You asked if I had any other fills that we've not already identified. Here is a section of Ghent. Notice the variance in how some of the buildings with property are shown. Even the gardens look very different if they are in fact gardens at all. I've also indicated a different defensive work, as I think you showed a ravelin on your legend, but the one here looks to be a bastion.
Posted By: LoopysueUmm. I'm just a little confused about these varying degrees of wetness, especially since the fill on the right in my last post is only different from the pasture fill I identified earlier in terms of it being much more blue.
Assuming that we have several degrees of wetness here, I can do them all, but what do I call them?
And here's another one I found that I've temporarily called Mature salt marsh. So we have at least 3 different types of salt marsh - possibly more than that. I think we need to sort out a range - a way of ranking them in terms of wetness/density.
I'd just go with "marsh" for them all and let the customer select which one they wish to use. Perhaps just include in the notes with the annual that there's a lot of visible variation and we're speculating on what those differences might have been. It is very likely that there's something written in Dutch or perhaps even French from someone who was living about that time, who would have indicated, perhaps only in passing, the terrain, but again we'd only be guessing, ourselves.
The defensive works will not be symbols. Most probably they will be polygons with several sheet effects - bevels, glows etc. Their exact shape, whether bastion or something else will be drawn by the mapper. It has to be that way because there is just no way that an adequate number of symbols could be created to cover all the possible shapes. To do that alone would take a couple of months in itself.
As for the difference in building colours - I have no idea why that is. What map number is Ghent?
FWIW, regarding the defensive works, one symbol for each would do, being that the map maker would then rotate the symbol to suit their needs, but of course it is your call.
What do you make of the diagonal, have you already made an assessment of it? I see it in #60, but am not sure what it is supposed to represent, although it appears to be a transition between types of ground, I am wondering if it is some kind of escarpment or other unusual feature.
Marsh discussion - Khornishman, would you be happy with this idea: that I did all the marsh fills, but only showed one or two of them in the Legend so as not to completely drown the Legend in marshy bits?
Posted By: LoopysueMarsh discussion - Khornishman, would you be happy with this idea: that I did all the marsh fills, but only showed one or two of them in the Legend so as not to completely drown the Legend in marshy bits?
I am happy just having the style upcoming.
I just figured that instead of you having to further research exactly how each of the marsh fills was different, to just make them available and let the users decide what works for them.
And to answer your question, your proposed solution would be perfectly fine with me.
I'm going to continue searching the rest of the Ferraris map for fills. I'd like to find those coppiced and mixed woodland fills and judge for myself if they really exist - bearing in mind that they both came from that second legend.
Ghent buildings - It looks like red for brick construction, and the other (brown?) is for wood construction. There may be a color for stone construction as well.
I just ran across those both, today. Somewhere towards the center-left of the map, but will look again on Monday. I've the flu and am going back to bed.
Stay in bed, Khornshman! No map is worth a person's health and wellbeing. Stay as long as you need to. Thanks for the tip off about those fills. Get well soon, but don't get up too soon
Pvernon - I think the red is both stone and brick. The reason for this is that red crosses, windmills, gallows, bridges and towers are all indicated as being stone. Wooden versions of all these things are black with dark brown shading. I've no idea what the fawn buildings are. Maybe we need more information on that. For now I am concentrating on the fills.
Continuing to search for the coppice and mixed woodland...
Broke off the search for today to start practicing the ink shapes for the Pasture fill. This is the first attempt. I think I am doing it too carefully. More practice!
[Image_13363]
Here is the same part of the extract for comparison.
[Image_13364]
The fill I was working on is more powerfully green than the original, but I am taking all the different colour variations into account across the entire map in the hope of getting a nice average.
Your marks in the fields are like quotation marks, while the ones in the original are more connected squiggles. That, of course, is all technical jargon! lol! It looks really great, however. This is going to be an exciting Annual.
That was first go at the Pasture fill, and I had a go at the Meadow fill on the right side of the map as well. I think that one is possibly a little better.
For the marshes and their variant appearances, maybe settle on a single fill style/colour of the commonest form (or maybe a couple if there is too much variation), and then provide some separate symbol options to add the line-drawing vegetation features separately, rather than trying to make them all part of the fill.
Looking at the examples, while some seem to be simply "shorthand" = quicker variants for covering large areas, a few have the apparent precision of extracted items from real field-mapping surveys; that is, where someone has noticed and recorded actual variations in how the vegetation appeared when they were there (it's something we were encouraged to use when being taught field mapping techniques at university). Of course at this remove in time, it's impossible to be sure.
