What do you mean "off to the right"? Placing more map elements/details on the right side?
Earlier in the thread NedS298 and Azelor were speaking about the common placement of continents/landmasses being placed off to the right of the image in the manner of the Lord of the Rings map and speaking to the historical cliche of it being like Europe and the Atlantic.
I was merely positing a possible reason that it continues, even if the map maker is not drawing from either of those references/cliches.
Chashio, I absolutely agree - people do like the familiar.
Er, that's obviously because 1) the map is a regional/national map designed to focus on a particular country and 2) there's not enough space to display the entire landmass without zooming out so much as to lose the focus and 3) the focus of the map happens to be a coastal country and 4) the focus of the map happens to be on the western coast.
Under those parameters it's unlikely to NOT end up with a map of a left-adjusted partial landmass. As for why exactly 3 and 4 may turn out to be the case, only the person who imagined the country in question can answer.
I think you may have missed the point being made Ghostman. The Lord of the Rings map isn't the issue or the cliche. It's maps people are making now that seem to resemble it that they were talking about.
However, what you said may still apply to a map someone makes today - IF - all those points are in play.
But, I am not really arguing that point. I was just throwing out an observation related to what others had been discussing.
I was not refering to the Lord of the Rings map in my post, I was speaking of maps in general. My point is that maps are made to represent specific geography, and the geography in question is based either on the real world or on an imaginary world in someone's mind. That source - the idea behind the geography - is what primarily determines whether there's going to be a cut-off continent displayed in the first place, and whether it'll be cut from the east, south, west or north.
Part of that is also the convention that has determined North as the top edge of the map as well, were that not to be the case one might see more variation regarding the placement of land and sea edges.
Ghostman, Got it. True and I wouldn't argue that at all. I think I was also speculating on it because I noticed that I've done it myself several times. While the land I was drawing attention to was part of a larger landmass it still left me wondering why did I choose to start there or to focus in on that orientation.
That I guess might be more of what is of interest to me and whether that comes from cliche or not.
I was surprised to find it in as many examples in my own work as I did.
I've made many regional maps where the part of the landmass cut-off lies in any possible direction, north, south, east, west, even southeast, etc. I never stick to any particular conventions in any map. Really, every map I'm looking to do something different so I consciously avoid doing similar geography in any new regional map I create.
Posted below is a recent hand-drawn coastal region, that intentionally resembles the east coast of the North American continent, but isn't, just some resemblance - as an example of a not westward continuance of a continent...
On the matter of landmass alignment, one thing I have often found interesting, as an in-depth worldbuilder, is the fact that eastern and western sections of large landmasses have different climates from one another. Because of the Coriolis effect, I believe.