Gardensa: changes in the map (Verisimilitude).

Posted by eleinads on 29 January 2018 in English (English). Last updated on 30 January 2018.

After the public presentation of Gardensa and its capital Giliarca, some days ago, I received a lot of very interesting considerations by many of you. So: now I’ll I will anticipate the changes that I will bring in the map of my territory in acceptance of these observations.

The main issues were: the position of a big city in the tip of a thin peninsula, with two kind of consequences: human (enemies attacks), and natural (hurricanes and floods), and the unnatural course of the Indaco river, in the center of the peninsula, with a last unjustified turn to the west before the mouth

Well, I must premise that the position of the city in the tip was from the first moment a choiche taken with awareness: it has been one of the reasons behind the choice of this specific territory. And in the discussion in my last post, indeed it has emerged that this fact in itself is not contrary to the principle of likelihood. So, that will not changed.

But, about specific details, most of your critical observations are more than correct: the position of the city of Giliarca needs to be more credible. And so also the course of the Indaco river.

So I tell you now the changes I will bring. Of course you can suggest some “corrections to corrections”.

But please note that what I’m going to write, and the graphs illustrating this, are simplifications: in the actual changes I will modify every detail: roads, railroads, smaller cities etc., and especially taking into account the domino effect, so each change produces others, until it returns to an overall coherence.

1) I’ll map a mountain in the peninsula, near the city of Roghela. (obviously in OGF, likein OSM, is not possible to map altitudes, but I’ll give the perception of the mountain). change01

2) The source of Indaco River will be in this mountain (I will find a compatible altitude, but it does not necessarily have to be very high). Lower hills can be on the western side to give the direction to north. change02

3) A mountain (better: a pointed rock hill) will be located east of Giliarca, between the city and the ocean. This will explain three things: the position of the city protected from enemy attacks from the ocean, and protection from winds, currents, floods and hurricanes (in fact the city lies on the closed sea in the west), and the turn of the river to the west. (Obviously the airport runways will be rotated to have the landing corridors). change03

4) Some islands will make contact between the peninsula and the ocean less direct (another form of reparation from natural threats) change04

5) Last modification: a mountain near to Storonia will make possible a further river that will bathe the north of the forest. And the south course of the current Indaco River, by another name, will end up in the ocean with a much more natural course. change05

Now you will make these changes effective. Of course you can make all the comments you want, reporting details to be taken into account.

Location: 12.136, 61.824

Comment from wangi on 29 January 2018 at 15:17

Your dropbox images are not loading

Comment from eleinads on 29 January 2018 at 15:47

I changed repository; now it works.

Comment from louis_walker on 29 January 2018 at 16:04

This looks great. Again, I don’t think there’s anything unrealistic about your city being on the tip of a peninsula, so adding a protecting mountain only strengthens its defensive position. Being located on a distinct landmass makes it a more likely place for colonists to establish themselves since it sets them apart from indigenous tribes, which is important for Gardensa given what you’ve written about conflict between the Darcodian settlers and the native residents of the area.

The other issue that was raised in your earlier thread was the A1 tunnel—the more I have looked at it, the more I have wondered why the huge expense of a tunnel was taken on, rather than building a road around the edge of the city at the time. Not saying it couldn’t or wouldn’t be done, but since it stands out, I wonder if there is an interesting story there that could tell us more about the Gardensans. It is certainly a great engineering feat to build a 4km tunnel directly under an historic city!

Comment from eleinads on 30 January 2018 at 11:03

Louis, thanks for your words.

At the moment, as previously announced, I am modifying the territory on the peninsula, to make it more realistic (see the new mountains and the new shorter river course).

About the A1 tunnel, I will certainly improve it. At the same time I was thinking that the same reasoning of the airport can be applicate to the tunnel too: now it looks like an oversized engineering work, but because the city is not yet all mapped (we are 40-45% of the final extension of the fabric urban). When the whole city will be mapped (I would say in August 2018), a 4 km tunnel that leads directly to the business center, passing under the old town (expensive but certainly achievable even in real world), will make more sense.

Comment from louis_walker on 30 January 2018 at 14:07

Just to clarify, I don’t think anyone (myself included) would say that a tunnel of this length is impossible — we certainly have the technology. My question was more about the cost. There are two factors that make this tunnel unusual, I think: first, the fact that it runs under an existing, urban area, and the fact that it is completely straight.

The reason this is unusual is that tunneling under a building is extremely expensive, even if you are relatively deep down. The deeper you go to avoid causing damage to buildings above, the more complicated it gets to build the tunnel, and then ventilate it once it opens, increasing long-term costs. There are certainly very long urban tunnels, but they typically follow existing rights-of-way above them (en existing street, usually) to avoid having to deal with tunneling beneath private property, which is inevitably verrrry unpopular with the property owners no matter how much they might benefit from the finished tunnel.

As far as I know there’s not a direct comparison in the real world; the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels are, as you noted in your earlier post, straight and both about half the length of the A1, but they also run under a river, not the city—so no buildings to bother overhead (or, more to the point, building owners to sue, haha).

Again, I’m not saying it’s not possible or that you shouldn’t map it, just that it is unusual, so it will always raise questions that you might want to have answers ready for. :)

Comment from eleinads on 30 January 2018 at 18:03


So, good observations.

I must say that, in the name of the likelihood, I am also willing to cancel the A1 tunnel, or to shorten it, but I am simply not yet sure to do that. I want to deepen again.

