Quote Originally Posted by jbgibson View Post
The rivers are fine.
That's good to know. I feel a little proud.

If there's a flaw in the mountains, it's a style mismatch. The coastlines are crisp and clear, the rivers simple line work, and the roads nice and diagrammatic. Then you add shaded, raised-relief, somewhat fuzzy 3-d mountain chains... They just don't play nicely together. A simpler caterpillar-ridges look might fit better. Or even something like what you have, washed out to be just a background texture?
I tried the caterpillars, but unless I do them as in the original historical maps with a very fine pen and lots of patience and time, it won't look too good. I literally spent hours trying to come up with a good compromise and that's the end result. Plus I don't really like caterpillars. (I know, many nautical charts use those)
The height lines (are they called that?) I like, but that's an even larger amount of work, especially if it's supposed to look good.

But I'll try your suggestion with the washed out background texture. That appeals to me. I get your point about the style mismatch. That was probably bugging me anyway.

Detail isn't bad in and of itself. You're working with a tool that does layers, right? Add all the detail you like and segregate different types on different layers. Then output a family of maps, each tailored to a certain purpose.
That's kind of what I'm going for. But at first I want to keep it simple, so I get to actually finish a map!

Thanks for the input!