# Community Participation > Mapping Challenge Suggestions >  [taken]The Destroyed Lands map

## Gamerprinter

The Destroyed Lands map - create a regional map depicting a civilization destroying cataclysm of epic proportions, a sort of post apocalyptic map, with the major feature showing the remnants of the great cataclysm.

Decide on a type of destruction that can be depicted on a map, something that complete alters the landscape from what it was before. It could be the crater left by a comet strike, a new coastline after an earthquake dropped California into the Pacific, the fast rise of a great volatile volcano in the middle of a city, or arcane destruction (1 M HD Fireball, anyone?), anything else you can come up with.

Of course, you can also depict survivalist camps or whatever else you want, the main goal is to show a world in its aftermath of destruction.

Fantasy, modern, futuristic doesn't matter, show me a map of destroyed lands, that's what I'd like to see!

GP

----------


## Coyotemax

oooooooh

It's like another heavier version of the passage of time map, where the focus is on "after"  :Smile:

----------


## Gandwarf

I like it...

----------


## Steel General

Nice idea...and I even have practice from my before and after volcano map.

----------


## töff

I suspect the entries will be art-heavy and map-scarce.

----------


## Greason Wolfe

It could be fun, though I doubt I'll have the time to enter as I'm trying to maintain my focus on my main world project.  Still . . . If I need to take a break, and it might help with some of the aspects of my world map . . . 

GW

----------


## Aenigma

If I put in a wholly blue map and claim that an asteroid made all the ice-caps melt; will that do ._.?

----------


## Gandwarf

> If I put in a wholly blue map and claim that an asteroid made all the ice-caps melt; will that do ._.?


Yes.
Will it be a winning entry? Probably not  :Smile:

----------


## Gamerprinter

I'd say no, but if you were creating some kind of "Water World", I'd expect islands and even better, structures sticking out of the water with new shorelines beyond that. Not that a world couldn't be completely covered in water following a catastrophe, but then the point of the challenge idea is to show evidence of great change. A plain blue map of water only shows water, not the change. Another possibility is to have an underwater map showing city ruins and such surrounding tiny island (former mountain top), etc.

You'd need more than a blue map to show evidence of destruction.

GP

----------


## Ascension

I like the idea as well.  I love creating but I've never really explored the dark side of destroying.  Sounds interesting.

----------


## Zeta Kai

Something like this?

----------


## Gamerprinter

Zeta Kai, that is definitely a beautiful map, and it seems like I can see craters along the shore of the land and the ice. However, the challenge idea states - regional as opposed to world map, as it would be difficult to show what is destroyed as far as civilization goes. Meaning, it would be nice to see roads that ended, half cities with the remaining in rubble, evidence of fallen civilizations.  This map suggests destruction, only its difficult to see how it has affected the population.

At orbital height, one has to guess how much damage or affect the catastrophe has caused. It would be better I think to zoom a bit closer to the ground to really show the evidence.

GP

----------


## Juggernaut1981

> I'd say no, but if you were creating some kind of "Water World", I'd expect islands and even better, structures sticking out of the water with new shorelines beyond that. Not that a world couldn't be completely covered in water following a catastrophe, but then the point of the challenge idea is to show evidence of great change. A plain blue map of water only shows water, not the change. Another possibility is to have an underwater map showing city ruins and such surrounding tiny island (former mountain top), etc.
> 
> You'd need more than a blue map to show evidence of destruction.
> 
> GP


*Points to the Naughty Corner for all people who mention bad films that rip off Mad Max* That was a film that should never have been made... Go to the Naughty Corner...

----------


## Greason Wolfe

So let's suppose this becomes the next challenge, or a challenge in the near future.  That brings into question what we generally define as a region.  Is it defined by the amount of area represented?  Is it defined by borders (i.e. political or geographical)?

If, for instance, we had a small coastal valley that was generally comprised of one significant town and a few smaller towns but was bordered by mountains, would that be considered regional or would it be more along the lines of local?  What about an area defined as a "National Forest" or "National Recreation Area?"

I ask more because I'm curious rather than looking for a clear-cut definition as I suspect this definition differs from one person to the next.  Because the potential challenge is defined as a "regional" map, it seems to me that this would be a somewhat important definition to be clear on in regards to the challenge.

Maybe a better way to ask would be this;

If one were to depict the destruction in the Mt. St. Helens area after it blew its top, would that be considered a regional map or a local map?

GW

----------


## Tom_Cardin

Here is an idea I sketched up today - we had a four hour meeting at work. I was inspired by this topic to doodle this out, and it was a good alternative to falling asleep.

I call this Hollowed Mountain and I have a feeling that some very nasty magic was used to put the entire heart of this mountain elsewhere...perhaps I should draw it in floating above the landscape.

----------


## töff

Tom! Very cool!

----------


## Ashenvale

> I suspect the entries will be art-heavy and map-scarce.


I think töff's probably right.  But I think that's a good thing.  

I love a great map for its own sake.  But I love my 1978 _Times Atlas of World History_ more than my contemporary street atlas.  Why?  Because they're art-heavy, drop-dead-gorgeous maps.  