However, some replies to what you wrote. You say: “The reason this is unusual is that tunneling under a building is extremely expensive, even if you are relatively deep down. The deeper you go to avoid causing damage to buildings above, the more complicated it gets to build the tunnel, and then ventilate it once it opens, increasing long-term costs. . But here a point really is not clear to me. All these objections are formulated as if it were not already normal to dig kilometers of tunnels under the cities, even under old towns. These are the subways, which we all know well, that require not a tunnel of 4 km, but dozens of kilometers under the buildings.

The difference is that the tunnel of the A1 is a road, but all the objections that you have moved on costs, should also apply to the metroolitane. So, I really ask you (because maybe you’re more experienced than me): for what reasons, if a tunnel under a historic center is road and not a subway, costs increase?

All this for the problem “costs” in absolute terms. If you mean the “costs” in a relative sense (relationship with the size of the city) I ask you to wait until the city of Giliarca is over.

About the fact that it is straight: the reasoning was that, when a tunnel is excavated, the purpose is precisely to avoid the curves. However, if a tunnel with curves is more realistic, I will modify it (I will study better all the existing underground tunnels).

Finally, about the fact that it is unusual: it is perhaps true, but we are also careful, in evaluating the cities in OGF, not to be “more realistic than reality”. I think that in all the great cities of Earth there are works that, if we saw them in OGF, we would reject them saying “no, they are unreal”. The Channel Tunnel? Impossible, too deep. The Metro in Rome? Impossible: the historical buildings over it would collapse. The city of Tokyo? Impossible a metropolis like this in a seismic area. The LHC at the CERN, 27 km of diameter? exaggeratedly sci-fi. The Akashi Kaikyō Bridge? Impossible: too long! The Burj Khalifa? Simply far-fetched.

What I support now, is that the Giliarca tunnel is more normal than these works. It has features that are not together in any existing work but that are present in various works, and putting them together does not produce something unusual: tunnel under the historic center like a subway, underground highways like the Lincoln Tunnel

Having said this “in my defense”, the speech is still open, and the Giliarca Tunnel could be also removed: beyond my ideas, I would like the perception of reality to prevail on the part of those who see the map of Giliarca.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 30 January 2018 at 18:59

Useful discussion - please continue any discussion in the forum here so that we can come back to it in future.

Comment from louis_walker on 30 January 2018 at 20:35

Ok, I’ve posted my response to the questions about [ why tunnels under existing buildings would be more expensive than tunnels under streets in the forum here].

That being said (and linked to) –

@eleinads I want to say again that I don’t think that you couldn’t or shouldn’t have the A1 mapped as-is; just that it is an unusual feature that may require some additional information. I would hate to be mistaken for a member of the “That Isn’t Perfectly Realistic So You Can’t Do It” camp…on the contrary, I think that the most interesting things about places are usually the most unusual. But part of the reason that they’re interesting is that they typically have a good story behind them. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t exist…there would be something unremarkable (“usual”) in their place. I am not saying “unusual” in a negative way, I mean that it is just not the typical thing you would expect to see.

The fact that the Burj is in the middle of the desert is unusual—and the reasons behind it are a big part of why it’s interesting. They tell us a lot about the way that our society was structured at the time it was built (the importance of oil, the rise of the Emirates, economic competition in the east, et al).

All of that is to say, please don’t feel a need to “defend,” as I am not intending to offend, but to inquire. Part of the reason OGF is so much fun is that we can find interest in each others’ work and want to learn more about it. It’s a storytelling platform as much as it is a mapping project. Giliarca is a beautifully mapped city, and I want to find out more about how it was built.

So to wrap up, I’ll reiterate my most important point, which is that your mapping of Giliarca is great—so much so that, because I see something in it that seems out of the ordinary to me, I am inspired to want to learn more about how it got to be that way. :)

Comment from eleinads on 30 January 2018 at 23:30

I answered in the forum

But do not worry: my “defense” was meant in the sense of friendly confrontation!

Ah, now I’ll work on the Giliarca wiki paghe, where there will be all the necessary context information!

Comment from newflanders on 1 February 2018 at 03:30

Great job Eleinads, I really like the way you map. Your capital looks amazing. Really like its “italian” style and your planes to modify the topology of the peninsula seem very interesting. Funny to see we use the same technic to show the different levels of altitute. Anyway, you’re really inspiring.

Comment from Portopolis on 1 February 2018 at 06:24

I want to also add to Louis walker’s point. Gillarca is easily more beautiful than any city I have ever created. My main objection is the highway vs. subway argument. Maybe it’s because I live in America, but here when two highways meet for example just the meeting of these two highways can destroy an entire historic neighborhood and create an isolated neighborhood that could become a ghetto.

My main problem isn’t that the road is there, but that it is designated a highway. I know you mapped your highways significantly closer to each other than the above image. But I feel like if it isn’t say three-four lanes or more in an urban setting the road should be labeled a trunk road or primary road even if it has the limited access characteristics of a highway. In more rural areas I would label a two by two lane road a highway but not anywhere in the city and the center at that. Again this is just my personal feelings, and also as louis said the pain it would be to dig under historical cities such a large tunnel the amount of private property etcetera. If it was built under a river, road or parkland it too me would look more realistic but again as louis said it is the little unrealistic things that make a city truly make sense.

Comment from eleinads on 3 February 2018 at 18:47

Following all the elements that emerged in these conversations (see also the forum), I changed the tunnel in Giliarca. Now it is no longer straight, and passes only partially below the buildings; It passes also under green areas or under existing roads.

About his classification as a highway, I’m considering whether to declass it (I just need to think about it a bit: we consider that the Lincoln Tunnel is also tracked in OSM as highway ). On this you give some time to think about it and maybe we’ll come back later.

Login to leave a comment