choosing the worldmap
2- Choosing the setting (name + genre + era + important races + magic : yes/no? + RPG system + unique idea)
3- Important thematic maps (rough version): tectonic plates, major winds, oceanic currents, climate zones, rainfall, (might take only one day to do)
4- Determining important elements of the map: mountains, rivers,
5- Placing major civilizations : cultural groups, naming convention (I agree to simplify this step because I guess that political borders do not always match cultural border so having a vague idea of the borders is enough to start mapping)
6- Mapping process !?

7- Other thematic maps : economic, faith...
8- Creating templates for descriptions
Other world development steps ...

So the city placeemnt and naming is left to the mappers. So does the other elements such as forest. It's more complicated for the mountains since they might cover more than one map.

And no progress on plot choice.

Azelor
12-10-2013, 06:31 PM
And as I said about the map's plot choice, I think the best way is still the square plot.

Falconius
12-10-2013, 09:54 PM
I agree with the square plot. I'd still think that with an allowance to map anything inside of that area rather than mapping the whole area we'd get more interesting things happening. Quite likely we'd also have people also filling out whole plots too. Another thing. I noticed in the other CWBP they tried to do a specific area of the globe and get that all finished before moving on, I would definitely prefer that we give plots for the entire world and let people go to town. The entirety of the map may be incomplete but personally I don't see that as a goal, especially since more areas of the globe would be finished as opposed to a single continent or whatever.

Azelor
12-10-2013, 10:24 PM
Yes people could map things inside like city before the region is done but the top-down approach seems more logical.

About your other idea: I understand that the other project might have been slowed by limiting mappers to Ansium. At some point, it would have been a good idea to open more lands to work on. But I think it still important to try to focus on one zone until the focus becomes a problem. Otherwise, as stated by another member of the CWBP if it's too spread out it might not work that well.

Falconius
12-10-2013, 11:00 PM
I think the main difference here is that I don't expect that everything will ever be mapped. I doubt even the majority of the world would be mapped. The top down approach makes sense if you are trying to accomplish a specific goal, but I feel that everyone participating will have vastly different approaches and interests and that their ultimate goals will be vastly different. The advantage of locking off a plot for someone to map whatever they choose allows both these ideals to be fulfilled, as if an area is locked off now one will be able to work with it until it's released with the new information, which will be incorporated into whatever map that follows. Frankly even edge information doesn't' have to be precises it you consider that this is not a modern world (most likely), these map makers operating in the world are flying by the seat of their pants, not satellite data.

To be honest I don't particularly care if it will work that well either, if nothing ever meets up it is entirely unimportant, and if they do meet up things can be easily dealt with. Worrying that it "might not work out well" seems to me to be worrying about a problem that is insurmountably unlikely and in any case not present as we start up. What I want is a world that people feel free to do with it what they will, I don't think the project will work any other way. Seeing as how the other project stalled and was never restarted I feel that following their formula and approach would be unwise unless we seek a similar state of ennui in the end.

Azelor
12-12-2013, 02:07 AM
It depend, if the scale is small enough we can expect all regions to be mapped, even the wasteland but these will probably have less informations/details. And when I mean locking sections of the world, I did not mean that they should be locked for months but just long enough so we can agree on some basic characteristics for the area.

I think the main reason the other project stalled was because of the spamming. A security problem we need to counter but my knowledge it this area is limited.

Azelor
12-15-2013, 04:45 PM
Hey, I just wanted to say that if people are interested; there are 7 free worlds available to create a collaborative project. They are free because it's a launch promotion.

TeriYeri.com (http://www.teriyeri.com/)

modernhamlet
12-17-2013, 08:39 PM
Hey, I just wanted to say that if people are interested; there are 7 free worlds available to create a collaborative project. They are free because it's a launch promotion.

TeriYeri.com (http://www.teriyeri.com/)

Really interesting site. Looking forward to trying it out.

Oh, I think I broke it. Definitely some pre-launch bugs to address.

modernhamlet
12-18-2013, 12:26 PM
One thing that might help...

Can an admin clean up and archive the threads related to the now defunct first CWB project? Maybe put them in their own subforum or something? Or move CWB2 threads into a subforum? Either way, it'd be nice to declutter the place. There are like... 10 stickied threads and a ton of old material that makes it hard to see which threads relate to our new project.

Azelor
12-18-2013, 02:44 PM
We are the one squatting their sub-forum. Though you are right, it would be interesting to have our sub-form as it might help people find the project but at the same time, the size of the project is still small.

To help find the project I added the tag '' cwbp 2 '' to all related topics.

