600 Miles On A Map

04-30-2008,03:18 PM

I was told that these squares were 600 miles beyond (give or take).

Its a little hard to get my caput around that much state.

Washington DC to New York city is, according to google, 229 miles by highway. Every bit the crow flies it might be roughly 200 miles.

- So these squares are 3 times the distance from New York Metropolis to Washington.

Washington to Quebec City is probable well-nigh 600 miles as the crow flies.

London England to Berlin Germany is 684 miles by highway - 583 miles as the crow flies.

The isle of Britain is

less than 600 miles nth-sth (548 by my inaccurate google earthing.)

I'chiliad going to have to give the calibration a rethink.

600x600 miles is 360,000 miles square.
The land surface area of Germany is but 216,998 miles.
The state area of Great britain (Scotland, England, Nth Ireland) is 152,112 miles

And so each of these squares is over twice the area of Britain and more than than one-half once more the expanse of Germany.

Sigurd

04-30-2008,03:thirty PM

Information technology just ways ane really giant impact crater. But thats cool too. It could perchance be the defining event in the planet's history, who knows.

Torq

04-30-2008,03:36 PM

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

.

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

Sigurd

04-xxx-2008,05:09 PM

Sigurd - Really skillful point. 600 miles is a LONG mode. Which is why in an earlier thread I proposed nosotros Not aggrandize the CWBP into new regions. There is And then MUCH to map right at present, 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 remember it's easy for Americans to think in terms of vast distances when, in reality, vast distance or big expanse is not needed.

04-thirty-2008,05:28 PM

I think we should endeavor and make the well-nigh of the Wiki and other means of presenting our various areas. With then much to do information technology seems silly to non practise precisely what we most bask.

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

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

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

sigurd

04-thirty-2008,05:57 PM

thanks for that post sigurd, I've been wanting to effigy out just how much area nosotros've been mapping, and your comparisons were crawly. Now I accept to go back and add together a agglomeration of places...

05-01-2008,12:xix AM

This is a close approximation of the scale involved.

It took the early on pioneers a twelvemonth 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'thousand sure medieval times had many fewer towns, just all the aforementioned, we demand to seriously reconsider the scale we're using.

I propose the scale is halved or quartered. This volition 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.

But my 2 cents.

05-01-2008,02:24 AM

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

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

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

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

At present, the Earth, has a the post-obit:

Equatorial Circumference 24,902 miles

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

The attached file is the Earth Superimposed over our World. This volition give yous an bodily idea of how large our area really is, and y'all can see information technology is not bigger than all of the U.S., but rather, nearly the same size as Ontario, Quebec, nanuvit, and the Atlantic provinces of Eastern Canada.

05-01-2008,03:39 AM

Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post

London England to Berlin Frg is 684 miles by highway - 583 miles as the crow flies.

Every bit far as I know, there is no real way to get from London to Berlin by car - at least, not without resorting to the tunneltrain, or the ferry.
;-) Simply that isn't sooo important.

But yes, 600 miles is, maybe, a little also big. I figured that while scaling my map - I came to realize that every mm was 3 miles! Here's to marking cities on the map...

Edit: On the other mitt, if each region is 440 n/due south and between 220-385 due east/w... it sounds more plausible. But then over again, we have squares, with actually odd lengths.
So either we start handing out trapezes, knock off any scales, or just mutually agree on 440m n/s&e/w... (I guess...)

05-01-2008,07:34 AM

In that location will be anomolies
Personally, I'one thousand not too likewise concerned with scale problems and anomolies. This is our first projection and everyone is having fun. Thats more than of import.

squares are square
I hear what yous're saying about the curvature of the earth map Neonknight but rightly or wrongly, my section is a foursquare. If the apartment maps go finished people volition spend far more time on the flat maps than the globe map.

I dont call back we tin can affectively map thinking that every pixel is a third shorter than it is broad. Its just also hard for 12+ map makers to accept different scales north-s than east-w. The global plotting in FT is a thing of dazzler. The globes are cool and useful as regional maps. I think we have to accept that the squares are square considering thats what we have to piece of work with.

I also dont think we should change the scale.
Shrinking the world would change all the information generated in the various maps and make future measurements on something like google world impossible.
Too, in that location's a lot to learn in adapting to diverse land masses. I think its ameliorate to develop regions in a square than shrink the squares.

Conform Region Names & Rethink
If each square is one-half over again the size of Deutschland, we should probably develop our regional names a piffling bit. Unless this world has cars, european distances brand much more sense to me. Cities and villages 12 miles apart etc...
Most people accept coastline, I think we should look at settlement patterns springing from the coastline and rivers.

Mayhap we should merchandise regions after they're 'done' ?
I fashion to conform to the size of the regions might be to have more than people create into them. That would requite genuine variety and maybe reverberate the size meliorate. How many different stories are between London and Berlin?

Sigurd