[taken]The Destroyed Lands map

[Zeta Kai]

Something like this?

[Gamerprinter]

Zeta Kai, that is definitely a beautiful map, and it seems like I can see craters along the shore of the land and the ice. However, the challenge idea states - regional as opposed to world map, as it would be difficult to show what is destroyed as far as civilization goes. Meaning, it would be nice to see roads that ended, half cities with the remaining in rubble, evidence of fallen civilizations. This map suggests destruction, only its difficult to see how it has affected the population.

At orbital height, one has to guess how much damage or affect the catastrophe has caused. It would be better I think to zoom a bit closer to the ground to really show the evidence.

GP

[Juggernaut1981]

I'd say no, but if you were creating some kind of "Water World", I'd expect islands and even better, structures sticking out of the water with new shorelines beyond that. Not that a world couldn't be completely covered in water following a catastrophe, but then the point of the challenge idea is to show evidence of great change. A plain blue map of water only shows water, not the change. Another possibility is to have an underwater map showing city ruins and such surrounding tiny island (former mountain top), etc.

You'd need more than a blue map to show evidence of destruction.

GP

*Points to the Naughty Corner for all people who mention bad films that rip off Mad Max* That was a film that should never have been made... Go to the Naughty Corner...

[Greason Wolfe]

So let's suppose this becomes the next challenge, or a challenge in the near future. That brings into question what we generally define as a region. Is it defined by the amount of area represented? Is it defined by borders (i.e. political or geographical)?

If, for instance, we had a small coastal valley that was generally comprised of one significant town and a few smaller towns but was bordered by mountains, would that be considered regional or would it be more along the lines of local? What about an area defined as a "National Forest" or "National Recreation Area?"

I ask more because I'm curious rather than looking for a clear-cut definition as I suspect this definition differs from one person to the next. Because the potential challenge is defined as a "regional" map, it seems to me that this would be a somewhat important definition to be clear on in regards to the challenge.

Maybe a better way to ask would be this;

If one were to depict the destruction in the Mt. St. Helens area after it blew its top, would that be considered a regional map or a local map?

GW

[Tom_Cardin]

Here is an idea I sketched up today - we had a four hour meeting at work. I was inspired by this topic to doodle this out, and it was a good alternative to falling asleep.

I call this Hollowed Mountain and I have a feeling that some very nasty magic was used to put the entire heart of this mountain elsewhere...perhaps I should draw it in floating above the landscape.

[töff]

Tom! Very cool!

[Ashenvale]

I suspect the entries will be art-heavy and map-scarce.

I think töff's probably right. But I think that's a good thing.

I love a great map for its own sake. But I love my 1978 Times Atlas of World History more than my contemporary street atlas. Why? Because they're art-heavy, drop-dead-gorgeous maps.

I've been scrolling back through old National Geographics. (I'd post my examples if copyright laws wouldn't rear up to bite me.) Have you all seen the maps showing sections of Manhatten today compared to how they looked in pre-Colonial times? Or the stunning maps on pages 56-57 and 62-63 of the August 2009 issue showing cross-sections of the earth within which magma rises towards Yellowstone National Park threatening a supervolcanic erruption of a magnitude unseen in 2.1 million years? Jaw-dropping images that push beyond simple mapping (as if mapping were ever simple) to become genuine art.

I want as much art in our cartography as we can possibly create!

Having said that, I think töff's map making imparts about as much artistry as anyone's. I'd kill for his natural sense of abstract balance. Just sayin'.

I love this proposed theme. It's a fabulous topic. Let it rock!

[töff]

love my 1978 Times Atlas of World History more than my contemporary street atlas. Why? Because they're art-heavy, drop-dead-gorgeous maps.

I love mine, too. But they're maps. Some of the stuff I see here is unlabelled, which, imho, makes it art and not a map.

I'm DEFINITELY not against art in maps! Not at all! But there has to be some map in the art, too.

[Ashenvale]

Well said! I think we're on the same page philosophically. Art without context or meaningful information fails as cartography. Simultaneously, diagrams alone, no matter how informative, don't inspire.

The danger here is that this topic might lend itself to the former category (art with insufficient content) too easily. But if the topic's essential narrative content inspires artistry without encouraging cartographers to eschew the informative content necessary to any great map, I think art-plus-information that results could be profoundly meaningful.

[töff]

I have an idea for this challenge ... but I ain't got the time.