Regarding internal borders
Moderator: Staff
Regarding internal borders
This isn't a criticism of the substantive claim, but more a question to the cartographer, Crait: When did we start allowing internal 'country' (not-dotted, as opposed to 'regional') borders within a single state's claim? It doesn't look right. Of course there is precedent (7.0.0 map) but that involved the GC and Shireroth in a time before uniformity and standardisation. I've noticed this thick border also on Cibola, on Jingdao's southern claim. If Gralus doesn't have national borders when they are actually meant to represent a union of states similar to the GC, why should the Cultural Commonwealth? Or indeed Jingdao? I think we should strictly enforce the straight borders as representing the ends of landmasses and the ends of state claims.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Re: Cultural Commonwealth Claim/Modification
The border between Amokolia and Elwynn proper is also depicted with a solid line.
Normally I'm happy to leave questions of procedure to the Council, but I have to publicly disagree with Benkern on this issue: the use of a solid border is justified, in my opinion, in those cases where a "country" is a federation of autonomous or even sovereign components. One of my biggest complaints with the current system is that it only allows for a single tier of internal divisions, which makes it impossible to accurately convey the structure of many countries.
Take Shireroth for example: the counties, whose boundaries are depicted with the dotted lines, in many cases have far less constitutional relevance than the Imperial States to which most are subordindated- yet there is nothing on the map to even hint at the existence of the latter.
Anyway...so as to avoid detracting from the Cultural Commonwealth's claims, perhaps this discussion could be moved to somewhere more appropriate?
Normally I'm happy to leave questions of procedure to the Council, but I have to publicly disagree with Benkern on this issue: the use of a solid border is justified, in my opinion, in those cases where a "country" is a federation of autonomous or even sovereign components. One of my biggest complaints with the current system is that it only allows for a single tier of internal divisions, which makes it impossible to accurately convey the structure of many countries.
Take Shireroth for example: the counties, whose boundaries are depicted with the dotted lines, in many cases have far less constitutional relevance than the Imperial States to which most are subordindated- yet there is nothing on the map to even hint at the existence of the latter.
Anyway...so as to avoid detracting from the Cultural Commonwealth's claims, perhaps this discussion could be moved to somewhere more appropriate?
Rossheim, who acts as various members of the eponymous family including but not limited to:
*The Lichqueens Mira Raynora Major, Mira Raynora Minor and Lyssansa of Lichbrook
*The Kings Max I of Leichenberg and Max II of Steeria
*The King Sadamara Aptrgangr of Riskai and the Idunn Isles
*The Lichqueens Mira Raynora Major, Mira Raynora Minor and Lyssansa of Lichbrook
*The Kings Max I of Leichenberg and Max II of Steeria
*The King Sadamara Aptrgangr of Riskai and the Idunn Isles
Re: Cultural Commonwealth Claim/Modification
Perhaps this thread could be split, I'll let the mods do it and continue posting here in reply for the sake of a coherent discussion.
I agree that countries can be more complicated; I also think it's important to remember the vast difference in sizes of nations represented on the MCS map. It's certainly possible that one system for Reunion or Bergishir, or even Aryasht or New Victoria, may not work for nations as massive as Shireroth, Elwynn, Alexandria, Babkha, Gralus, Stormark. These points strike home for me.
But when you're talking about - as we are - questions not of national constitution, administration and subdivision but cartograhy, other principles besides faithfully representing the nations who want to be on the MCS map come into play: beauty and consistency. (Realism is another, as pushed for by the GSO and others, but is something that may involve completely redesigning/rethinking certain landmasses, rivers, etc.) By beauty I mean looking good, and not offending the eye; and by consistency, I mean treating all nations alike in order to avoid confusion and asymmetry. Consistency is challenged by the variety of sizes of claims.
