Yes, that certainly explains why the smaller the number, the more detail it has. Philámayaye Silverleaf. :)
That is correct - the first number is always a "1". As to the 2nd number - the examples I'm going to refer to here are very simple (and not entirely accurate) - but are used to explain the difference in the last number of our scale:
Lets imagine you are flying up in a hot air balloon and you take a photo of a forest from 200 feet directly above it. The amount of detail in that photo shows individual branches, leaves, and perhaps even the ground beneath. That scale is 1:200 -and would be called a LOCAL map.
Now, take that same photo from 5000 feet up. While you can see that same forest, you can't make out individual branches, leaves etc. You can see MORE of the forest, but small details tend to fade away. That scale would be 1:5000 and would be called a REGIONAL map.
Go 30,000 feet up and take that same photo again. Now that same forest is a small patch, and details of it specifically blend in with the surrounding countryside. The scale would be 1:30,000 and would be called a CONTINENT map.
Does that help?
I see. :!: Well for me I'm doing a world map (would the continental scale be good?), but would like to have a scale for the full version and a scale for cut versions of let's say different continents. If that makes sense...? :oops:
IF your doing an entire continent - say the size of the United States - then the scale could be 1:250,000 - if however your doing a map that features a Castle and the surrounding village - then 1:5000 might be sufficient. But the short and fast answer I lean towards is it depends on the type of map your making. Once you know that, then you can decide what scale you need it to be.
What are the different types (these are brief examples)
Continental (a map of an entire continent)
Regional (a map of a village on the above continent, and its surrounding farmlands)
Local (a single blacksmith shop in the village mentioned above)