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

From OpenGeofiction
Revision as of 14:33, 8 August 2022 by Luciano (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 202m (edited from 195m, based on conversation below)

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.

Elevation Discussion

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)
I assumed the lack of locks on the Amanecer-Betaouais canal was a result of not yet detailing that area given Agawaskway just started up a few months ago. I’d support a Lake Amanecer elevation in the low 200m ballpark. —TheMayor (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
How about 202? I'll edit above to match.--Luciano (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. --TheMayor (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
A technical aside - I thought the lake elevations were on the relations. If not, can they be added there rather than individual ways please. wangi (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I have some good technical reasons to support tagging ele= on all the shoreline ways. Thilo's conversion program, as best I can figure out, can only "see" ele= tags on ways and nodes, not on relations. So having the data "ready to go" on the ways, for quick copy-paste to the contour squares at the time of contour run, is quite convenient. I tag all my shorelines with ele=. Then when I'm ready to run contour conversion, I do a quick download of all ele= tags in the territory and cut-paste those into my contour files. This adds refining detail and precision to the contour conversion process. Hope that makes sense!--Luciano (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a small note, the exit of the Alormen river out of lake A is actually further east than indicated on the sketch. That's not a major issue that needs fixing, I just wanted to point it out to save others the confusion I had for a minute :) Leowezy (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I was just too quick at the sketch.--Luciano (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lake Name Discussion

According to the previous list of names on Collab:Federal States/Natural features, the following names have been previously offered for the as-yet-unnamed lakes:

  • B:
  • Lake Wihinapa (Rakhoda [AKA Dakota / Sioux] Language, means "sunrise")
  • Lake Ouiquinapat (alternate "Franquese-influenced" spelling of previous Rakhoda suggestion)
  • E/F:
  • Long Lake
  • Lake Nibikaw ("much water")
  • Lake Majestueux/Lac Majestueux (based on French for "majestic water")
  • Lake Seneppi
  • Lake Wieyayeh (Rakhoda [AKA Dakota / Sioux] Language, means "sunset")
  • Name the north and south parts separately: Lake Minnehounkou (Rakhoda [AKA Dakota / Sioux] Language, means "mother lake") + Lake Minneyahtey (Rakhoda [AKA Dakota / Sioux] Language, means "father lake")
  • Lake Ouitiyayet (alternate "Franquese-influenced" spelling of previous Rakhoda suggestion)
  • Generic names:
  • Lake Wanalona
  • Lake Majestic
  • Lake Marset
  • Lake Quinnapoag
  • Lake Kawha
  • Lake Remarkable
  • Lake Bentree
  • Lake Vinton
  • Lake Poaxiwinnac (po-ax-ee-win-ack)
  • Lake Dyon
  • Lake Marion
  • Lake Abeta
  • Lake Nehasse
  • Lake Zihnoa
  • Lake Cirtanea
  • Lake Saviour
  • Lake Poole
  • Lake Bellefleur (Beatiful Flower in French)
  • Lake Grand
  • Lake Chieno
  • Lake Spirit
  • Lake Twizel
  • Lake Fiori
  • Lake Halsey
  • Kindred Lake
  • Lake Virtue
  • Lake Chajewanicha ("Unnamed" in Rakhoda [Dakota])

I do like the idea of splitting Lakes E and F in two for naming purposes, and while I do like the Mother/Father Lake naming convention idea, I'd also support naming the northern lake Lake Seneppi, just in case the next AR120-54 owner decides not to use that name for the next iteration. --TheMayor (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I very much like "Lake Wihinapa" for B. Of course, it was my own suggestion. That will be my vote. For E/F, I'm less sure. I like the idea of embedding a linguistic "easter egg" in one of the lakes' names, and thus using my somewhat jokingly suggested "Lake Chajewanicha" for one of them. That would be somewhat in the same vein as the name Ohunkagan, one meaning of which is "fiction" in the Dakota Language. I suppose the way I'd organize voting for this is have separate votes for E/F, but with one of the options for "F" being "This lake is the same lake as E".--Luciano (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s been a month, are we ready for a vote? Or do we even need a vote since there are only five active mappers who this would affect and only one of them actively participated in this discussion? -TheMayor (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm somewhat disappointed that there was so little discussion, but undeniably it makes this easier, now. I'd say - it's just you (TheMayor) and me, here, in this discussion. I'm happy to just drop some names on the lakes tomorrow morning and be done - and if someone objects later on, we can point to this discussion! Decision:
  • B - Lake Wihinapa (Rakhoda "sunrise")
  • E - Lake Seneppi (etym. unknown)
  • F - Lake Lake Minnehounkou (Rakhoda "mother lake")
This is 24 hours notice and the decision becomes final.--Luciano (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been monitoring it but didn't see the need to contribute, since it wouldn't effect me directly. My primary suggestion is to consider keeping E and F as the same lake (like Minnehounkou a lot) and consider the segments as "upper" and "lower" in local etymology. It's not really a big deal to me, but if we're going to go with "mother lake," it could be conceived as a singular entity that gives life to the entire shore and, in the native mindset, lake system. Secondarily, I don't know much of anything about the Dakota language. Are these corrupted through transliteration? If not, perhaps corrupting to something Ingerish settlers might have guessed like "Minnehonko?" Wihinapa is harder to corrupt without distorting it a lot.
As regional coordinator, I'm also okay with ending this discussion here and letting you do the labeling tomorrow. It doesn't effect many active states, and I'd suggest the lack of participation is likely an apathy to the result. — Alessa (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Happy to consider it - I was choosing "Lake Seneppi" for E as accepting TheMayor's preference - since he had taken the time to contribute. RE the forms used: Wihinapa is very close to Dakota original /wihinapa/, but Minnehounkou is meant to represent a filtering through Franquese (French), not Ingerish, the Dakota is /bdehuŋku/ - the /bd-/ cluster is universally rendered with "Minne-" in Dakota transliterations to English (there's nasalization on the cluster in Dakota, and the Nakota dialect (farther west) actually has universal sound-shift to /mn-/ (cf Greek): "Minnesota", "Minneapolis", "Minnetonka". etc. I'd prefer something like "Minnehunkoo" over "Minnehonko", if we Ingrishified it.--Luciano (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
What about "Minnehunkou" then? I think it looks better and is more suggestive of some Franquese influence during transliteration. Also, re: Lake E/F being one lake or two, without getting too deep in the weeds I think it'd depend on how the initial "discovery" expeditions ended up occurring. As you know, Lakes Michigan and Huron are hydrologically a single lake, but the explorers didn't figure that out when they first encountered them. Maybe that'd justify "Lake Seneppi" in the north, named by the same Ingerish explorers that named "Lake Leighton" while the south was "Lake Minnehunkou", first discovered by the Franquese coming up from the south. --TheMayor (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Totally works for me. Thanks for the explanation, Luciano. I didn't know enough about the phonology to realize this. I'm okay with both of Mayor's suggestions. Minnehunkou is a cool spelling of it, and it looks much more of French origins than the -oo ending of English. — Alessa (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The lakes are named.--Luciano (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)