Wesmandy is a small country in northwest Uletha, Ingerish-speaking but formerly Caeltig. It shares the “Dihobarth Peninsula” (formerly Bayland) with Ionadàlba (owned by Udilugbuldigu), and we have already worked on some early history together to explain the peninsula’s demographic make-up.
I’m going to try developing Wesmandy a bit differently from most other OGF countries, by mapping the country “as it happened”, starting in around 1450 and then jumping forward in stages to the present day, producing history and geography together as a coherent whole.
Since Wesmandy is not a huge country I’m hoping this approach won’t be too overwhelming, although, obviously, it will mean that for some time it will look like a “chronological anomaly” in 21st-century OGF. I’ll have to see how the mapping goes as far as the level of detail is concerned, and at times I’m going to have to resist the temptation to modernize places before I’m ready.
I will still put some general modern stuff in the Wiki, but obviously there will be nothing which links to specific map locations (e.g. embassies) until those locations exist; and I don’t want to commit to too much modern detail until the historical background is in place.
I’m wondering what to do with roads on my early maps. For example, do I map main medieval routes as primary roads, even though a medieval primary road will be nothing like a modern one, and may be little more than a dirt track? Or do I leave everything as unclassified until the modern age of road classification? The problem with that is that no roads at all will show on lower zooms.
My initial work on the capital, Eskwick, is here
Comments welcome!
Discussion
Comment from Luciano on 21 November 2015 at 09:35
I have done a little bit of historical mapping in this same style in my country Mahhal. I have always tagged roads “as they really were” - thus, they are generally “highway=path” or, for extremely advanced highways, “highway=footway; surface=paving_stones” (cf. Roman roads).
Of course, you’re right, this doesn’t show up well on lower zooms. I guess you have to decide what your priorities are. You might get an interesting render effect tagging everything as “construction” …
Comment from Myrcia on 21 November 2015 at 10:00
This looks fascinating. I like the way the capital is rendered, it’s easy to believe that’s a Medieval city without using highway=track for everything.
I’ll be keeping an eye as it develops!
Comment from thilo on 21 November 2015 at 12:33
If you want to follow OSM standards, there’s a clear answer to this question:
osm.wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions
While obviously there existed no motorways during the middle ages, they nevertheless had primary roads.
Comment from Luciano on 21 November 2015 at 13:18
@thilo thank you for that perspective - that clarifies a great deal. I had never managed to find that particlar bit of documentation before.
Now I don’t have to feel badly that I have primary roads in the western Ardisphere desert that are probably gravel roads.
Comment from Pawl on 21 November 2015 at 14:21
Yes, thanks, Thilo. The standard makes perfect sense. “highway=” for road function/importance; “surface=” etc. for road type and quality.
Comment from bhj867 on 21 November 2015 at 21:13
Have you created a wiki yet on the caeltig language?
Comment from BMSOUZA on 21 November 2015 at 21:42
Usually, when I create roads no longer in use, I use “highway=track”, “tracktype=grade1” and I put a name in this road, as I did in Goytakanya…
Comment from Pawl on 21 November 2015 at 22:03
I’ve started a wiki page on Cambric (Welsh). Since Devnunic is a dead language, I wasn’t planning to do a Wiki page.
I’m assuming that the OGF Caeltig language family looks like this:
Brethanic group - real-world Brythonic (British)
- Cambric (Tircambry) - rw Welsh
- Devnunic (Wesmandy : extinct) - rw Deunansek (extinct) / Cornish (southwest England)
- Pechtish (Ionadàlba) - rw Pictish (northern Scotland : extinct)
Gaelig group - real-world Gaelic (Irish; but spread to northern Scotland)
- Eirie Caeltig (Pretany) - rw Irish
- Ionadàlban Gaelig (Ionadàlba) - rw Scottish Gaelic
Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 21 November 2015 at 22:32
Looks great Pawl. Definitely something to build on - but a lot of work for a medium sized, populatied country! Maybe assume that many of the small scale mediaeval stuff has since been overlain by simpler patterns. But I’m afraid that is probably not the case in the real world e.g. places you may know Caernarfon. So perhaps the very oldest layers of the palimpsest have to be the most ‘crooked’. One suggestion is to give the first towns and villages a ‘standard format’ as per a Roman fort or a ‘Knight Venturer’ castle. Then use this as a template for each town and build from that. It depends how organised the system was - because the Roman system was so highly structured the forts were all pretty much the same set-up, but mediaeval England was a hotch-potch. Some examples: Caernarfon osm.org/#map=17/53.14087/-4.27701 and Chester osm.org/#map=16/53.1925/-2.8956 which have the new on top of the old. (Chester being build partly on the Roman fortification plan I think, Caernarfon - well you know about that, no doubt Edward II etc). The roads tags, would be fine - primary, secondary etc, if they were ‘Roman road’ types, but historically I would suppose that most roads were probably much more sinuous, so would require a different level of detail than more modern straighter, faster roads. There would be tracks and paths as well as roads, which do render very differently, as they should. They woould often be replaced by new roads, and the paths would fall into disuse - or be overlaid - but that all depends on the system that superimposed themselves on them, and how recently it happened. In England, of course, the enclosures were a fundamental change that is very clearly seen in the maps. There would also be more small-scale coastal and river traffic (depending which rivers are navigable? There would definitely be more relation to natural features in terms of locations of settlements, transport routes. Defensive situations like rock outcrops might be very important - like Edinburgh rock.
bhj867 I think the people are ‘Caeltig’ but the languages are ‘Gaelig’ . Those languages would probably be the OGF analogue of Scots Gaelic (Gàidhlig) and Irish Gaelic? So the names would probably be ‘Gàidhlig’ and ‘Gaelacha’? No wiki for the Gàidhlig na h’Álba - yet - spoken in Eilean na h-Òige off the north coast of Ionadàlba and in a few places on the mainland. I also talked with Pawl about possible routes for spread of the Gaelig languages - see particularly http://opengeofiction.net/wiki/images/thumb/4/44/W_ULETHA_CAELTIG_c400CE.png/200px-W_ULETHA_CAELTIG_c400CE.png . Though should that be ULETHA GAELIG ? We can discuss more.
Comment from joschi81 on 22 November 2015 at 12:42
Looks great! Hello, northern neighbour! Want do discuss the Wesmandy/Kalm border a bit? We can continue this as PM. But right now I want to say: For me it’s important to have the main railway connections continued into Wesmandy and Inondàlba. The main line from Pern (a city that will be renamed soon) via Battnay to the border could continue to Eskwick, following the rivers (with some tunnels within Eskmoor mountain range. The other line via Rekant to the border should continue via Darlmouth and Plemouth into Inondàlba. But I imagine your country will have a few more national and regional railway lines. As for the topography within our common border region: I like how you started. I imagine the landscape flat or hilly near Vinn Sea and with some “middle mountains” up to maybe 800m at the eastern part of our common border.
Comment from Pawl on 26 November 2015 at 07:04
Sorry for the delayed response - I’ve been very busy this week, and sadly neglecting OGF!
@Udi - This is looking like a lot of work, and I have yet to see how much detail I go into. I’m guessing that the 15th century population is about 1/10th of the modern population, i.e. c.250,000, most of it rural, so at least there aren’t too many towns and cities, and none of them is large. The harder job will be bringing them forward to the 21st century, but I’m hoping that will be easier and more realistic than building a “modern old” city on a blank canvas, although it will take longer if I jump through several points in time.
@Joschi81 - Yes, we can discuss the border in PM. Are you thinking of “squiggling” the boundary somewhat, to get rid of the straight lines? I agree with your railway suggestions, but mapping them will have to wait until I get to the 19th/20th centuries! As for topography, some mountains in the inner border area work for me.
Comment from EMKLI on 26 November 2015 at 21:16
Hi!
This is a really interesting approach! And of course, it really makes the “storymaking” of your country much easier - and as a benefit, you have “as it was” maps from every era. I’m thrilled to follow your country’s development.
Greetings from the other side of the Vinn Sea, Markus