[GOVT] Cartography

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm not sure how large this is designed to be printed but much of the text is hard to read which would not make it an accessibility-friendly document. We should mindful of diverse experiences when producing materials.

Taps the sign.

[xpb]

I will obtain the coordinates of the homesteads on Cézembre for addition, general layout was with what3words.com there may be an iteration later than this I will look for https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2368.msg19561#msg19561

[King Txec]

This is gorgeous.

-Txec R

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

The map is looking really cool, thought I have two (perhaps minor) problems with it:

1) The map currently depicts a corner of the Milwaukee Inner Harbour south of the river as part of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, and also assigns the watertower as being entirely within M-M territory. Those should probably be changed.

2) I know you got these spellings from statute law but oh my god seeing all these different spelling conventions hurts my soul. Would it be feasible to get all the cantonal and provincial names up to the current standard? (The database already does that, for example)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't know about changing the spelling... I feel uncomfortable revising the historical names of places just because language has changed over the years.  Isn't it cooler if they are a product of their times?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I don't know about changing the spelling... I feel uncomfortable revising the historical names of places just because language has changed over the years.  Isn't it cooler if they are a product of their times?

The names themselves haven't changed, just the way they are written down, specifically how many and which specific diacritics are used. I would just like them to be standardised in some way, because right now they aren't -- for example, your own noble title writes "Vilatx Freiric" in the modern way rather than the statutory way. Is no one else bothered by this?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I just spent hours on this all day and didn't even notice.  But the diacritics are all part of the way the names have evolved, right?  They have different historical markings with diacritics because Talossa has changed over the decades.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

But the diacritics are all part of the way the names have evolved, right?

The names didnt really "evolve", they were given at one point and are still pronounced the exact same to this day. The spelling has been changed at least 2 times in the last 20 years to be more sensical, and I think it would make the most sense to extend that newfound sensicalness to toponyms as well. The only type of names that I wouldn't want to force-modernise are personal names.

They have different historical markings with diacritics because Talossa has changed over the decades.

To be honest, I don't really understand why some names are written with diacritics and some aren't. The name "Florencia" predates the 2007 spelling reform, yet was still changed to match it. Maricopa's cantons follow the 2007 spelling even though they too probably predate it. "Dún Cestour" was partially modernised ("Cestoûr" was changed to "Cestour"), but not fully (Dún was not changed to "Dun"), which I can only assume to be a mistake. "Fiôvâ" and "Las Înaltàns Maxhéstici" are distinctly post-Reunision names (in fact they're just Talossan phrases literally meaning "River" and "the Majestic Heights"), and yet theyre spelled according to the 1996 spelling rules -- I suppose because Republicans disliked the 2007 reform?
EDIT: Just checked, and it turns out "Maxhéstici" was never spelled with a diacritic even in 1996. So that too must've been a mistake.

My point is, it's not so much historical preservation but rather the usual case of non-Ladintsch legislators never bothering to update spellings and correct mistakes. For another example of this, see "Cosâ" and the until recently grammatically incorrect name for the Zuavs

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You make a really good case! Okay. I'm kind of done with this for right now, but I will fix of the endless array of tiny marks on the names at some point this week. Yet again, diacriticals prove my greatest enemy.

So it's Cosa with no accent, right?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

So it's Cosa with no accent, right?

It's Cosă with the Romanian A. It's late for me, so I will post a list of all the modernised spellings sometime tomorrow, maybe.

In the meantime, I checked the 2010 census reference maps for Milwaukee and found out the canonical border between Fiova and M-M:

It's kinda strange. It's much smoother that it "should" be... I'm not sure if the road they used for demarcation even exists.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

This is an excerpt from the 2020 census reference map:


Again they depict the relevant border as a smooth curve, as if the transition from N Lincoln Memorial Dr to I-794 was seemless. Is it seemless?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Tafi, I wanted to save you some trouble, so I tried my hand at the diacritics.  I think these are the ones that needed to change: Fiovă, Florenciă, Fluvia Montevudio, Cüfeir, Las Inaltans Maxhestici, Vilatx Freiric, and Dun Cestour?  We don't use that circled I at all or some of the accented Es, right?  I edited my bill to fix the old spellings in other places, too.

Also, I did some investigation of that border.  There's an onramp that it seems to be following, which is weird.  I think that legally I am more correct, since the tracts were the basis for the law but not the actual law.  If I were to have the map follow the onramp, we'd need to change the law to reflect what are in effect new borders and a change in territory, I think.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Tafi, I wanted to save you some trouble, so I tried my hand at the diacritics.  I think these are the ones that needed to change: Fiovă, Florenciă, Fluvia Montevudio, Cüfeir, Las Inaltans Maxhestici, Vilatx Freiric, and Dun Cestour?  We don't use that circled I at all or some of the accented Es, right?  I edited my bill to fix the old spellings in other places, too.