I've been scrolling back through old National Geographics.  (I'd post my examples if copyright laws wouldn't rear up to bite me.)  Have you all seen the maps showing sections of Manhatten today compared to how they looked in pre-Colonial times?  Or the stunning maps on pages 56-57 and 62-63 of the August 2009 issue showing cross-sections of the earth within which magma rises towards Yellowstone National Park threatening a supervolcanic erruption of a magnitude unseen in 2.1 million years?  Jaw-dropping images that push beyond simple mapping (as if mapping were ever simple) to become genuine art.  

I want as much art in our cartography as we can possibly create!

Having said that, I think töff's map making imparts about as much artistry as anyone's.  I'd kill for his natural sense of abstract balance.  Just sayin'.  

I love this proposed theme.  It's a fabulous topic.  Let it rock!

----------


## töff

> love my 1978 _Times Atlas of World History_ more than my contemporary street atlas.  Why?  Because they're art-heavy, drop-dead-gorgeous maps.


I love mine, too. But they're maps. Some of the stuff I see here is unlabelled, which, imho, makes it art and not a map.

I'm DEFINITELY not against art in maps! Not at all! But there has to be some map in the art, too.

----------


## Ashenvale

Well said!  I think we're on the same page philosophically.  Art without context or meaningful information fails as cartography.  Simultaneously, diagrams alone, no matter how informative, don't inspire.  

The danger here is that this topic might lend itself to the former category (art with insufficient content) too easily.  But if the topic's essential narrative content inspires artistry _without_ encouraging cartographers to eschew the informative content necessary to any great map, I think art-plus-information that results could be profoundly meaningful.

----------


## töff

I have an idea for this challenge ... but  :Crying or Very sad:  I ain't got the time.

----------


## Tom_Cardin

I enjoy the worldbuilding process that goes on behind my maps. Thinking of locations which are going to attract travellers, locations where great battles were fought, places that inspire imagination in others.

And something I have only recently been getting inspired by myself is the history of the land as shown in the map - young mountains are jagged, as they get older, natural erosion tends to round and smooth them. Rivers cut down through rising ground leaving behind canyons, etc. It's great to capture moments in a world with a map.

----------


## NeonKnight

Sounds like fun.....I WANNA get back into mapping!

----------


## Gamerprinter

> So let's suppose this becomes the next challenge, or a challenge in the near future.  That brings into question what we generally define as a region.  Is it defined by the amount of area represented?  Is it defined by borders (i.e. political or geographical)?
> 
> If, for instance, we had a small coastal valley that was generally comprised of one significant town and a few smaller towns but was bordered by mountains, would that be considered regional or would it be more along the lines of local?  What about an area defined as a "National Forest" or "National Recreation Area?"
> 
> I ask more because I'm curious rather than looking for a clear-cut definition as I suspect this definition differs from one person to the next.  Because the potential challenge is defined as a "regional" map, it seems to me that this would be a somewhat important definition to be clear on in regards to the challenge.
> 
> Maybe a better way to ask would be this;
> 
> If one were to depict the destruction in the Mt. St. Helens area after it blew its top, would that be considered a regional map or a local map?
> ...



Good question, I hadn't read this before. I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.

Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.

So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.

Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.

I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.

GP

----------


## Greason Wolfe

> *Good question, I hadn't read this before.* I think the range of what is regional is exactly as you describe. To me, a regional map could not effectively show much details in a city or town map, more than at this location is the city of "so and so", a regional map would probably show more than one city/town/village depicted on it, and it would include some larger geographic features such as part of a mountain range or forest.
> 
> Thus looking at the US for example, a regional map could be the "Midwest", or the State of Illinois, or the County of LaSalle, or even the Illinois Valley - which is part of LaSalle County.
> 
> So a regional map is smaller than a world map, yet larger than a city map. There is a wide range of possibilities in describing a regional map. In the example of a regional map for this challenge, I think going towards the more localized is better since such a map could more easily show how the catastrophe has affected the local population. Something like a 10 mile by 10 mile square region, rather than a 100 mile by 100 mile region - though both fall under the category of regional map.
> 
> Thus the region affected by Mount St. Helens, which might be a 50 x 50 mile or even a 100 x 100 mile region would certainly apply to a region. If the map only featured the volcano and the immediate communities surrounding it, thus a 10 x 10 mile area, it would still be regional.
> 
> I don't see an additional category of local map as existing at all, other than describing a smaller region.
> ...


No worries there, sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the posts even in a single thread.  Well, at least for me it is.   :Laughing: 

I am hoping this becomes a challenge, though, as I have an idea for this sitting on a back burner, so to speak.  Haven't started any mapping, but I do have about 3/4ths of a short story done based on this same sort of situation and this would give me a good excuse to make a map for the story.

GW

----------


## Gandwarf

This will be the next challenge. I will post it up in a couple of days. Thanks for the suggestion, GP!

The Lite Challenge will get another theme and will start 2 weeks from now.

----------


## mearrin69

This will be fun. I loves me some post-apocalyptic fare...from any era.
M

----------

