Thinking BIG - 600 miles

[Sigurd]

My region is fairly simple because everything defined so far is natural and I haven't said how big each tree is .

I'm thinking that down the road we will have our jobs cut out for us to put cities, villages and roads in these squares. It also makes me wonder what will and wont show up in our views. When I'm thinking of the number of roads it helps to imagine Germany.


Sigurd

[The Cartographist]

Sigurd - Really good point. 600 miles is a LONG way. Which is why in an earlier thread I proposed we NOT expand the CWBP into new regions. There is SO MUCH to map right now, that we don't need to open up new areas.

I've also found (since living in the UK) that distances are relative. 100 miles is not considered very far in the States, but it is considered quite a long way in the UK. I think it's easy for Americans to think in terms of vast distances when, in reality, vast distance or large area is not needed.

[Sigurd]

I think we should try and make the most of the Wiki and other ways of presenting our various areas. With so much to do it seems silly to not do precisely what we most enjoy.

We should probably learn to think small inside of each region. Germany has how many cities, castles and whatnot?

Story should guide the development of a region not geographic happenstance.

Talking only of my situation - I had intended to have nothing but ruins. I'm going to have to think of some, perhaps monstrous, inhabitants. 360000 miles is a lot of space for one ruin .


sigurd

[Airith]

thanks for that post sigurd, I've been wanting to figure out just how much area we've been mapping, and your comparisons were awesome. Now I have to go back and add a bunch of places...

[Avulsion]

This is a close approximation of the scale involved.

It took the early pioneers a year to cross the United States using wagons. That's about 4 of our regions wide. There are so many thousands of cities in the USA, and I'm sure medieval times had many fewer towns, but all the same, we need to seriously reconsider the scale we're using.

I suggest the scale is halved or quartered. This will make the planet smaller, but judging by the maps I've looked at, the regions would fit better with a 300 or 150 mile width/length.

Just my 2 cents.

[NeonKnight]

See, this is the problem with everyone concentrating on the idea that each area is 600 x 600 miles. They are not.

The total North/South distance is 2200 miles. So each area (there are 5 rows) is actually 440 miles north/south.

The East/West is at the bottom of the map is approximately 2300 miles (or regions 21, 22, 23, 24, & 25 are each approximate 385 miles at their bottom.

At the northern portion of the map, the distance across the top of regions 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 (plus the blank region) is approximately 1200 miles east/west, for a distance of 200 miles east/west.

Now, the Earth, has a the following:

Equatorial Circumference 24,902 miles

This world is 25,000 circumference, so only a marginal amount larger than the world we all live on.

The attached file is the Earth Superimposed over our World. This will give you an actual idea of how large our area really is, and you can see it is not bigger than all of the U.S., but rather, about the same size as Ontario, Quebec, nanuvit, and the Atlantic provinces of Eastern Canada.