[Withdrawn] September-October Challenge: We need those trees

[mearrin69]

Acceptable from a copyright point-of-view? I think the significant editing of the image you're proposing will make that okay. The issue possibly is whether it'd be a map and not just an image? It's a really low viewpoint. I actually barely consider my map (same perspective as the image I posted above) to actually be a map. It's a fine line we tread around here. My latest maps have been more like pictures...but the overhead view gives a "schematic" view so they count I think. Anyway, just rambling. I want to see it whether it's a map or not!
M

Edit 1: Whoops. Guess I didn't post my ref image above. It's in my WIP thread. Can post it here if you can't find that.
Edit 2: I seem to have gone over 1,000 posts. Was hoping to have a 1:2 rep to post ratio. Guess I'm going to have to post more maps and spam comments less.

[Redrobes]

There's no problem with copyright cos the image doesn't have any. Its more about its acceptability as an entry. It would be something like this only with some effort put in. With some interior of the pyramid or dome etc.

[mearrin69]

Seems to me as if you make it "schematic" enough that it should be fine. What are you planning on showing on the inside of the pyramid? I, for instance, would consider the "Incredible Cross-Sections" diagrams by DK to be maps. If you're showing the city ruins, and tree farm, and pyramid arcology thingie and their relationship to each other then woudn't that be a map and, therefore, an acceptable entry?
M

[Redrobes]

The pyramid or dome would be done in 3D so I don't think it would be too much of an issue to make a cross section. I was considering that this would be a very big structure tho so the detail would be small and probably not tremendously useful tho it could be labeled in a coarse manner like rail network or commercial sector etc instead of individual trains, cars, people or places.