Neyjour
12-24-2013, 05:55 AM
One thing that might help...

Can an admin clean up and archive the threads related to the now defunct first CWB project? Maybe put them in their own subforum or something? Or move CWB2 threads into a subforum? Either way, it'd be nice to declutter the place. There are like... 10 stickied threads and a ton of old material that makes it hard to see which threads relate to our new project.

I was thinking the same thing. It would be really great if ALL the threads related to the old project were removed (not deleted, but archived), so just the new, relevant threads were visible here. When I first started looking in this forum, I was really confused. Took me quite a while to sort out what was what, etc. If everything wasn't cluttered together, other people (especially newer members) might find it easier to figure out what's going on and be more inclined to participate. Would also be a good idea to make a new (and sticky) introduction thread, with a complete overview of the project, how exactly people can/will participate, the various stages the project will take, and a note about the stage that it's currently at.

EDIT: I mentioned an introduction/overview because, to be honest, after all the reading I've done, I still only have a very vague idea of what this is all about and how it works...

Azelor
12-25-2013, 06:38 PM
Hello. Due to the interest a lot of us had in the previous Cooperative World Building Project, and the fact that it has stalled indefinitely, we have decided to start a new one; aptly called Cooperative World Building Project 2 (CWBP 2). This project is currently just getting off the ground, nothing has been decided yet. So if you would like jump in the on the ground floor please do so. If'd you'd like to wait around for more definite information to be released feel free to do that also.

Here are our current threads dealing with CWBP 2:

Cooperative project revival (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/24339-cooperative-project-revival.html)

In which we are discussing how to proceed with the project, our goals and the methods we want to use to achieve those goals.

CWBP 2 Deciding the map (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25298-cwbp-2-deciding-map.html)

In which we are still determining the overall map in which we would like to build our world. Ignore the closed poll, the topic is still completely open for both new maps and discussion. We will arrange a new poll when it is felt we fleshed it out enough to take a new vote.

CWBP 2 : Determining the genre and era (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25339-cwbp-2-determining-genre-era.html)

In which we are gathering input and trying to gauge peoples overall choice for the setting, era, magic level


Things we need to accomplish before we open up the world for mapping:
1 & 2: Setting and World map

a)Special interests and points regarding the setting or map
b)Rough guidelines regarding important thematic maps, (tectonic plate, Major rivers etc.)

3: Refinement of the above into the conditions and levels we decide appropriate for informed map making.

4: Plots for mapping and our approach to project organization.

5: Mapping!


(this post is in no way determinative, just here to organize whats going on and to provide an overview. It will be edited as the project develops and further suggestions. I am in no way an organized person and outlines aren't my thing, so I apologize if it just makes things more confusing :p.)

(I write my comment here to avoid spamming the other thread)

And don't forget that there is also a world to develop. World description should start before mapping and continue afterward. The description supports the mapping process and help to give him a purpose. To be honest, the world creation seems more interesting to me than the mapping process but I still intend to participate.

When I say world description I mean something in the lines of: The Forgotten realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, ... Just examples but it doesn’t need to be in dnd.

Falconius
12-25-2013, 06:44 PM
Ah, ok I wasn't at all considering it in that way. Don't know why.

It is an excessively complicated subject, I'll update the post when I figure how to lay it out more. I'm tired now though.

modernhamlet
01-07-2014, 12:28 PM
I agree with Azelor. The world level development is more interesting to me personally than regional mapping/development. I also think that good cooperative world level development would lead to more interesting regional development down the road.

Redrobes
01-08-2014, 10:00 AM
I have been lurking this thread for a while but its about time I chipped in. I was pretty involved in the first CWBP and so have some points to make but also I didnt want to steer the new one. Id like to see how it pans out differently this time. But for what its worth here are some items that worked well and that didnt work so well first time around so you can improve or utilize them again.

We had square tiles which I think was good tho people said that as they spanned different lattitudes then on a mercator style projecion the actual physical scale of them was varying across the maps. It was hard to make equal area maps using tiles that span a significant lattitude range.

We used FT and had a height map for the first CWBP. Having a public high res height map for the whole world / area under mapping was useful as you could as a last resort use a procedural mapping system to fill in any holes left by absentee mappers.

The tiles we had were something like 400km or so across and towns within them were usually mapped at a scale that people did them at unrealistic sizes. At 400km per tile a city is about a pixel or two.

It was extremely useful to nail down the format of the thread naming for each tile and city since we admins created a CWBP map indexer out of the threads so that new places mapped got added to an index automatically - see my sig for the link into that. I am not sure whether its still working tho since the site format for threads changed. But the idea that you can scrape the names under a CWBP2 section to create the index is cool.

