Author Topic: Community USForum Map - Rev #334 (Read 753569 times)

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2280 on:** February 09, 2014, 04:09:08 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117180'.

tuto99 · « **Reply #2281 on:** February 09, 2014, 05:09:00 PM »

Given.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2282 on:** February 09, 2014, 06:42:13 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117183'.

Naru523 · « **Reply #2283 on:** February 10, 2014, 12:57:54 PM »

added hitroni commonwealth label

we need to seriously stick with the file naming

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2284 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:07:52 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117203'.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2285 on:** February 10, 2014, 03:19:55 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117207'.

Darvince · « **Reply #2286 on:** February 11, 2014, 07:48:30 AM »

That looks like a population density map of Australia combined with Japan

Bla · « **Reply #2287 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:45:09 AM »

Before people start going too far with the population density layer, we need to consider how we want the layer to work? What does it even mean that a pixel is red? How many people live per square km or whatever?

I think we need to decide that, and that we need to pick a spectrum of colors with some defined ranges for the colors. The current layer doesn't really hold any other information than "I want a lot of people to live here". It doesn't inform you about the actual population density.

Did we ever decide the radius/size of our planet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

If we intend there to be roughly the same number of people on this planet as Earth, I'd suggest these colors, the numbers to the right being people per square km:
Black (RGB 000,000,000): <1
Blue (000,000,255): 1-4
Cyan (000,255,255): 5-16
Green (000,192,000): 17-64
Yellow (255,255,000): 65-128
Orange (255,128,000): 129-256
Red (255,000,000): 257-512
Fuchsia (255,128,255): 513-2048
White (255,255,255): >2048

Also I think for a sort of similar reason that the coast part on the coastline layer is problematic. To me it would make more sense to extend the height map to the sea, so it includes a sea depth map, that could display shallow areas like the coastline color. The current coast color doesn't really say how shallow the water must be to be considered coast or not.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #2288 on:** February 11, 2014, 12:13:40 PM »

do we have a cities or supranational organization layers on the map yet?

also i second bla

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2289 on:** February 11, 2014, 01:05:49 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117221'.

vh · « **Reply #2290 on:** February 11, 2014, 01:13:44 PM »

the circumference is 40960 km, making the radius 6519km

Bla · « **Reply #2291 on:** February 11, 2014, 01:41:32 PM »

I suggested the spectrum because I think it seems the most logical way to utilize all the colors, either starting from black, then going through all the wavelengths, and at last going to white, or reversed. We could also reverse it or use another system, however I personally prefer unpopulated to be black. I can't really say much about what works best for unpopulated areas when you only include the color you say works best for unpopulated areas and not any other colors for comparison.

I have tried to make a very simplified map using the spectrum and based on it I'd prefer black to be unpopulated.

A quick alternative spectrum could also swap black and white and use something like these colors to blend in the ends.

Idk how we'd show water on the map, but my suggestion would be a shade of gray, light if unpopulated is white or dark if unpopulated is black.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #2292 on:** February 11, 2014, 01:56:53 PM »

i think population should be more a scale of white (unpopulated) through yellow, orange, red, and then darkening to black (or a dark red), and water being a mid or light gray

but that's just personal preference i dont think a rainbow scale is very intuitive with the many hues (at least without blending, which we probably wont be doing)

Bla · « **Reply #2293 on:** February 11, 2014, 02:03:54 PM »

I think the problem with smooth blending is that you'll quickly lose sense of what the pixel value actually means and make it very hard to calculate whether the population maps end up making any sense when compared to the populations we claim our countries have.

I'd have no problem with a scale with fewer colors and ~equal number of intermediates to choose from, and I think white, yellow, orange, red, black could work very well, but I don't think we should make it a scale with more than about 10-20 values.

tuto99 · « **Reply #2294 on:** February 11, 2014, 02:23:47 PM »

Personally I don't like the idea of such a color scheme for the population density map. I think it should be in different shades of red or some other color. I see no problem distinguishing shades of one color (which was a point that was brought up by Fiah on the irc, and I saw no problem using one color for the elevation map as well), and I think it's better to use ONE color for the sake of simplicity. I don't like different colors being represented in the same sort of data.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2295 on:** February 11, 2014, 03:56:23 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117228'.

Darvince · « **Reply #2296 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:14:13 PM »

what about colorblind people we should use one tone

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2297 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:33:41 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117230'.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2298 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:44:57 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117231'.

vh · « **Reply #2299 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:47:32 PM »

30,000 looks too similar to 10-100 and 100-500

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2300 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:52:00 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117234'.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #2301 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:48:10 PM »

fiah scale is good (idk about the numbers)

vh · « **Reply #2302 on:** February 11, 2014, 06:35:10 PM »

not when you compare them side by side fiah, but when they're not touching it becomes more difficult to distinguish. really, i think it's strange because the colors are getting more intensely saturated from right to left and suddenly you have this soft shade of purple which looks really strange

atomic7732 · « **Reply #2303 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:18:10 PM »

wunderground hurricane colors do that for cat 4/5 (very similar colors actually)

vh · « **Reply #2304 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:20:35 PM »

then they have a bad color scheme

Darvince · « **Reply #2305 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:56:13 AM »

well vh are you colorblind?

atomic7732 · « **Reply #2306 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:59:54 AM »

the lighter pink does look more intense because although it is lighter, the hue is different

Bla · « **Reply #2307 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:13:54 AM »

I find the shift to pink to be a bit odd, if it had to shift to something I'd go with yellow or to a darker shade of red and then black.

I'd also change the white value to be <1 instead of <0.5. When looking at the color codes for intermediates they also seem a bit random. I propose either of the below versions based on it.

Darvince · « **Reply #2308 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:25:55 AM »

Second one.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2309 on:** February 12, 2014, 01:04:24 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '117256'.