I think of the MCS paint map as fundamental to Micras. Despite many, many attempts has still never been shrugged off. Anyone can edit it; it doesn't look too shabby; it's historically our roots. I think the paint map recognises 'consistency' above all else. And where beauty will be challenged, consistency overrides, because ugly though it may be in some ways, the MCS paint map shows a universal system which tries to apply standards in as attractive way as possible. I think using the same border for internal/external borders is a mistake. In this hobby, borders are very important. Federal borders don't have the same value when the subject of international concerns as external borders do.
That said, the paint map is not the only map. And we shouldn't expect everything from it. Zoomed in maps are probably nearly as old as the MCS map itself; and wide-scale projects, like Scott's Quetzal or Shyriath's Gloria Mundi (warning: 10,000 x 5,000 px of PNG full colour wonder) represent those internal borders much more faithfully, and do so in a much more eye-friendly way. Shyriath's is particularly good as an illustration of how we could do internal borders well. Rather than using black-line borders, he is able to use the colours of each nation to show the borders, so an internal border is very obviously internal. But this would involve such a drastic change to the simplicity of the MCS map, and threaten the consistency on which it is based, that I don't advocate that move. Instead I say, screw the internal full border, and do like Gralus.
I agree that countries can be more complicated; I also think it's important to remember the vast difference in sizes of nations represented on the MCS map. It's certainly possible that one system for Reunion or Bergishir, or even Aryasht or New Victoria, may not work for nations as massive as Shireroth, Elwynn, Alexandria, Babkha, Gralus, Stormark. These points strike home for me.
But when you're talking about - as we are - questions not of national constitution, administration and subdivision but cartograhy, other principles besides faithfully representing the nations who want to be on the MCS map come into play: beauty and consistency. (Realism is another, as pushed for by the GSO and others, but is something that may involve completely redesigning/rethinking certain landmasses, rivers, etc.) By beauty I mean looking good, and not offending the eye; and by consistency, I mean treating all nations alike in order to avoid confusion and asymmetry. Consistency is challenged by the variety of sizes of claims.
I think of the MCS paint map as fundamental to Micras. Despite many, many attempts has still never been shrugged off. Anyone can edit it; it doesn't look too shabby; it's historically our roots. I think the paint map recognises 'consistency' above all else. And where beauty will be challenged, consistency overrides, because ugly though it may be in some ways, the MCS paint map shows a universal system which tries to apply standards in as attractive way as possible. I think using the same border for internal/external borders is a mistake. In this hobby, borders are very important. Federal borders don't have the same value when the subject of international concerns as external borders do.
That said, the paint map is not the only map. And we shouldn't expect everything from it. Zoomed in maps are probably nearly as old as the MCS map itself; and wide-scale projects, like Scott's Quetzal or Shyriath's Gloria Mundi (warning: 10,000 x 5,000 px of PNG full colour wonder) represent those internal borders much more faithfully, and do so in a much more eye-friendly way. Shyriath's is particularly good as an illustration of how we could do internal borders well. Rather than using black-line borders, he is able to use the colours of each nation to show the borders, so an internal border is very obviously internal. But this would involve such a drastic change to the simplicity of the MCS map, and threaten the consistency on which it is based, that I don't advocate that move. Instead I say, screw the internal full border, and do like Gralus.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
Okay, I've split this and moved it to Regs
I must side with Sadamara with this case. Many nations have different types of subdivision and may want them portrayed separately. It would definitely be good if we had numerous internal border possibilities, but, with the claimsmap at least, it's just not a likelihood. I feel using the national border internally shows pretty much what it should; that there are nations within nations.
It does also depend on how nations what their subdivisions shown too, so can be different with others. You mentioned Gralus - although it was a while ago when Toketi and Novatainia joined, I think their primary objective was to be as aligned as possible together, so removed the full national border between them. That could be different to, say, Elwynn, who wish to fully show that there are distinct nations within them and where the borders are. Okay, perhaps the Cultural Commonwealth would have more internal-national borders than most others, but that's because of how they're set-up; each nation is effectively independent, but they all share the same monarch, hence why are coloured the same.