Heres the full list of changes:

Flúvia Montevúdio --> Fluviă Montevudio
Cüféir --> Cüfeir
Las Înaltàns Maxhéstici --> Las Inaltans Maxhestici
Florencia --> Florenciă
Sandadia --> Sandadiă
Taglheiria --> Taglheiriă
Zuerieiria --> Zuerieiriă
Ovestia --> Ovestiă
Vilátx Fréiric --> Vilatx Freiric
Dún Cestour --> Dun Cestour
Fiôvâ --> Fiovă

Everything else stays the same.

Also, I did some investigation of that border.  There's an onramp that it seems to be following, which is weird.  I think that legally I am more correct, since the tracts were the basis for the law but not the actual law.  If I were to have the map follow the onramp, we'd need to change the law to reflect what are in effect new borders and a change in territory, I think.

Considering that the canton borders were originally defined in terms of census tracts, it would be in the spirit of the law to follow the onramp. If that requires a change to the letter of the law, so be it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Tafi, I wanted to save you some trouble, so I tried my hand at the diacritics.  I think these are the ones that needed to change: Fiovă, Florenciă, Fluvia Montevudio, Cüfeir, Las Inaltans Maxhestici, Vilatx Freiric, and Dun Cestour?  We don't use that circled I at all or some of the accented Es, right?  I edited my bill to fix the old spellings in other places, too.

Heres the full list of changes:

Flúvia Montevúdio --> Fluviă Montevudio
Cüféir --> Cüfeir
Las Înaltàns Maxhéstici --> Las Inaltans Maxhestici
Florencia --> Florenciă
Sandadia --> Sandadiă
Taglheiria --> Taglheiriă
Zuerieiria --> Zuerieiriă
Ovestia --> Ovestiă
Vilátx Fréiric --> Vilatx Freiric
Dún Cestour --> Dun Cestour
Fiôvâ --> Fiovă

Everything else stays the same.

Okay, I give myself a C+ for my list.  That darn Romanian a!

Also, I did some investigation of that border.  There's an onramp that it seems to be following, which is weird.  I think that legally I am more correct, since the tracts were the basis for the law but not the actual law.  If I were to have the map follow the onramp, we'd need to change the law to reflect what are in effect new borders and a change in territory, I think.

Considering that the canton borders were originally defined in terms of census tracts, it would be in the spirit of the law to follow the onramp. If that requires a change to the letter of the law, so be it.

I'm okay with it the way it is, I think.  If we do transfer that territory, then we can handle that then.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

On the water tower, M-M law states: B.2. Maritiimi-Maxhestic rightfully claims the Historic Water Tower, but also recognizes Vuode's claim to the water contained within the Tower.

But I know Vuode has not recognized that, and national law trumps on this one, so realistically I think the thing to do is split the tower and then add a note to the places list (which will also be funny).

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I'm okay with it the way it is, I think.  If we do transfer that territory, then we can handle that then.

Is it really a territory transfer if that's what the border was meant to be all this time? If anything we're just properly specifying it.

EDIT: 43RZ27 explicitly states that Las Inaltans Maxhestici consists of "Port Maxhestic west of North Lincoln Memorial Drive (the portions of US Census Tract 1874 within Talossan territory)", and the eastern border of US Census Tract 1874, as I've previously shown, follows N Lincoln Memorial Dr, then the onramp onto I-794, and then I-794 proper until it reaches the southern border. It would be silly to ignore this explicit reference just because current statute is underspecified, and there is no good argument to prefer my previous guess at the border over this specific reference either. Reinforcing the border as originally defined is not a territory transfer in my opinion.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

There's an onramp that it seems to be following, which is weird. I think that legally I am more correct, since the tracts were the basis for the law but not the actual law.

Current law (from 48RZ30) defines the eastern border of LIM Canton as "N Lincoln Memorial Boulevard". It does not go into detail one way or another about the offramp.

Therefore it does not override the previous law, 42RZ37, which defines the border as the 2010 US census tract border, which, by your own definition "appears to follow the offramp".

Therefore, it's the offramp.

But can we have maps made up of both alternatives so we can see how much territory we're actually taking about? I have no desire to create Talossa's equivalent of Liberland.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It's like... 3 acres, I think? It's a very tiny amount of land.