Very top left corner -- quite literally, a clutch of eggs.

It really is beautiful, and I think you've done a masterful job of combining symbols from different styles in ways that compliment each other rather than clashing.

I love how ProFantasy teaches me so much about geography -- the latest being the differences between mesas, buttes, and plateaus. I never took a geology class in school (the town where I lived in for middle school taught it in high school, but then I moved and the town I lived in for high school taught it in middle school). So here's my crash course!

Will there also be cliffs?

This is a clever approach and it looks very nice. I always learn so much when cartographers share their tricks and techniques. Thank you!

I mentioned this on your FB post, but I love Spectrum for overland because of the diversity of mountains, hills, and trees, and how well they also work for both large overland maps as well as smaller isometric scenes.

I like that idea very much. I use the Adjust Hue effect a lot when I need the same fill to be a bit lighter or darker in different places, but it’s helpful to have a range preexisting in the fills.

Oh, the biggest change is that Ricko's image didn't have sheet effects turned on. I turned them on before making a JPG.

I decided with this one to create JPGs of every step of the way to document the process. I'm only one step two (rivers) and I am already seeking input from the Cartography Hive Mind.

I decided to copy my land over from when I had rendered it in the Fractal Parchment World style last month. That style has the rivers as a cutout, but because Birdseye Continental has the rivers on the same sheet as the oceans, they both have a similar effect in that you can overdraw the rivers past the coastline without it looking funny.

But first I made a copy of that FCW, simplifying it by removing unused sheets and layers, changing the fills to solid colors instead of fills, and then deleting all of the fills. That way when I copy the landmass into new FCW files, it minimizes what it brings in and I won't have a lot of extraneous or confusing fills and sheets and layers that I won't need or want.

Here's what that simplified map looks like:

So I created my new Birdseye Continental map at around 6,000 x 4,000 miles, changed the map size to be 24,960 x 12,495 miles, added the Sea over the green land, and then copied over the land mass from my little template. Changed my land to be a magenta cutout on the Waters (All) sheet. So far, so good.

Then I copied in the rivers and used the Change Like Draw Tool function to change the rivers to the Birdseye Continental style. And that brings up my aesthetic question for all y'all. The rivers in Fractal Parchment Worlds have a default width of 24. (!!!) The default width in Birdseye is 3.

To my mind, 24 is too wide for this map, but what do you think about how 3 looks? Should I bump it up a little or leave as is -- or even delete rivers that would be too small to represent on a 25,000 mile wide map?

For perspective, there is only one river in our world that gets up to 24 miles wide (the Amazon), and only eight that are three or more miles wide: Congo (15), Yangtze (8), Mississippi (7), Paraná (6), Mekong (5), Brahmaputra (4), and Ganges (3).

I know this is supposed to only be the major rivers, and having this many rivers that are 3+ miles wide is rather pushing it. Even so, I'm thinking about (a) leaving them all in, and (b) keeping most of them at 3, while bumping up a few of the really major rivers of this world, but I am very open to everyone's thoughts. I will add this last map to my galleries if you want to be able to zoom in a bit.

Agreed! Thank you for the suggestion. And once I add more vegetation and other features, there won't be so many large stretches of the grass.

There's this button on the right side of the screen.