Misunderstanding about maps

I searched the forum, and I haven't seen a response to this question.

According to OAR:

Despite its marginally smaller size, Safehold was also a bit more dense than mankind’s original home world. As a result, its gravity was very nearly the same as the one in which the human race had initially evolved.

Trying to get a feel for the differences, I measured the length of Safehold's equator on the map at: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/images/Safehold_MTnT.jpg

Unfortunately, using the scale provided on that map, I only get an equator of approximately 16,550 miles, which is considerably less than approximately Earth's 24,800 mile circumference, and that is NOT marginally smaller. Which leaves me with a couple of possibilities. 1) The map in question is imcomplete - and that there is approximately 8,000 miles of equator that isn't shown. Since that's a third of the world, I'm not real thrilled about this interpretation. 2) is that the scale is wrong, but that would indicate that the distances quoted are low by about a third, and that the scale shown should read about 2600 miles instead of 1900 miles. 3) is that I don't understand what is actually happening, and of all the choices I like this one the best. Any suggestions?

fallsfromtrees wrote:3) is that I don't understand what is actually happening, and of all the choices I like this one the best. Any suggestions?

Not that I haven't had a similar thought but I think this is the winner.
I always have issues with maps in books and have recently decided that my madness must stop and I must NO LONGER use a micrometer and a book map to determine the likelihood of an action or some such in a book. This has allowed me to overanalyze other areas of my favorite books ad infinitum. My best to you in your struggles.

JP

Personally, I have never liked the maps, I always tried to reconcile what I read to what I saw on the maps of the world and it never made sense to me. Other than handwavium, why would anyone, even someone as lacking in wit as Lord Malikai attempt to attack Charis via Armageddon Reef? So I have decided to just ignore the maps, at least the early ones.

Keith

Malikai was, of course, an idiot. He did not understand the difficulties in sailing that far, in that season and in such inferior ships. But he was also obeying orders from the Church and his King. Both Thirsk and White Ford knew the plan was stupid, but they also obeyed the orders.

That's not handwavium. It's partly unthinking loyalty and obedience to an entity that does not deserve it. And partly fear of the Inquisition and the Punishment.

Keith_w wrote:Other than handwavium, why would anyone, even someone as lacking in wit as Lord Malikai attempt to attack Charis via Armageddon Reef?

Keith

I tried the massive map that was made available on this site with MT&T. On it the legend for 1900 miles fits 13 times at the equator giving a circumference of just under 24000 miles. That would fit the description in OAR. I think a lot of early iterations of the map run into the same sizing problems that led Honorverse to the great resizing.

Hi FallsFromTrees,

Congratulations!

You were right with all three choices!

Yes there is an unmapped gap on the world maps in some of the books and online.

Yes the scale is off for the first book etc.

Yes, we don't understand what is going on!

Given the distortions of a flat 2D representation of a 3D surface, distortions are inherent, but to simplify things RFC has said the normal polar distortions expected on a Mercator type map don't apply to the maps of Siddarmark in MTaT and LaMA etc, which can get considerable over ~80 degrees going north.

I use text supported geographic standards, like Tellesburg being just under 1300 miles [I use 1296 miles for easy divisibility] from the equator, or RFC telling us the narrowest gap between the Jahras and Hankey Bays is only 252 miles etc.

Part of your problem might be that the equator is ~3/16" above the middle [did you notice?], ie closer to the north than the south, though as I've previously pointed out the north could be simply more boring indiscernible arctic continent [no seas to mark], that was just deleted to provide us more clarity for the important human inhabited parts.

Kudos if you get a further clarifying answer from RFC!

L

fallsfromtrees wrote:I searched the forum, and I haven't seen a response to this question.

According to OAR:

Despite its marginally smaller size, Safehold was also a bit more dense than mankind’s original home world. As a result, its gravity was very nearly the same as the one in which the human race had initially evolved.

Trying to get a feel for the differences, I measured the length of Safehold's equator on the map at: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/images/Safehold_MTnT.jpg

Unfortunately, using the scale provided on that map, I only get an equator of approximately 16,550 miles, which is considerably less than approximately Earth's 24,800 mile circumference, and that is NOT marginally smaller. Which leaves me with a couple of possibilities. 1) The map in question is imcomplete - and that there is approximately 8,000 miles of equator that isn't shown. Since that's a third of the world, I'm not real thrilled about this interpretation. 2) is that the scale is wrong, but that would indicate that the distances quoted are low by about a third, and that the scale shown should read about 2600 miles instead of 1900 miles. 3) is that I don't understand what is actually happening, and of all the choices I like this one the best. Any suggestions?

Hi Ksandgren,

The "Great Resize" in the Honorverse referred to the warships in the honorverse being too light for their size and apparent mass [over 2Km long etc if you check the early textev], ie they were apparently less dense than air, so at least a dozen years ago if I remember right, they were downsized to be denser as befitting warships filled with 5-6000 very heavy missiles, engines, and all sorts of heavy equipment, etc.

L

ksandgren wrote:I tried the massive map that was made available on this site with MT&T. On it the legend for 1900 miles fits 13 times at the equator giving a circumference of just under 24000 miles. That would fit the description in OAR. I think a lot of early iterations of the map run into the same sizing problems that led Honorverse to the great resizing.

fallsfromtrees wrote:I searched the forum, and I haven't seen a response to this question.

According to OAR:

Despite its marginally smaller size, Safehold was also a bit more dense than mankind’s original home world. As a result, its gravity was very nearly the same as the one in which the human race had initially evolved.

Trying to get a feel for the differences, I measured the length of Safehold's equator on the map at: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/images/Safehold_MTnT.jpg

Unfortunately, using the scale provided on that map, I only get an equator of approximately 16,550 miles, which is considerably less than approximately Earth's 24,800 mile circumference, and that is NOT marginally smaller. Which leaves me with a couple of possibilities. 1) The map in question is imcomplete - and that there is approximately 8,000 miles of equator that isn't shown. Since that's a third of the world, I'm not real thrilled about this interpretation. 2) is that the scale is wrong, but that would indicate that the distances quoted are low by about a third, and that the scale shown should read about 2600 miles instead of 1900 miles. 3) is that I don't understand what is actually happening, and of all the choices I like this one the best. Any suggestions?

This is the best overall map currently provided, although it still needs to be updated to take account of new features revealed in LAMA, AFAIK.

There are actually 2 scales on that map; the red and white one indicating 1900 miles at the bottom of Carter's Ocean, which you seem to be using, and another more detailed one indicating 1000 miles in the Markovian Sea just East of Midhold Province in Siddarmark. The one in the Markovian Sea gave me an equatorial measurement of about 23,600 miles and also seems to fit in with a few distances I have checked in the text in the past. Within reasonable error limits for measuring on screen the red and white scale and the other one are compatible, the former is maybe a tad too long. Can I suggest the answer may be
4) you measured or calculated the equatorial size wrongly?

Probably the best way to handle the maps is not to take them too seriously. I know that MWW fanatics like to micrometer stuff, but therein lies the path to insanity.

I personally just try to trace where things are relative to each other in the story line and then leave it at that.

Don

n7axw wrote:Probably the best way to handle the maps is not to take them too seriously. I know that MWW fanatics like to micrometer stuff, but therein lies the path to insanity.

I personally just try to trace where things are relative to each other in the story line and then leave it at that.

Don

We also have to take into account the fact that the map is left intentionally vague to allow RFC to have a better idea later if it occurs to him.