I made up the overall map of CWBP (the composite of all the mapped places) and I am prepared to do a similar one for the new CWBP2 if nobody else is hankering for that role. That is not making up the shape of the landmass etc but the collection of everybody's work and stitch it together into the mosaic of finished maps. Like this:


http://www.viewing.ltd.uk/Temp/CG/ThinkBig/Region/MappedTiles_TN.png (http://www.viewing.ltd.uk/Temp/CG/ThinkBig/Region/MappedTiles.png)

Its not too obvious but if you look closely then it has all of the small regions and cities mapped on it too. It has every map that was done for the region on this composite version. Click on it to embiggen.

Azelor
01-10-2014, 11:03 PM
I saw how it's done with viewing dale, quite interesting.

It's good to know that you are interested in the project. But I must admit that the intro index is a bit odd.

Redrobes
01-11-2014, 06:04 PM
Intro index ? You mean the place index ? It used to be great but all the links are broken now but the idea was that it made the index automatically without anyone needing to edit up some list. If you mean something else then what was it that was odd ?

Azelor
01-12-2014, 05:31 PM
Index of: Cartographers Guild Members Who Posted An Introductory (http://www.cartographersguild.com/utilities/Indexes/CGuild_MemberIntro_Index.htm)

I was just wondering what was the purpose. Nothing important

Redrobes
01-13-2014, 07:15 AM
Ahh right I get you now. I joined when the guild was quite small and there were something like 500 members or less. In those days you pretty much knew everyone and people posted a new member welcome. I did a lot of guild scripting where it scraped lots of info from different boards and compiled it into pages like this one. So when somebody posted something you could look up their intro page and see what kind of background they had. Now that we have 10,000+ members thats a little more unrealistic. The other thing is that some time back the guild forum policy changed about your signature format and it became impossible to post an image as your signature. I have my creative commons disclaimer thing as an image because its too long and breaks the text limit so I cant change my signature any more. So lots of these old links are still there even when they dont work any more. I used to scrape the site and host these lists locally on my web page but then we changed and had some space on the guild server to host them and also I relinquished my scripting to RobA who does a great job by incorporating the scripts into the guild PHP instead of me scraping it. So now stuff like this is done differently and that we should have a monthly challenge list and index of entries, the CWBP and topic indexes and stuff like that. I have not kept up with what is currently active now on the site that I no longer do it. But the CWBP composite was done using viewingdale so I did that one and still have that as a viewingdale project to enable me to create these index maps on my local server.

12rounds
01-22-2014, 08:10 AM
Should the CWBP be revived, I'll gladly chip in. I'm not really that interested in the big pictures and mapping. In low-level detailed work such as characters, narratives, histories, stories and illustrative work I would be glad to participate.

Redrobes
01-22-2014, 08:18 AM
Good to see your still around Kimmo ! I'll gladly keep your signature link up to date with any new illustrations you might do. They were always fantastic.

foremost
01-22-2014, 11:04 AM
So, I haven't nearly read through the whole thread,
but I have learned a bit about what this co-op map
was like, thanks to the post by Redrobes. How was
this project accomplished, and (if we were to go
about doing it again or something similar) how would
cartographers join up? Is it open to everyone?

Azelor
01-22-2014, 01:06 PM
Participation should be open for every members of the Guild (But not the whole internet... they should be able to access the project but not to participate). Also, having a minimum of messages (5 or 10) on the forums before joining could prevent the spam. I know the old project had issues with spam and I don't know a lot about that. I do not know what measures needs to be taken to avoid the problem.


@ 12rounds: yes there will be plenty of stuff to do :)

rgcalsaverini
01-22-2014, 01:17 PM
This sound like so much fun, are we doing it? Can I join?

Falconius
01-22-2014, 01:38 PM
We are doing it and anyone here can join.

gspRooster
01-23-2014, 03:00 PM
I would like to participate in this. What is the current state of the project?

rgcalsaverini
01-23-2014, 03:10 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but how can I join?

Falconius
01-23-2014, 03:13 PM
The current state is gestation. We are currently working on getting an over all world map to use, and getting a general setting idea going. We basically have the four threads on the top of this forum here that are all active. Everything below that is inactive, same with all the stickys. Look for the CWBP 2 tags.

Edit: Basically to join just jump in the conversations and start throwing you ideas around. As we are still in the start phase everything is really open.

gspRooster
01-24-2014, 01:51 AM
Thanks. I'll look into it.