As for the coppice, to my eye the coppice sample on the second key looks very like the open forest on the first. I'd have guessed mixed forest might be more likely in the hilly Ardennes area towards the SE of the mapped area, but a quick check of a few maps there has drawn a blank so far (couldn't even find any obvious areas of coniferous forest there).
I've resolved the marsh fills and ended up with "Wet Meadow (flooded at high water)", "Salt Marsh plateau", and "Salt Marsh". I haven't found any others that are significantly different to those three, which are shown in that order below.
[Image_13369] [Image_13370] [Image_13371]
I was originally going to do the markings separately as symbols and not incorporate them into the fills at all, but the example map is already running a little slow because of all the bush and tree symbols. And the Ferraris style has an abundance of little trees and bushes. I can't do the hedges and lines of trees as fills, so the terrain will have to be a full texture each time to allow for them.
I will have another look for the coppice again, now that I have satisfied myself that I can actually draw these fills with a bit of practice (they will be better than that when I'm done with them), and I've already found the coniferous forest here.
I found the exact patch of 'coppice' woodland used in the second legend in map 108 earlier this morning.
[Image_13378]
I would be able to believe it, if only that entire section wasn't as covered with the exact same texture where you might expect to find the wooded scrubland or deciduous forest fill. I think this 'coppice' is actually this particular cartographer's interpretation of how to draw woodland in general.
I'm going to remove that one from the legend for now.
The example map is finished apart from the changes that will happen over time as the fills and symbols are perfected. However, the example map only contains a very small number of all the fills and symbols that will be available in the annual, so here is an update on the legend. Where the fills and symbols are named in black the image in the box has been done to at least the stage of 'first draft'. Red labels indicate work that has yet to be done.
[Image_13379]
Having just posted this, I realise that I have actually done the hedge and row of trees, but forgotten to add them to the key.
Now, the question is, should this be included in the style? For myself, I do not think it all that necessary as for any maps that I will be making will only care that it is wooded, not that it was coppiced woods. Looking at where that fill is used on the map, I am thinking the artist did mean coppice, but that may be due to the influence of the second legend and the article that went with it, being that the academics who wrote it would know about the coppiced woods (or very likely to know it).
As for the mixed woods, I saw those on the east side of a city/town, with a river running along the southern side or even perhaps through it. I also saw the left edge of the map as I was starting to zoom out, trying to figure out its relation to the segmented map, but when I went to zoom back in, I lost it. I THINK I was somewhere in the neighborhood of map 100 or thereabouts.
I have to disagree on the coppice diagnosis, since the basic shapes of the fill are the same as the mixed woodland. Its just distorted by the style of that particular cartographer. Anyway - its no longer on the key, and I agree with you about the lack of need for it in any case.
I've found the mixed woodland. There's just that one small patch of it that I can see, but it fills a gap in the key so I will add that back in.
If coppicing was actually shown on the maps, I'd have expected it would be a lot more common than has turned out to be the case, given the central importance of such woodlands for numerous human agricultural and tool-making practices, and relatively concentrated around the settlements because of that. Glad you'd managed to resolve it as almost certainly over-zealousness on the part of the modern authors, regardless.
Salt Marsh Plateau's presumably salt marsh that's a bit higher/further inland than "ordinary" salt marsh?
Comments
You asked if I had any other fills that we've not already identified. Here is a section of Ghent. Notice the variance in how some of the buildings with property are shown. Even the gardens look very different if they are in fact gardens at all. I've also indicated a different defensive work, as I think you showed a ravelin on your legend, but the one here looks to be a bastion.
As for the difference in building colours - I have no idea why that is. What map number is Ghent?
Marsh 1
Marsh 2
Marsh 3
etc
What do you make of the diagonal, have you already made an assessment of it? I see it in #60, but am not sure what it is supposed to represent, although it appears to be a transition between types of ground, I am wondering if it is some kind of escarpment or other unusual feature.
I just figured that instead of you having to further research exactly how each of the marsh fills was different, to just make them available and let the users decide what works for them.
And to answer your question, your proposed solution would be perfectly fine with me.
I'm going to continue searching the rest of the Ferraris map for fills. I'd like to find those coppiced and mixed woodland fills and judge for myself if they really exist - bearing in mind that they both came from that second legend.
