Moderator: Cartographers
I'm asking myself that exact same question. I feel like everyone went out for an extended smoke break and haven't returned.Vlasov wrote:Well, how long does it usually take for the XML to be tested?
I know, I know, but trust me this happens every time to every map.ironsij0287 wrote:I'm asking myself that exact same question. I feel like everyone went out for an extended smoke break and haven't returned.Vlasov wrote:Well, how long does it usually take for the XML to be tested?
I agree. It muddles it up without having a discernible border all the way around especially when the LA inset has a full border.melech14 wrote:I havn't read through all the posts, but whenever I look at this map I really dislike the Bay Area inset; it is quite strange that it abuts the coast. It should be seperate and with the dark border all the way around.
Tell me, do you freak out when the corn on your plate touches the potatoes?ironsij0287 wrote:What if you angled the right side border of the Bay Inset inward so it ran sort of parallel with the coast of the state? That would allow you to nudge the state back to the left a little bit.
I do. Better than the one with the cut-off inset.The Bison King wrote: I do not think this looks better.

It's much worse in my opinion and here's why I think so:natty_dread wrote: I do. Better than the one with the cut-off inset.


Well, the Insets are enlarged, and I have enlarged the Bay area inset even more since the version on the front page. I haven't tried it with digits yet (since this has all been done today) but I'm sure there'll be a lot more room this time, when I get around to testing it.natty_dread wrote: Also, someone brought up a good point imo, of the insets not being much more zoomed in than the areas on the map... and at some places, the insets themselves seem a bit cramped - isn't the point of insets to make room for things? You have room to zoom in the insets, so it could be something to consider.

