>>I'm sure there's a wonderfull mural somewhere in a wind temple of the
>>view from the top of Kero Fin, but it would hardly be what we nowadays
>>would call an accurate map.
>
>So what? The Map of the London Underground has no geographical
accuracy
>but it is very accurate for conveying the needed information - hence
>it is an accurate map. An accurate map _need_not_ be an ordinance
>survey map.
Perhaps if you'd read the rest of the paragraph (which you snipped from
the above quote) -
Me:
>
- -.............It wouldn't
>even be in the same ballpark as Pythagoras map of the mediterranean, or
>the portolano maps of europe for example.
I'm interested in gloranthan maps similar in quality and form to Pythagoras' map of the mediterranean and the medieval portolanos. Neither of which were produced by the ordnance survey (straw man, or what!).
In the real world 1000-2000 or more years ago there were some very accurate continental scale maps, so asking about equivalent maps in glorantha is neither anachronistic nor unreasonable. I certainly see no reason why you should should start jumping on my head because of it.
For anyone interested in the history of map making, check out "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" by Hapgood et al. If you ignore the crackpot theories towards the end, it's got some great reproductions of the best maps from antiquity, together with descriptions and diagrams showing how they were produced and the projection systems used.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail