The question of scale is a particularly hard one to answer. Its maybe over-ridden by other - possibly more important - questions: why would a capital city be located here; how did it develop over time; what’s the topography, climate, culture…

I’d also say that what you’ve mapped so far could be at any scale - without the details its not really possible to say.

I mean (I should have specified) in reference to your fjords or sea lochs, rather than the whole coastline. Should these really be bumpy? The coast is the interface between sea and rock/sediment. What you’ve been mapping on the topo is the development of landform mostly dictated by erosion and responsive to a series of faults, yes? To get into some detail about how those faults have developed, we need to go back in time - only a few thousand years (accepting that historic time in OGF ran in the same was as RW time ran…). Basically, we need some ice.

There is probably an equation that links volume of ice in an ice cap to the smoothness of the sides of a glacial valley. In your examples there - the North coast and the Moray coast are not glacially eroded coastlines - perhaps they are something like your coastline west of Epulekulepeulejupekituti (nice word). Loch Linnhe is maybe the better replica for most of your fault related features, since it’s a classic glacially-eroded faultline. Yes, I admit that there are parts of the coastline even there that are quite bumpy (I think the bumpier bits are related to granites, the smoother bits are on metamorphic rock). I guess if you made your whole country granite, it could indeed be bumpy all over. But perhaps that has implications for agriculture… and fault lines.

Anyway, to meander back, I think what I’m saying is: contrast is good; super-fratalisation is good. But wavy/bumpy coastiines (although easier to map) are not found all over, only under specific conditions. For the fjords, some quite straight sections are acceptable and probably would help the overall feel. Its really just a minor criticism because the rest of it is so good!

Very nice indeed! Love it. Don’t make the coastlines too ‘bumpy’ though - rather very fractalised or not so much.

You’re free to do what you want with the coasts - and no, the bay wasn’t always there (i.e. it was added quite some time after the continent was created).

To me it looks at the moment like something inbetween a fjord and a rift bay. Is that possible? I don’t know, but I’d be inclined to make it look like either the one or the other - there is quite a sharp distinction. Its not necessarily a resizing you’ll need, but definitely getting the detail of the topo right will help you tweak that. You’re right - it’s very difficult to make a big fantasy map from scratch. Though it may be even harder to retrofit a map to something that has pre-existing inconsistencies. Your lines showing fault alignments look very logical to me but I’m not sure they’re compatible with the coastline in that big bay.

It’s the right approach - great start! Only, isn’t the fjord/rift/thing in the centre of the country much too big?

Well, OSM doesn’t really map this kind of thing, like you say - you have to ‘go beyond’, so look at other sources like aerial photos. And you could map more natural features. Perhaps something like this or this (but hopefully with more detail)?

The two features - coastline and meandering river - are really nice. But they don’t work well together. Look at some examples of where a meandering river meets the sea, say here, and you’ll see that the coast will have a river mouth and will have smooth edges. The rough coast like you mapped might be better suited to an area away from a large river, where there is some hilliness, say like here.

Like Luciano says, if you do make your own alphabet or script - or want to use an open source one from somewhere like fontstruct (assuming its one with no restrictions) - you still won’t be able to use it in OGF. The way this is set up, only unicode fonts are rendered on the map. Even then, not all unicode is rendered, and there are some differences in what’s rendered on standard, topo and histor layers. Is there a work around? Possibly. You could try mixing up unicode symbols to come up with a unique font. It kind of works - I did some mapping with this technique a while ago but have overwritten it since - but I found some problems: it changed when the render got updated, so things that looked ok before then didn’t.

But if you’re mapping with an ‘Asian theme’ wouldn’t you use an Asian alphabet anyway?

Aw - I only got a mosque added (unusual denomination).

Bridges should be where needed. Not at wider points where shorter crossings are available. Not at the mouth of a river. There are also probably too many bridges over a river this wide for the size of the settlement and the grade of the road. Probably the downstream 4 should be removed.

Yes, good start.

Scale - depends how big you want it to be. Looks ok?

Good site for a city. Old cite near the river mouth or on the peninsula, but mostly modern? Bridges are not all in the right places. Needs some detail - for realism, work bottom up.

OMG its almost like being back in the FSA.

Doesn’t look much like a map of Texas. Too much, yet not enough. Better than lots of places though. And lots of it pest free. Like Texas?

Comment on the road names: why?

Perhaps its the history element you need to think about. A certain planning style would be prevalent at a certain time. Pre-revolution parts probably unplanned (unless redesigned after revolution, which is possible - but that would leave traces). After your revolution, parts of the city built at the same time on the same model should be similar.

I think you should have a plan before you start detailing. You need to know where the different styles are going to fit in. If you start that work now, you’ll just be adding more details to something that isn’t right.

Then, to fulfill your stated goals: (state) banks, recycling centers, monuments etc….

@ Rustem: nice co-incidence. In Akna Ssai language, ‘asu pan kupi’ means ‘compose field poem’ - the ‘L’ was stuck on the front to make it something like ‘Las Panchitas’ (or something - since there’s no native ‘l’ sound). But yes, some forest will be sold, mister, no doubt.

Send me a message if you want a consulate space allocated you.

@ zhenkang - “islets”? should I take that as an insult, spoken in desperation by a totalitarian dictator? These are “high islands”! Those names aren’t really eccentric, they’re taken from the native language - the syntactic rules in that language dictate the spellings (well, usually). Some of them are simple translations but I admit some others just pop into my head (and then I try and work out why - Tarkeny Barkham anyone?). I have plenty more names to be added when I get to grips with the (il-)logic of the place.

@ Alessa - oh yes.

@ Rhiney Boi - I wait for ‘Grownupesccan’ to appear…

A mini icebreaker - you mean like this?

Be careful not to do to much. Parts of Älved are already way better than Neberly (which I don’t find very realistic anyway) or Ingerland.

I’m not sure that you can resolve the realism of the mountains in your own country when that has to be linked to what happens in the country next door.

If you get the detail right at zoom 10-11 you won’t need to worry about zoom 8-9. Your work’s pretty outstanding, so I’m sure you’ll succeed in what your trying to do.

One of your boundary members was duplicated - I’ve fixed it.

Lógicamente, si nombres como “New Swansea” y “New Dublin” ya existen ¿porque no “Nueva Tenochtitlán”?

Logically, if names like “New Swansea” and “New Dublin” already exist, why can’t “New Tenochtitlán”?

Si hay una regla, esta debe aplicarse de manera justa y transparente.

If there is a rule it has to be applied fairly and transparently.

Del mismo modo, si “Ingerland” y “Latina” existen, ¿por qué no “Aztequistán”?

Likewise, if “Ingerland” and “Latina” exist, why not “Aztequistán”?

Los nombres no son el mayor problema en este mapeo: es necesario estudiar mapas reales mucho más. Necesita mucha práctica

The names are not the biggest issue in this mapping: it’s necessary to study real maps much more. It needs a lot of practice.

I like your basic ideas - at last, a new country that isn’t just a mini-USA! A note for your consideration: this island, or at least its location, is among the least believable in the OGF world. In the real world there are very few large islands located in continental bays like this one, perhaps just Hainan island. I would guess that’s due to the tectonic processes that have driven the development of the continents and islands. Real islands tend to be stretched out in arcs or isolated.

On the conlang - at least it has vowels and a more-or-less recognisable script.