Forum:Global and regional issues/The South Archantan "Grand Lakes" System: Difference between revisions

From OpenGeofiction
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 39: Line 39:
Some of the lakes' elevations are already 100% canon - because I've already been maintaining contour files for adjacent territories (Makaska and Ooayatais). Specifically, Unnamed (lower), Ohunkagan, and Unnamed (upper) *cannot be changed*. I'm flexible about the others, but they need to of course "fit in" with the already canon ones. So changes to my proposed elevations need to be well-reasoned, but I welcome them below in comments, too.
Some of the lakes' elevations are already 100% canon - because I've already been maintaining contour files for adjacent territories (Makaska and Ooayatais). Specifically, Unnamed (lower), Ohunkagan, and Unnamed (upper) *cannot be changed*. I'm flexible about the others, but they need to of course "fit in" with the already canon ones. So changes to my proposed elevations need to be well-reasoned, but I welcome them below in comments, too.


Thanks all! Happy mapping.<blockquote>I think perhaps a slightly larger difference in elevation between Amanecer and Betaouais (J and I) would be reasonable in order to support the existence of the canal as it is currently mapped - perhaps making Amanecer 198m, or 200m would work nicely. This isn't ''necessary'', but I don't think it conflicts with anything else. Aside from that, I agree with Westhaven flowing elsewhere. --[[User:Lithium|Lithium-Ion]] ([[User talk:Lithium|talk]]) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)</blockquote>
Thanks all! Happy mapping.
 
::I think perhaps a slightly larger difference in elevation between Amanecer and Betaouais (J and I) would be reasonable in order to support the existence of the canal as it is currently mapped - perhaps making Amanecer 198m, or 200m would work nicely. This isn't ''necessary'', but I don't think it conflicts with anything else. Aside from that, I agree with Westhaven flowing elsewhere. --[[User:Lithium|Lithium-Ion]] ([[User talk:Lithium|talk]]) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)</blockquote>
::::I didn't see any locks on the canal, so I assumed it was a shallow slope. For a greater difference, there would need to be locks on the canal, as in Ohunkagan, for example: https://opengeofiction.net/#map=18/-42.38294/146.11609&layers=B . But definitely I have no problem as long as the mappers around Amanecer are wanting that.--[[User:Luciano|Luciano]] ([[User talk:Luciano|talk]]) 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:50, 5 July 2022

ForumsGlobal and regional issues → Global and regional issues/The South Archantan "Grand Lakes" System

The "Grand Lakes" system was originally inspired by North America's Great Lakes. They are set of glacially-created, large freshwater seas. I drew them when I first drafted the Federal States in around 2016 or 2017.

In their current forms, they include surrounding territories in the collaborative projects of the Federal States, Ardencia, and Deodeca.

After some discussion on discord, I wanted to move the conversation here to have a better long-term record of the situation.

Because some mappers (specifically, myself) want to maintain contours (topo) for territories adjacent to the Lakes, it's important to have the lakes' surface elevations fully worked-out and "canon".

Luciano Screenshot Grand Lakes v2.png

The Lakes drain northward, along the Alormen River. So in order from lowest to highest, the lakes are as follows:

  • A. Leighton - elevation 159m
  • B. Unnamed (lower) - elevation 166m
  • C. Ashani - elevation 172m
  • D. Ohunkagan - elevation 178m
  • E. Unnamed (upper-north) - elevation 179m
  • F. Unnamed (upper-south) - elevation 179m
  • G. Sauganash - elevation 188m
  • H. Hanyala - elevation 190m
  • I. Betaouais - elevation 193m
  • J. Amancer - elevation 195m

The two lakes, Unnamed (upper-north) and Unnamed (upper-south) are a Michigan-Huron type system: hydrologically, the same lake, and therefore the same elevation, but with distinct names/concepts in people's minds. Or maybe they have the same name, but that's not how I have been habitually thinking of them.

Westhaven is a slightly different case. There has been discussion that it is not part of the same watershed / hydrological system. I would actually prefer that, and I recommend a drainage pattern northward, creating a kind of "heartland watershed" for the Deodeca project. Because of this, it could also have a lower elevation than the nearest Grand Lake. I've settled on this:

  • K. Westhaven - elevation 175m

The current elevations are now attached to the Lakes' relations with ele= tags. Please don't edit these without first noting consensus to change here in this forum discussion.

Another point of discussion - we still need to name the two largest lakes, which I've taken to calling "lower" and "upper". I remember quite a bit of discussion about this from a year or two ago, but frankly can't find my notes about it and don't recall where that discussion was recorded. Possibly discord but I thought it had also been recorded in another place (the old wiki?).

I think the level of "churn" in the ownership of nearby territories is such that expecting to ever have a consensus / quorum on naming the lakes is silly - we should just name them and be done with it. So in comments below, please offer thoughts as to names. We'll have some kind of vote I guess. How about on July 15th?

Some of the lakes' elevations are already 100% canon - because I've already been maintaining contour files for adjacent territories (Makaska and Ooayatais). Specifically, Unnamed (lower), Ohunkagan, and Unnamed (upper) *cannot be changed*. I'm flexible about the others, but they need to of course "fit in" with the already canon ones. So changes to my proposed elevations need to be well-reasoned, but I welcome them below in comments, too.

Thanks all! Happy mapping.

I think perhaps a slightly larger difference in elevation between Amanecer and Betaouais (J and I) would be reasonable in order to support the existence of the canal as it is currently mapped - perhaps making Amanecer 198m, or 200m would work nicely. This isn't necessary, but I don't think it conflicts with anything else. Aside from that, I agree with Westhaven flowing elsewhere. --Lithium-Ion (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see any locks on the canal, so I assumed it was a shallow slope. For a greater difference, there would need to be locks on the canal, as in Ohunkagan, for example: https://opengeofiction.net/#map=18/-42.38294/146.11609&layers=B . But definitely I have no problem as long as the mappers around Amanecer are wanting that.--Luciano (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)