[taken]The Destroyed Lands map

[Gamerprinter]

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

[Ascension]

I like the idea as well. I love creating but I've never really explored the dark side of destroying. Sounds interesting.

[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

[Gamerprinter]

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

Good question, I hadn't read this before. I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.

Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.

So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.

Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.

I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.

GP

[Greason Wolfe]

Good question, I hadn't read this before. I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.

Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.

So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.

Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.

I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.

GP

No worries there, sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the posts even in a single thread. Well, at least for me it is.

I am hoping this becomes a challenge, though, as I have an idea for this sitting on a back burner, so to speak. Haven't started any mapping, but I do have about 3/4ths of a short story done based on this same sort of situation and this would give me a good excuse to make a map for the story.

GW