Also, in the CCR's case, at least the separate nations are labelled and show a reasoning behind the solid internal borders. If it were more similar to the old Holzborg-UE situations (as below), then I'd probably support you and step-in for the sake of avoiding the piss being taken, but I think that the CCR would be using them effectively, expecially as they also have secondary subdivisions within New Victoria
I must side with Sadamara with this case. Many nations have different types of subdivision and may want them portrayed separately. It would definitely be good if we had numerous internal border possibilities, but, with the claimsmap at least, it's just not a likelihood. I feel using the national border internally shows pretty much what it should; that there are nations within nations.
It does also depend on how nations what their subdivisions shown too, so can be different with others. You mentioned Gralus - although it was a while ago when Toketi and Novatainia joined, I think their primary objective was to be as aligned as possible together, so removed the full national border between them. That could be different to, say, Elwynn, who wish to fully show that there are distinct nations within them and where the borders are. Okay, perhaps the Cultural Commonwealth would have more internal-national borders than most others, but that's because of how they're set-up; each nation is effectively independent, but they all share the same monarch, hence why are coloured the same.
Also, in the CCR's case, at least the separate nations are labelled and show a reasoning behind the solid internal borders. If it were more similar to the old Holzborg-UE situations (as below), then I'd probably support you and step-in for the sake of avoiding the piss being taken, but I think that the CCR would be using them effectively, expecially as they also have secondary subdivisions within New Victoria
Re: Regarding internal borders
Holzborg and Landingberg were exactly what I had in mind. But Crait, for me it's not that it takes it to an asburd level, it's that it looks... aesthetically displeasing. I guess it's a matter of preference and I should start a Micronational No-Internal-Borders Society. It harks back to the time of different fonts, untouched double-pixelled borders, and all the other cartographic mistakes. But I appear to be in a minority so I will shut up and let New Victoria - and Elwynn, and Jingdao - get on with it.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Regarding internal borders
This is a time when using national borders internally is not really appropriate Could we not make a new label for Subdivision boundary or something? Maybe a dashed line?Craitman wrote:
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
It's true that it doesn't look great, so perhaps we could consider something different to show it. As Joe said, a dashed line could work and should show a clear difference between the two types, so may well be a possibility if it gets support (like when Ari missioned to change the pixel dimensions)Kaiser Stan I wrote:But Crait, for me it's not that it takes it to an asburd level, it's that it looks... aesthetically displeasing.
Re: Regarding internal borders
To be honest it's never struck me as unsightly. The fact that the solid border is surrounded by contiguous color and not alternating color is enough for me to immediately understand the difference and the significance.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
Re: Regarding internal borders
The only reason Holzborg and Landingberg got away with it was because I couldn't be arsed to sit there and dot all those borders.
There's a simple solution to this that I had always intended to implement but never did: Add a different type of internal boundary.
Actually I made this a while back and only recently came across it. The additions I had intended to make (and think should still be added) are:
- Hamlets (less than 500 residents)
- Villages (from 500 to 10000 residents)
- Autonomous Boundaries (not labelled, -- - -- or 2px, 1px, 2px)
- Autonomous Boundaries 2 (not labelled, --- -- or 3px, 2px)
- Depot (indicates site of an armory, major military manufacturing/stockpiling, etc)
- Shipyard (indicates site of major harbor, dockyard, shipbuilding, etc)
This would set cities as greater than 10000+ residents, and major cities at 1m+.
There's a simple solution to this that I had always intended to implement but never did: Add a different type of internal boundary.
