In terms of what you want to put into your write-ups for the Atlas, that's entirely up to you (within any existing constraints that previous mappers may have set for the region). I tend to go with things that interest me, either that I've developed in the past, or had as ideas previously, or that have been suggested by rolls on random tables (or similar RPG mechanics). You may find those ideas also come to influence changes in how the maps look though, so beware 😁!

With the Elven village map, the linking aerial walkways seem both a little too wide, and much too grid-rectilinear right now. The latter aspect jars with the far more free-and-easy surface pathways, and while the nature of the walkway symbols means they will always be less curving, their long straight tracks don't look so good to me right now. It may be worth experimenting too with some scattered trees/bushes around and even under the walkways (some are long enough they probably need support from below of some kind, for instance), as well as between the arboreal buildings. Tree houses really shouldn't be all that easy to spot, although mapping often brings compromises that aren't wholly realistic, of course.

That's a shame, but you could still use it as a hex highlighter for key locations, much as the Ancient Realms and Modern Journeys styles do with circles.

Depending on what line thickness you're using, you may get a better result drawing a separate arrowhead polygon and placing it on your line. The automated arrowhead lines can look pretty unappealing, because sometimes the line-end extends beyond the tip of the arrow, as if it's been blunted.

So pretty, I hardly like to mention anything!

But as you asked...

1 & 7 - should they both be "Oberman", or is 7 actually "Obeman"?

Also, should the fields maybe have some kind of edging - fences, hedges, or even ditches - to keep the pedestrian herbivores out, and maybe some paths leading to them too. Those to the north seem a little detached currently.

I might be inclined to name the bridges as well, though that's probably just me 😁.

Thanks very much folks!

I explained how I'd arrived at this in the first post here earlier, and also why I'd opted to draw it this way (which is also why I've been sticking with a B&W style for all these maps too).

The essential points though, extracted from that linked topic, are that the style is the OSR Dungeon one from Annual 97, and that: The dot-shaded look was achieved first by laying down a base smooth polygon using the "Stones" fill texture, and then adding random selections from the two "Gravel" symbols over that on a separate sheet, all placed by hand, which allowed variable densities of such shading nearer the outer wall lines, and within the design, where rock pillars had been left in the Mirror Maze section particularly. The Stones texture had to be rescaled in the drawing to better fit the size of the Gravel symbol dots, which was pretty straightforward, and the whole does give quite a nice hand-drawn-like look to the shading.

Naturally, all I did here was to repeat that for this map. This time, I did get to play around with some of those textures for a genuine bit of the outside, as well as some plants, on the ledge to reach the front doors, however.

You should always map the way you want to, and you don't need to justify that to anyone except yourself!

Might be worth thinking of some variants for many of the "commoner" symbols too - if it really was hand-drawn, none would be the same, after all, so the option for a few variants would be useful.

The whole concept does look amazing!

I'm not sure about the shadows on the symbols, however. It's rather breaking the illusion for me, as they wouldn't be there on the real thing. Or rather they might be, but in a different way - where the drawn lines are all slightly indented into the paper surface.

Can the paper colour for the sticky notes be changed easily? I know there are some sticky note pads in colours other than yellow now, so that might be interesting to explore as well - maybe the boss chamber would be more helpful on a pink/red sheet, for instance, as a GM's reminder (again if this were the real thing).

Geology! You can find an explanation for any landform that way if you hunt long and hard enough (speaking as a once-upon geologist)!

It can be difficult sometimes to tell what a much larger area map is really showing when you start to drill down to try and provide more detail. I often look at things like symbol titles and fill/drawing tool names where there aren't more detailed map notes (and I discovered at least one earlier Atlas map where the map notes were hidden off to one side of the map - by quite some distance, and on a hidden layer; I assume this was before things were standardised to have the text-file map notes attached separately, and as a PDF in many cases).

In the end, it's best to design what seems interesting to you that doesn't contradict whatever was shown on the larger regional map, which pretty much seems to be what you have done!