Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This is quite interesting:
See ya later guys
Although I like his decision to keep the state borders one colour, it looks cluttered. Looking at the close ups, I think the Nat Geographic map they show as a supposedly worse example looks clearer. And I dislike the way he removed some small towns to make space for a list of city attractions - that doesn't seem the point of a map.
it certainly looks good when you take the map in as a whole, especially the contours and cities.
This is quite nice:
I'm probably not interested at that price. I once bought a Leichenstein poster in two parts from the Tate Modern that was about £20, and that stung (now years of abuse have seen it become a bit grotty, but framing it would cost a fortune).
I have a 1960s Acid Test poster, signed by Ken Kesey and (most of) the Merry Pranksters. It cost £120. I used to have it up on my wall with just bluetac for many years before getting around to framing it. It looks so much better, and I regret that the corners are a little worn now just because I was lazy.
Someone mentioned recently they'd found an old London A-Z. Was that you? It must be fascinating. I might get one from ebay.
My uncle also has one from just after the second world war, too.
my mother has an interwar atlas/geography textbook thing. it's fascinating.
You can zoom in and out just like on the normal map.
Looking around the area I grew up, in rural Bucks, there's an 'Egyptian obelisk' marked a couple of miles away in a place that is now just an empty field. That sort of thing.
i'd like to spend a lot of time looking at that map
I have nothing really to add to this thread however.
I like this map.
This is interesting though. I thought the examples of the Nat Geographic maps they show are a bit prettier to look at, but that may well be because that's the kind of map I'm accustomed to.
I'm surprised that so many of you like maps.
It's twee-central round here mate, get with it.
I might buy one.
The list of attractions, time zones, ferry routes, airport codes etc etc... clearly been designed with a lot of love.
I have intricate road maps of Europe, America, Canada just to pore over. It can lead to some excellent Wikipedia sessions based upon odd things you notice, town names, enclaves, exclaves etc.
And I fucking LOVE Maps.
but I bet it can't tell you the level of forest density 3 miles south west of Detroit.
Hand over your lunch money.
Can we discuss other maps instead? I want to buy this one http://odtmaps.com/images/products/PCP-20-5x32.jpg I know Peters projection is sneered at, but I like this Pacific centering cos Africa and the Americas frame it well. Ideally, of course, I'd have the 2006 Waterman Butterfly on my wall but it costs a fortune. Here's the older version of it, but it's still got Zaire on it and stuff http://danutm.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/waterman-butterfly-map.jpg
Also, I bought a friend the European part of the Atlas of True Names for Christmas http://www.kalimedia.com/Atlas_of_True_Names.html It's pretty much the geekiest thing I've ever bought.
If I'm looking at a world map, I want Africa BIG. The only other one that shows it anywhere near big enough is the Hobo-Dyer, which is actually aesthetically a bit more pleasing than the normal Peters but flattens Russia too much to ever be a first choice. Thing is, though, that the standard Europe-centered Peters just *looks* wrong, because it's dominated by the stretched lump of Africa in the middle. Shift it all over to make it Pacific-centered then, et voila! But I can't really buy one that doesn't have South Sudan on anyway, or it would annoy me forever.
Peters is especially bad, it looks like something out of the 70s
Unaffordable, more like. AMIRITE?
Buckingham = Billy-goat village? Awww.
Though really, who DOESN'T like maps?
but I didn't realise the level of detail you losers choose to enjoy them in.
Some of them were hundreds of pounds! Wish I was rich enough to buy them. They were awesome.
but that whole article is really really boring. What's wrong with you people?
Read a biography of Gerard Mercator recently which was interesting. It wasn't particularly well written, it kind of pretended to be scholarly when it clearly wasn't, but the man himself is fascinating. For all that his projection gets criticised, it was a work of astounding genius to come up with that in the 16th century. To come up with a better way to produce globes and be instrumental in the production of the first atlases as well just further demonstrates his greatness.