Actually I made this a while back and only recently came across it. The additions I had intended to make (and think should still be added) are:
- Hamlets (less than 500 residents)
- Villages (from 500 to 10000 residents)
- Autonomous Boundaries (not labelled, -- - -- or 2px, 1px, 2px)
- Autonomous Boundaries 2 (not labelled, --- -- or 3px, 2px)
- Depot (indicates site of an armory, major military manufacturing/stockpiling, etc)
- Shipyard (indicates site of major harbor, dockyard, shipbuilding, etc)
This would set cities as greater than 10000+ residents, and major cities at 1m+.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
Some of those could come in quite handy actually. The different internal borders are pretty much exactly the sorta dashed-ness that I was imagining could be utilised. I could see a third, smaller settlement marker coming in handy as well (I've always thought the "small city" was probably a bit too hopeful for most Craitish places!), but I wouldn't be too fond of just a single dot for a hamlet; mostly because one pixel like that could end-up being misinterpreted as part of a ruin or even a diacritic, but also because I don't think anything under 500 people would merit being marked, let alone separately from a "village"
The depot and shipyard ones could be good if we started work on more zoomed maps, methinks, but might be a bit cumbersome on the claimsmap. Basically, I'd support the secondary internal border and having a simple one pixel's width + to show smaller settlements like towns and villages in addition to what we already have...
The depot and shipyard ones could be good if we started work on more zoomed maps, methinks, but might be a bit cumbersome on the claimsmap. Basically, I'd support the secondary internal border and having a simple one pixel's width + to show smaller settlements like towns and villages in addition to what we already have...
Re: Regarding internal borders
Concerning the Cultural Commonwealth: the member states are supposed to be essentially different nations that are all members of the same organization. Like the European Union, sort of. So, in my opinion, our use of boundary lines between the individual countries is appropriate - perhaps just as appropriate as creating such a border between France and Germany, both of which are in the European Union.
Re: Regarding internal borders
In regards to Hamlets, I think that's what we said last time I suggested this. But you bring up exactly what I was thinking. We do need a better indicator for the varying sizes of cities. Adding the Village marker would be beneficial to everyone and allow the MCS to (if you want to) set a basic population guideline (Village 0-10k, City 10k-1m, Major City 1m+). You're right that a hamlet would only be fit for marking on a zoom projection, and I can't think of any better way to display it at the present projection, so it'd be best to disregard that.
IIRC, Depots and Shipyards were something we floated back when we were first experimenting with recwars and as a way to moderate and map that aspect in the claimsmap. I see your point about clutter, however it would be nice to differentiate between a naval base and an army base (beyond the obvious). What if you limited it to one Depot and Shipyard per nation? They can either choose to use the markings to indicate their largest or most prominent sites pertaining to each, or they can ignore them/keep them secret.
IIRC, Depots and Shipyards were something we floated back when we were first experimenting with recwars and as a way to moderate and map that aspect in the claimsmap. I see your point about clutter, however it would be nice to differentiate between a naval base and an army base (beyond the obvious). What if you limited it to one Depot and Shipyard per nation? They can either choose to use the markings to indicate their largest or most prominent sites pertaining to each, or they can ignore them/keep them secret.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
That sounds good to me. I reckon for something like this we make sure that all members can have their input, so I'll draft-up something to post everywhere to let nations support/object as they will
And that sounds like a fair compromise with the depot/shipyard symbols. As with the military base symbol, there should be literally no nations which that symbol isn't applicable to, but very few use it on the map, so I can see those two being in the same ilk. I'll give it 'til the end of the day to see what anyone else suggests here before sending-out the notifications, methinks...
And that sounds like a fair compromise with the depot/shipyard symbols. As with the military base symbol, there should be literally no nations which that symbol isn't applicable to, but very few use it on the map, so I can see those two being in the same ilk. I'll give it 'til the end of the day to see what anyone else suggests here before sending-out the notifications, methinks...
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Regarding internal borders
What about using a small + sign for a hamlet on a zoomed projection? There's really no need for villages and hamlets on the current claimsmap, except maybe in the case of Lucerne, which isn't really a city.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Regarding internal borders
Then you need to claim them as separate nations, not as part of one claim.Charles I wrote:Concerning the Cultural Commonwealth: the member states are supposed to be essentially different nations that are all members of the same organization. Like the European Union, sort of. So, in my opinion, our use of boundary lines between the individual countries is appropriate - perhaps just as appropriate as creating such a border between France and Germany, both of which are in the European Union.