New here,

[Hoel]

Hand drawn by some sloppy chartographer, i like it... but I think bridges and fords would be something he was very much concerned with since it would be more important the the exact run of the river and such. I would go for more symbols, for mountains and villages/towns since the exact layout again wouldn't be as important as where they are in relation to important terrain features and landmarks...
I'd like to see where you go with the mountains

[Asharad]

Hand drawn by some sloppy chartographer

That was what I thought when I first saw it. It's perfect just the way it is. I gave rep for a perfect first map.

[Hoel]

That should be a challenge for all nit-picking harcore mappers.
-Make a map like a sloppy, uninformed cartographer ON THE GROUND with limited time and resources would do.
What do you put in first? What's important? What errors do you make? Is that lake really that long and thin or is it just your perspective?
Oh, and include a good map (or modern map) of the same area for comparison.
sinned, you've inspired me!
I've got a couple of old (1565, 1633 and 1654) maps of sweden and my home contry of västra götaland at home. It's always fun to compare them to modern maps of sweden.

I wonder if i should give my players a really bad map of an area and keep the good maps for me from now on.
"Hey, the map says it's a ford here, but it's a waterfall" "Well the ford is 10km north, according to MY map"

[jfrazierjr]

I wonder if i should give my players a really bad map of an area and keep the good maps for me from now on.
"Hey, the map says it's a ford here, but it's a waterfall" "Well the ford is 10km north, according to MY map"

To some degree, thats what my new campaign map is going to be. The players start underground after having been there for hundreds of years and are given a map made at the time before the group went underground. Things have DEFINITELY changed in that time period.