>Joerg's map is extremely helpful and coming along very nicely, but it still
>gives no concept of the Plateau (Jane has suggested we call it Fellmoor).
>
>I think there has been some confusion between the Tor, which is the
>outcrop upon which WW sites, and the Fellmoor itself, which is much larger.
>
>Whitewall sits on the Tor which sits on a rather large plateau (Fellmoor)
>at the top of Northvale, on the eastern edge of Destor's Hills. According
>to the published maps (which I don't have in front of me right now),
>Fellmoor is one of the largest hills in the entire range, and rises to the
>west of the main Sartar-Heortland road. Remember that Whitewall is isolated
>- so much so that it has failed as a city. So the road up the plateau
>should be difficult, with steep rises, ravine spanning bridges, and no
>doubt some fortifications that look down on the road from the heights
>above. Tricky, in other words.
>
>Option A: If Joerg's map is intended to be the only the *top* of Fellmoor
>(and this makes most sense to me), then the approach road leading east from
>the city should continue east off the map. The main highway is quite a few
>miles further east, and wouldn't climb the plateau when it can skirt it,
>which is what the published maps suggest.
I've been working on the basis that there was an old road up Ramsdrift Climb which has deteriorated to a track since Tarkalor's Bridge was built. That can then meet up with the Wilmskirk road. There's probably also a path through Grundy's Ginnel which connects up with the Markdale Trail. That's the one I think most likely to have ravines on it given the appearence of the map. Neither are suitable for anything more than hill ponies and pack mules so no wagons or Lunar Cavelry. At least not until Tatius gets his engineers to build a proper road up Ramsdrift Climb which I suspect would be one of his first priorities.
>Option B: If that north-south road is really the highway, then we seem to
>have lost the entire Fellmoor, and need to really up the verticality. But
>the scale doesn't seem right for this approach to work.
>
>By way of rough scale, can we assume that the long axis of the city is
>say... 900 metres?
>
>I suggest that option A is the most logical.
Seems the best option to me although a city which is only half a mile long strikes me as a bit small but that could reflect its failure.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail