Altered Maps 4: Partitioning Eastern Europe Like In The Good Old Days

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is two aspects: first is the sudden change. The map to begin with (from the bottom and upwards) has some nice smooth lines. These are consistent with the kind of lines you would expect from continental drift, as most maintain chains are. Then you suddenly enter an area where mountains and highlands seem to be thrown in randomly without thought about where they fit in.

The southern mountain range was created by subduction of the neighboring oceanic plate moving upwards (you can see deep-ocean trench right off the coast), pretty much like the Andes in South America. Behind this range there is a sort of plateau which is interrupted by a rift valley (which in the future will probably split the continent in two).

The mountains you can see in the center and north of the continent are very old heavily eroded formations, left from previous geologic periods of the planet. You can see they're not very sharp and high. So I actually thought about it :)

Secondly it is the valleys to west in the map. Valleys can broadly be defined by two types: river valleys and glacial valleys. Those on the map do not appear to fit into either. This is because there are no apparent drainage basins in that map. Drainage basins are areas where rainfall flows in a specific direction. Rivers and glaciers tend to more or less follow these patterns. Simply throwing them in doesn't really make for good maps.

The large valleys in the north-west were created by glaciers, or at least that's the idea. The continent is still in an ice age (keep in mind this planet is a lot cooler than Earth) as the massive ice sheet in the north suggests, but it used to be even more glaciated. As the water levels rose many islands were created and the coast became a bit rugged.

There are no rivers on the map yet, which of course doesn't mean there are no rivers on this planet ;) It's just the hardest part and it's usually done after the terrain map is completed.
 
The southern mountain range was created by subduction of the neighboring oceanic plate moving upwards (you can see deep-ocean trench right off the coast), pretty much like the Andes in South America. Behind this range there is a sort of plateau which is interrupted by a rift valley (which in the future will probably split the continent in two).

The mountains you can see in the center and north of the continent are very old heavily eroded formations, left from previous geologic periods of the planet. You can see they're not very sharp and high. So I actually thought about it :)

The southern part is good, but again, I don't really see how the central mountains could have been formed. Erosion in this manner is likely to follow the rivers and glaciers (glaciers follow rivers too, path of least resistance and all that). These in turn follow drainage patters. In effect, most mountains will have a central area or plateau that radiates outward.

The large valleys in the north-west were created by glaciers, or at least that's the idea. The continent is still in an ice age (keep in mind this planet is a lot cooler than Earth) as the massive ice sheet in the north suggests, but it used to be even more glaciated. As the water levels rose many islands were created and the coast became a bit rugged.

There are no rivers on the map yet, which of course doesn't mean there are no rivers on this planet ;) It's just the hardest part and it's usually done after the terrain map is completed.

The problem is not that there are rivers, the problem is that such small scale valleys do not form without stemming from a central system. While each independent piece seems good enough on it's own, put together they don't make a lot of sense.

Edit: If the ice cover extended further south, then you would definitely see a bigger valley system. They simply do not occur on their own on such a large scale.
 
800px-Ocean_drainage.png


Map of the world's drainage basins (from Arne's link) - grey areas are endorheic basins that don't drain into oceans.
 
The southern part is good, but again, I don't really see how the central mountains could have been formed. Erosion in this manner is likely to follow the rivers and glaciers (glaciers follow rivers too, path of least resistance and all that). These in turn follow drainage patters. In effect, most mountains will have a central area or plateau that radiates outward.

The problem is not that there are rivers, the problem is that such small scale valleys do not form without stemming from a central system. While each independent piece seems good enough on it's own, put together they don't make a lot of sense.

Edit: If the ice cover extended further south, then you would definitely see a bigger valley system. They simply do not occur on their own on such a large scale.

Now I am not sure we're both talking about the same thing. Which valleys do you mean? The central part of the continent is a sort of Siberia-like - eroded remnants of a former plateau (like the Central Plateau in Siberia)

Spoiler :
Russ_Topography01.jpg


The sharp coastal valley in the North-West were created by glaciers flowing from the central-north plateau (now covered largely by the ice-sheet) to the sea. Coasts of Norway and Alaska were the inspiration, but the valleys were made bigger. As for why there are no such valleys further to the north - these areas are permanently glaciated, there has never been such a strong flow of ice and there were no older mountains which could be carved like this. (And I didn't focus too much on the parts of the map which are under the ice sheet :) ).
 
Galway then:
http://ims0.osiemaps.ie/website/publicviewer/main.aspx#V1,529898,725185,5
Galway now
http://ims0.osiemaps.ie/website/publicviewer/main.aspx#V1,529898,725185,5

Edit - both seem to be generating the modern map - please click the historic map on the bottom right hand side.
A very handy site that allows you to compare ordinance survey maps of Ireland from just before the famine to now.

My village looked different - more farms and smaller fields in one area - much bigger fields down the road where the landlord lived.
 
Do you know the year of the historic one?
Not sure - it took years to do:
6 inch mapping series (1:10,560) colour 1837-1842
6 inch mapping series (1:10,560) greyscale 1837-1842
25 inch mapping series (1:2,500) greyscale 1888-1913
 
Religiosity according to Gallup poll.

They only asked about the importance of religion in people's lives, so it is to be taken with a grain of salt, since religious people can answer that religion isn't really important for them.

Gallup_Religiosity_Index_2009.png
 
Interesting way to treat Louisiana. Why's that part colored in? Charlie Melancon?
 
They don't actually exist. :mischief:

Anyway the artist gets a C for MS Paint skills and an A for including Quebec provided he starts his usual genocide minorities crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom