Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    I am not exactly an expert on these matters, but this is how I understand it. Of course, even a high forest will have some open spots, so exactly where to draw the dividing line between those two, I have no idea (I am sure that a proper forest expert would come up with a bunch of categories in between).
    I do have some patches of high forest not far from my home, and it is sometimes feels weird how devoid the forest floor is of any vegetation.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    That also gives a clue, since one type specifically states with scrub, while the other does not. So I think what was meant by high forest is forest so dark there's no undergrowth at all. It's not very common on the Ferraris map. I think most of the forests are forests with scrub.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    Ok. Now for the scary bit.

    This is the map key so far. I mean the big one that covers all the necessary fills and so on - not just the ones in this tiny little extract I'm doing.

    After all - there's no point in calling it the Ferraris style unless it has all the necessary fills.

    Key.JPG

    It looks scruffy right now, but that's because I haven't sorted out the masking yet, so everything is sticking out of the boxes right now.

    and... oh look. I've got some of them in the wrong category! LOL!
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    Sue, "Vinyard" should be Vineyard, but looking good otherwise.

    [I'll leave it to some other person to comment on the apparent similarity of many of the terrain types... Oops; no I won't! ;D]
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    The categories are somewhat artificial anyway, given most forests and woodlands have been human-managed for many millennia, in some cases creating areas of heathland along the way, for instance.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    LOL!

    Hello Wyvern :D

    Thanks for the typo tip. I'll sort that out in a minute. I'm still trying to work out what I thought I was doing putting coalmines and smelting sites under Urban geography instead of Transport and industry. Never mind! I'll get there in the end.

    There are fewer fills and symbols in this key than in the official Ferraris key where I have already combined things like 'road' and 'road with trees' into one which will be half with and half without trees. Surprisingly, there really are that many kinds of marsh and meadow. The difference is clear in the fills I haven't yet done.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    The categories are mine - to try and order things a little more compared to the original key. Maybe I was just having a hard time trying to read in Dutch and French, but the original key takes ages to identify something you've found on the map. I thought the categories would help a bit.

    Shall I take them out and mix everything up again?
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Hey, seconds apart, Sue! I was just being facetious about many of the terrain fills looking remarkably similar at present, in fact :D!

    The actual different terrain types as listed make perfect sense, especially from a military perspective. It's the same point about what seem like minor slopes and hills. Even really minor ditches and streams can become of major importance on a battlefield, where forces can use them as areas of safe cover in a relatively flat field, for instance.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    LOL!

    Well at present everything is a bit the same :P

    Yes, I can see how Napoleon found these maps so very useful.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Organising a map key is never easy, because different users may want different things. It's a bit tricky trying to hop between the two Atlas Ferraris topics to compare the original book key with your version (mildly helpful link to the other topic), but I'd be inclined perhaps to sort things by whether they're covering large areas of ground (like the Meadow, Forest, Marsh, etc. fills) or consist of specific symbols (meaning in a general hand-drawn map-making sense, not a CC3+ sense) - so things like the various buildings, battle sites, and suchlike. This is really just so it's easier to quickly compare different aspects of what's shown on the final map and identify what the colours/textures/symbols, etc., mean.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    Ok. Well, we'll see what it looks like when I've filled in all the little boxes. I'm aiming for 2 a day.

    I have to say that the reaction over on the FB page has been a lot stronger than expected. Apparently a lot of wargamers would like to use this style if I make a decent job of it. I think that is why I subconsciously went for the military approach.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    The layout and font are just great, Sue.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Thank you, Quenten :)

    That font is Tangerine - one that I have always loved.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Ok, lets just check I have this right before I go any further. This is a duplicate of the key image on Khornishman's thread, but with what I think are the English definitions of each fill/symbol.

    Please let me know if I have any of these wrong? Thanks :)

    Oh and... What is that little picture for Archery range showing? At first glance I thought it was a rocket ship. Then I thought is was some kind of bow stand, but now it might be an archer standing on a very small mound and firing an arrow? I can't draw it until I know what it's meant to be, or it will just be a blob, because that's all I can see.
      KEY with translation.jpg
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    Not all of the above will be relevant to the CC3 style. For example, there will be drawing tools for borders, but not specific ones like those in the key, and as has already been mentioned I will be combining things like Road and Road with trees to show just one road with trees on half of it.

    I think the key itself should probably be included in the annual? Not this photograph, but the one I make of the new style.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Definitely include the key. I can't see the blob referred to, but it definitely should be a rocket ship - proof of alien visitation in the 1600's. They were so disgusted and that is the reason we don't see them any more.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Lol! It's in column 4, 3 down from the top :P
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    Another one I can't really make out is the coalmine symbol. Are those just circles, or more elaborate than that?

    The Smelting site I already know is an old fashioned smelting oven built of clay by hand. They are about as tall as a man and very similar to pottery kilns, only there is a ditch leading from the bottom to a hollow where the iron pours out. Either that, or I've gotten completely the wrong end of the stick and this is actually a pottery kiln. Making pottery or bricks was an important part of life back then.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019 edited
     
    It's ok!

    I know what these little tiny blob things really look like now.

    I've found another legend here:

    !Broken link deleted to avoid confusion and annoyance. Please see below for working link.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
     
    Wyvern - I think the military-style layout of the legend I'm making is probably very appropriate, since the information contained in the semiotic analysis I linked to in the comment above this one makes it quite clear that while the Ferraris map never had a contemporary key when it was first made, it (along with most maps of that era) was made for purely military purposes. Us common folk just got on with the farming and stuff, and probably wouldn't have been able to read a map or know it for what it was if we saw one - back then.

    I might jiggle it around a bit, though - add useful info about isolated trees and bushes and such. Basically combine the two keys I now have and pick what is needed for a complete version from the point of view of a CC3 mapper.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    That hyperlink you just posted to the pdf file goes to a file on the desktop of your own computer. It won't work for other people.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Oh! I'm sorry :(

    How did I do that?

    I will go back to the page and copy directly from the browser.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Well, editing the link above went a bit wrong, but at least it works now. I think?
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    No
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019 edited
     
    Sorry again!

    I think it must be because its a pdf and not an actual webpage.

    Does this work for you?

    https://core.ac.uk/display/55763760?recSetID=

    Also my browser is set to automatically open any pdf I click on directly in the browser. Some aren't.

    Even more weirdly the original link I made on Khornishman's thread (the mother thread of this one) works perfectly. I created the broken one here by copying and pasting the one I'd just made on Khornishman's thread.

    You will have to forgive me for being just a little confused by all of this!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    As long as you make good maps we can always forgive you for being confused :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Aw, thank you Remy! :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    The link works. As well-deserved punishment for your inexcusable 'confusion' (we all know it was deliberate), you are sentenced to producing either 1492 maps for the Community Atlas, or an absolutely superb Annual issue based on the Ferraris maps.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Goodness!

    I think I'll take the Ferraris style annual option ;)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Oh yes! I just remembered something -

    You know that rocket ship/bow stand/archer on rock symbol? well the alternative key has it as a "vertical pole" with a much larger render, showing that its a kind of.... pole thing. LOL!

    I still haven't got the foggiest idea what it really is, and I can't work out the semiotics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    A pole for pole dancers?
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    LOL!

    For giant women, maybe!

    I'm just going to have to do my best, though it will still look a bit like a blob. Maybe someone will be kind and tell me what it's really supposed to be. I think something has got lost in the initial translation, and the definition in the second key is totally bland. I mean - did the Belgians go around just planting odd looking poles in the ground when they felt like it?
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    OMG!

    Is it possibly a May pole?

    You know - pagan celebration of Spring?
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Yeah. By George, you've got it.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    It's only a maybe maypole.

    I've done a bit of reading since I made that suggestion. Apparently may poles are usually erected the day before the dance and taken down again straight after.

    But unless anyone comes up with a better idea...
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Could it be a North Pole? :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    LOL!

    It might as well be, for all I know about it :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019 edited
     
    Ah ha!

    I have it now.

    The Google translator wasn't giving me the goods because I didn't click on the suggested French phrase. When I clicked on it this time I got "Perched Archery".

    What the heck is that?

    I looked it up and came up with 'Popinjay' - an archery sport where wooden birds are sat along cross-trees on a very tall pole and then fired at with blunt arrows for points scored for hits or knocking the wooden birds off their perches. The sport is little known, but apparently still very popular... in Belgium :)

    Popinjay

    So it looks like I was sort of right by calling it an Archery range, though it would probably be better to call it a Popinjay Pole.

    This might seem like a strange thing to make a specific note of on a map, but thinking about it - the military made this map. It would definitely have been of interest to them that the local population were possibly a lot more capable archers than would normally be expected.
  1.  
    Sue,


    The Groeven/Carrieres fill that you guess as being "caves" is probably for a quarry.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    I thought so too after comparing the examples for a while this morning, and have already replaced it with mines. The resulting key is a blend of both keys. There's nothing much to see by the way of fills and symbols right now, but this is the layout and categorisation.
      new key.JPG
    • CommentAuthorShessar
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Sue, this is going to be a fantastic annual!

    I love that you share your progress with us. It teaches us just how much work goes into the creation of an annual issue and shows what a great value the annuals really are.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    Aw thank you Shessar :D

    I enjoy the interaction and the feedback is valuable ;)
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019
     
    That's a substantial expansion to your earlier key, Sue! It should definitely go into the Annual issue's notes, I think, maybe with some short commentaries on unusual features, like the different gallows/hanging wheels and the popinjay, which people may not be so familiar with nowadays. I'd guess few would be aware of the popinjay's origins, given its popular English usage has nothing to do with shooting or archery, for instance.

    We seem to have lost the various "meadows" though, and also the salt marsh. The meadow-pasture connection is often thought of as interchangeable now at least, if maybe not historically so - i.e. pasture = grazing land, meadow = grassland cut for hay = winter animal fodder (thus there's a difference between relatively short-cropped grass for the first type, and long grass for the second during much of the military campaigning season from spring to autumn). I note though that "weiland" = meadow, but "p√Ęturage" = pasture from the legend; can't be certain if this was from the original texts or modern interpretation though. Salt marsh is a distinct habitat to peat bogs or inland marshlands however, so maybe needs restoring on the key (or is it that only salt, = near-coastal, marshes are shown on the map?).

    As you say, given the military significance of the original, a division of the legend/key of some kind makes sense.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019
     
    I think maybe the Popinjay should be given back its literal French-English translation, which is "Perch Archery", with the added word "pole", so that we get "Perch Archery pole". That way it only needs a couple of words to explain that it is an archery sport that is still very popular in Belgium today, rather than have to explain that the word has more than one meaning in English, with this particular meaning being rather more obscure than the other one.

    Yes, we did lose a couple of the meadows, but the classification Peat bog is the same as one of them. I think that a couple of the classifications in the first key that Khornishman's friend so kindly provided were actually different cartographer's versions of the same hand drawn texture. I'm not sure about that, but it would explain why the second key has fewer meadow fills. I looked for a long time at the stable features of each fill - the number of squiggles and dashes and dots in each line and shape, and the presence or absence of little dashes of colour. Maybe I got a bit confused myself, but there did seem to be only one true wet meadow fill, which is called peat bog in the second key. I only have limited knowledge of the general area to the north of this from a single visit made many years ago when I was a child, but I remember being told all about how much of the low-lying land was once just a gigantic peat bog that has since been drained and become meadow land. Anyway. I will have another look at it today :)

    Marsh and salt marsh. Oh yes! I see now. Yes - the salt marsh got dropped by accident. Sorry. I'll put it back in between Marsh and Mud Flat.

    You know... Its a really good job I have a sharp-eyed and clear-minded friend like you, Wyvern. I seem to get pretty confused when there are more than 50 fills to sort out and the same thing has been called different things between 2 keys :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019 edited
     
    I've had another look at the meadow situation.

    This is a screen shot of the key I am working on (left), and the image of the first key next to it (right). The one I am working on has little square images pasted in from the second key temporarily as place holders so that I can see what I'm working on. I chose the second key for the temporary indicators because they are larger and sharper than the first key. That is all. I have no reason to believe or favour either more than the other. In addition to this there are a few I've already mostly done which are showing my own work instead of either key. These are: Arable, Vegetable gardens, River/Canal, Brook, Lake, and Mud flat. Since the key is being drawn on the same template as the example map, these partly complete key swatches I've done are much larger scale than either of the example keys. They are at 1:1 with the map itself (which is the way a legend should always be done).

    Meadows.png

    As you can see from the vineyard example, the colour of the swatches taken from different parts of the main map is very different. That's what you get when 100 or so different cartographers work together with inks of different dilutions from different makers.

    Bearing in mind this colour variation over the entire map, that makes it doubly difficult to define any two swatches of pasture as being either the same or different. This is especially so when the line patterns drawn in each one are by no means crystal sharp in the original, never mind the swatches each key has extracted from it. (In fact I've had to add a whole map blur of 2 points to the example map to make it look right because digital maps are super sharp)

    Anyway.

    I'm looking at the wet meadow and drained wet meadow, and I'm thinking that the only basic difference is the addition of drainage lines because the colour difference only reflects the fact that those two swatches in the original key were taken from different parts of the map. If you look really closely you can see that the drainage ditches are identical in nature to the brooks - blue fill with a black ink line down one side. Since there are roughly 50 fills to be created for this one annual, I am tempted to use just the one fill for both of these types rather than make two fills where the only difference is that the second one has a drainage pattern built into it. There are also many problems with having a built in drainage pattern in a fill. More often than not the fill would have to be aligned with the local geography to make sense with the connecting rivers and canals, at which point the little meadow marks would be skewed from horizontal.

    What I propose to do is to define 4 new fills. These being:

    - Pasture (or meadow)
    - Wet meadow
    - Marsh
    - Salt marsh

    As to how these might look significantly different from each other in the new annual style to be easily identifiable as different types of land, I think we can use colour as well as line pattern differences, and the fact that both the Marsh and Salt marsh should have little patches of water lying around on the surface.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019
     
    To be honest, I'd be inclined to retain the "popinjay" title for the archery pole, because that word seemed to be THE thing that came up on all my online searches yesterday for a phrasing like "archery target pole", and it still seems to be the word for such an object used among modern archers. You could perhaps call it "Popinjay (archery target pole)" to reduce the need for additional notes beyond the key/legend. I don't feel "Perch archery pole" really clarifies it sufficiently, unfortunately.

    The comparison chart is very helpful, Sue. It looks as if there's scarcely any difference now between the various meadow/pasture fills and the salt marsh one from the original key, though it would make sense militarily to be able to separate them on a map. I can imagine trying to compare the key swatches to the actual map, with all its colour and drawing variations, won't be helping in this at all. Given the differences between the two modern keys as well, you have your work cut-out to make sense of it, I think!

    The pasture/meadow question might be resolved by simply calling the fill "open grassland".

    I wondered what the lines were on the original key's meadow and drained wet meadow swatches. You're right that it's pointless to include these in the fills. Better just to have a straightforward "Brook/Drainage ditch" drawing tool which will work for either type of watercourse, and can be added wherever needed.

    As for the amount of wetland and drained wetland, they don't call them "the Low Countries" for nothing!
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019 edited
     
    Ok. "Popinjay pole (perch archery)" should do it I think. Thanks for doing the research for me on that one :)

    The comparison chart is only serving to muddle me up quite a lot at the moment, since none of the really small details are as visible as they are on the actual map. I've been looking at the first 20 maps on the Royal Library copy for about 5 hours straight now, and I've taken screen shots of my own that show the little squiggles much more clearly than either key. I've also started to realise just how very different each cartographer's style really is. There is more variation in a single fill style than there sometimes is between different fills.

    Even more outrageously I've identified quite a few fills that are absolutely wrong in the second key. The sandy beach it shows is actually the intertidal range of the sea (I found the labels for high tide and low tide either side of that band of pale green). The sand flats between the dunes aren't green at all - they're very pale golden yellow like the base colour of the dunes themselves.

    The peat bog fill is totally wrong. Peat bog is what happens when heathland or moorland becomes saturated. What the second key shows is a very dark patch of some kind of meadow or marsh. I can't really tell because its not sharp enough. All I know is that its actually wrong, because I found a really large patch of peat bog in the middle of an even larger patch of heathland - both things surrounded in turn by various different types of forest and miles from the coast.

    This is the peat bog I've found, beside a more nicely painted example of heathland from a neighbouring map. The blue wash shouldn't be as harsh as that I don't think, but more like the lovely faded washes of the associated heathland texture. Notice how the markings for the tufts of heather are more or less identical between the two fills, and how the saturation of the heather in the Peat bog fill is indicated by the thin horizontal lines between those tufts of heather.

    Key - MINE - Peat bog.png Key - MINE - Heath.png

    Moving away from the rest of the things that are wrong about the second key - the various marks of the lower lying grassy bits.

    This is what I have so far in terms of basic variety in markings. The first was on the coast and on the sea side of the dyke protecting the farmland, so I think it's fairly safe to say that its a marsh. The others I'm not so sure about individually, but they are all the mark variations I can find.

    Key - MINE - salt marsh.png Key - MINE - Wet Meadow.png Key - MINE - Pasture.png

    I suspect the second is a wet meadow, and the third (which covers vast areas of land between the arable fills and the forest fills) I'm nearly 100% sure is the only type of Pasture there really is if you take out the variation between cartographers and ink colours.

    The markings are actually very logical if you look hard at them. Starting right by the water with the salt marsh, those strong and slightly curved vertical strokes resemble reeds. The one I call Pasture has much more scribbly marks that are much more bent over and all joined together - like a stylised scribble. It resembles the kind of rough grass you get in Pasture. Meanwhile the one I'm calling Wet pasture in the middle of those two has aspects of both. It has some of the strong vertical markings of the marsh reeds, but it also has a much more scribbled tail on it that more closely resembles the Pasture markings.

    Going back to the second key...

    Now that I know for sure the second key is not much good on the fills I'm relying much more heavily on the first key provided by the Royal Library via Khornishman's friend - even though the resolution on that one is not as good as the second key. I think this first key is probably better on the fills overall, even though it identifies drained wet meadow as well as wet meadow. I'm looking again at the forest descriptions. These are the screen shots I have of all the different kinds of forest I have found so far.

    The first is what I'm going to call Open deciduous forest, the second I'm calling Dense deciduous forest, and the third is Coniferous forest. I may find more types as I continue to examine the map over the next couple of days. The coppiced fill seems likely, but I'm not so sure the mixed woodland is more than a very complicated section of map where two fills have been mingled together by the cartographer.

    Key - MINE - Open deciduous forest.png Key - MINE - Dense deciduous forest.png Key - MINE - Coniferous forest.png

    In fact I would go so far as to say that the Open deciduous fill should probably be considered a mixed forest/scrubland fill, since the tree shapes are more pointed and more varied than either of the other two fills.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019
     
    Yeah, I didn't like to suggest the two keys might not be complete earlier; it's disturbing there are so many differences to the actual maps though.

    Where there are variants, it would be best to go with those that offer the greatest clarity, I think, given modern map makers will need that (especially for gaming over/with), while still giving an appropriately period look to the whole.

    From that, I think the final peat bog colouring will likely be determined by how it contrasts with other types of marsh and wetland. Not having spent hours poring over the original maps, you're far better placed than anyone to say which is preferable!

    I had vaguely wondered how the tidal ranges might be shown, given salt marshes tend to be tidal as well, aside from the whole low-lying countryside concept.

    It's surprising - or perhaps not so - how similar the various "scribble" marks are to the modern UK OS map symbols for "bracken, heath or rough grassland" and "marsh, reeds or saltings". The first of your "forest" examples is very similar to the OS "scrub" symbol too. Coppicing, at least where still carried out regularly, is a very visible form of woodland management, so it makes sense it would be classed as a suitable landmark.

    Maybe title the forest variants as "wooded scrubland" and then just "deciduous" and "coniferous forest"?
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019 edited
     
    As to why both the keys seem to agree that the marsh should be that strange black squiggly mass I've no idea. Maybe, just maybe, the Royal library slipped up on that one, and the second key makers simply copied the mistake. It is this kind of thing I am trying to avoid compounding by blindly copying their examples. I am looking for my own and taking into account the situation where I find each of these fills - where they are and what's around them.

    Edit: I'm getting mixed up here aren't I. the lovely blue marsh I called Marsh, is probably most likely to be Salt marsh, given where it is. So now I have to find this mysterious black squiggly thing that both keys tell me is marsh.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2019 edited
     
    Yes. I think you might have hit it on the mark with the different types of woodland there :)

    And spot on with noticing the similarities between the detail of the various squiggles here and the OS. The OS was founded in 1791 - only a decade or so after the Ferraris map was completed. It is likely that at least some of the same expert cartographers involved with the Ferraris map were at least consulted, if not employed. Skilled and experienced cartographers were not something that you could find growing on trees at the time, so it is very likely that the Ferraris map makers created the OS styles we know so well today.