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.

That 22-foot Roman Empire map is the Peutinger Table, aka Tabula Peutingeriana, and the Wikipedia page includes a high-res complete image of the whole - may take a while to load, however, as the full-size JPG is about 15 MB. This is the direct link to that Wikimedia image.

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.

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.

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!