I just ran across those both, today. Somewhere towards the center-left of the map, but will look again on Monday. I've the flu and am going back to bed.
Pvernon - I think the red is both stone and brick. The reason for this is that red crosses, windmills, gallows, bridges and towers are all indicated as being stone. Wooden versions of all these things are black with dark brown shading. I've no idea what the fawn buildings are. Maybe we need more information on that. For now I am concentrating on the fills.
Continuing to search for the coppice and mixed woodland...
[Image_13363]
Here is the same part of the extract for comparison.
[Image_13364]
The fill I was working on is more powerfully green than the original, but I am taking all the different colour variations into account across the entire map in the hope of getting a nice average.
That was first go at the Pasture fill, and I had a go at the Meadow fill on the right side of the map as well. I think that one is possibly a little better.
[Image_13368]
Looking at the examples, while some seem to be simply "shorthand" = quicker variants for covering large areas, a few have the apparent precision of extracted items from real field-mapping surveys; that is, where someone has noticed and recorded actual variations in how the vegetation appeared when they were there (it's something we were encouraged to use when being taught field mapping techniques at university). Of course at this remove in time, it's impossible to be sure.
As for the coppice, to my eye the coppice sample on the second key looks very like the open forest on the first. I'd have guessed mixed forest might be more likely in the hilly Ardennes area towards the SE of the mapped area, but a quick check of a few maps there has drawn a blank so far (couldn't even find any obvious areas of coniferous forest there).
[Image_13369] [Image_13370] [Image_13371]
I was originally going to do the markings separately as symbols and not incorporate them into the fills at all, but the example map is already running a little slow because of all the bush and tree symbols. And the Ferraris style has an abundance of little trees and bushes. I can't do the hedges and lines of trees as fills, so the terrain will have to be a full texture each time to allow for them.
I will have another look for the coppice again, now that I have satisfied myself that I can actually draw these fills with a bit of practice (they will be better than that when I'm done with them), and I've already found the coniferous forest here.
[Image_13372]
Rob
[Image_13378]
I would be able to believe it, if only that entire section wasn't as covered with the exact same texture where you might expect to find the wooded scrubland or deciduous forest fill. I think this 'coppice' is actually this particular cartographer's interpretation of how to draw woodland in general.
I'm going to remove that one from the legend for now.
Still looking for the 'mixed forest'.
[Image_13379]
Having just posted this, I realise that I have actually done the hedge and row of trees, but forgotten to add them to the key.
Hopefully it will look even better once I've replaced all the Ferraris snapshots with new fills and symbols.
I understand your reasoning on the coppice. However, coppicing was used in forests East of Brussels (Bruxelles #76) for a certainty. Check the link here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298796547_500_years_of_coppice-with-standards_management_in_Meerdaal_Forest_Central_Belgium
Now, the question is, should this be included in the style? For myself, I do not think it all that necessary as for any maps that I will be making will only care that it is wooded, not that it was coppiced woods. Looking at where that fill is used on the map, I am thinking the artist did mean coppice, but that may be due to the influence of the second legend and the article that went with it, being that the academics who wrote it would know about the coppiced woods (or very likely to know it).
As for the mixed woods, I saw those on the east side of a city/town, with a river running along the southern side or even perhaps through it. I also saw the left edge of the map as I was starting to zoom out, trying to figure out its relation to the segmented map, but when I went to zoom back in, I lost it. I THINK I was somewhere in the neighborhood of map 100 or thereabouts.
Your legend, for a first draft looks good.
Glad to see that you are on the mend - I hope.
I have to disagree on the coppice diagnosis, since the basic shapes of the fill are the same as the mixed woodland. Its just distorted by the style of that particular cartographer. Anyway - its no longer on the key, and I agree with you about the lack of need for it in any case.
I've found the mixed woodland. There's just that one small patch of it that I can see, but it fills a gap in the key so I will add that back in.
[Image_13381]
If coppicing was actually shown on the maps, I'd have expected it would be a lot more common than has turned out to be the case, given the central importance of such woodlands for numerous human agricultural and tool-making practices, and relatively concentrated around the settlements because of that. Glad you'd managed to resolve it as almost certainly over-zealousness on the part of the modern authors, regardless.
Salt Marsh Plateau's presumably salt marsh that's a bit higher/further inland than "ordinary" salt marsh?