Interested in the fact you've also used the contours in a different way to how they're usually presented, where the standard system runs: land - green tidal - darkest blue - lighter blues - white, with as many other white contours as may be needed for still deeper areas after that (as described in the Marine Maps PDF mapping guide, for instance).

This isn't a criticism, as I found exactly the same issue when constructing one of my Errynor maps for the Community Atlas last year using this style (we'll get to that going into the Atlas in a few weeks' time, all being well). It felt counter-intuitive to start with dark contours and progress to lighter ones to me, but as I was dealing with the lightless ocean deeps, I have to say I felt no qualms about simply swapping things around, though I decided against using the green contours, and no land (as none of it breached the surface where I was mapping).

I think my favourite discovery was playing around with what could be done with the contour labels in this style, as they'll take text as well as numerals, which meant I was able to label my map using both feet and metres for the contours without needing a key for it.

Yeah, that's looking a lot better. The fill for that area of "internal" rock still looks "reversed" compared to the rock surrounding the complex though. I'd be inclined to move the cross-section further left, so it's not cutting across the first of the depth labels too.

Typo in the last line of the story text "the," instead of "then", I think.

That desaturated, almost "dried blood" look for the built-up areas might have interesting possibilities for those wanting to map in the expanded Ravenloft setting recently published for D&D too...

Ralf did suggest at the end of the stream that there might be some additional symbols forthcoming for this style, so aside from the obvious "Yes Please!", I'll hang fire on suggestions until Sue sets up a discussion for that, I think.

Great live stream, as usual, in case anyone's thinking of catching it as VOD afterwards.

Thanks folks!

@Quenten: The height measures are up from a nominal solid surface zero, just like a land-based map. The PDF/text description should clarify that in the Atlas.

The map was designed the way I'd expect a sea-dweller to think - i.e. just like a land dweller. We don't measure distance down from the "top" of the atmosphere, after all. Gravity still operates at the bottom of the sea, and that's the only place for fixed settlements and markers to exist, for instance, so I don't see any reason why such imaginary folks would think differently.

The angled contour labels are done exactly the same way they are on modern land maps, as it helps clarify which way is "up" for some folks. So yes, they are meant to be - and will remain - that way. It may not help your argument that I don't have a particular issue with reading them whichever way they are (lifetime of map reading and drawing, I suspect!) 😁

Although the Aak Hills map uses the Marine Maps style, that's as far as it goes; I had no intention of mirroring the conventions it represents, because that's based on purely land-dwellers' thinking, and this is intended as a sea-dwellers' map after all!

Can't recall if I already made some suggestions elsewhere, as I know I've been advocating any - and now clearly more! - undersea symbols and mapping options for some time. Aside from the ongoing batch of Community Atlas undersea maps I've been posting about here, that is. Ironically (of course...) I'm currently mapping an area of "my" bit of Alarius about as landlocked as possible!

The edge striping makes an interesting feature on the map, but it is much too dominant - compare with the mountain sizes, for instance. I've not done much experimenting with this kind of striping, but I'd suggest reducing the number and visual strength/density if you decide to retain the effect.

Is the structure intended to be open to the air, or is it meant to have a roof? The internal shadows work nicely for the first option, but not the second (internal wall shadows are too strong). Also, the interior doors appear to have no shadows.

As this isn't a dungeon, some of the structural features don't work too well. The two enclosed spaces without access-ways need rethinking, as do some of the wall-narrowings where there are doors. They're both abnormal constructions because they're wasting building stone unnecessarily. Now you might say that the layout has to be this way for religious reasons, which would be fine, though in reality, things like the enclosed areas would end up with at least some rubble in them, and a lot of plants growing there, unless someone goes in very regularly to clean them out. By climbing over the roof or along the walltops, down and back, lugging everything they've cleared away with them. So not a popular job then...

The group of trees seems oddly lonely, unless there's some specific reason why there are so few in just one spot. In a swamp setting, that really wouldn't be likely, again, unless someone's deliberately, and very regularly, clearing the other greenery away.

Great-looking map now! Do we also get the Undercroft map at some stage?

Probably too late, but that's a big kitchen for just four people - three acolytes and one high priest, counting the beds. As there isn't a refectory-equivalent, maybe there should be some chairs and a dining table in the kitchen as well? And maybe also a door to the outside, as the route in means bringing all the food through the chapel.

Not sure about the off-axis Great Frog statue in the chapel alcove, given such things tend to be the focus of worship, not quite so tucked-away.

Maybe switch the secret treasury entrance to the passage nearer the high priest's chamber, rather than in the too-accessible chapel?

And what do the folks here do for lighting (no windows)?

So disappointed not to see a kitchen garden as well 😁😉

Hope they have good damp-proofing on the Undercroft (swamp, and all...) 🐸