jm6087 wrote:

tonestertm wrote: The directly adjacent colors for SWR and SCR are quite similar, no?

I agree, I would suggest switching the colors between one of the two with either NER or MAR, so the colors are more obviously different.

I would suggest switching SCR with SER to put the blue between the two "orange"s. Also, maybe switch GLR with NOR or NER, since NOR/NER are similar colors.

jm6087 wrote:

ldriveskier wrote:

jm6087 wrote:
I agree, I would suggest switching the colors between one of the two with either NER or MAR, so the colors are more obviously different.

I would suggest switching SCR with SER to put the blue between the two "orange"s. Also, maybe switch GLR with NOR or NER, since NOR/NER are similar colors.

Much easier solution. I was probably over thinking it

Ha, I actually wanted to rearrange more, but figure it is more my OCD speaking at that point.

Kartografer wrote: This image was built using MapChart. I rebuilt some of it with some color switches and lightenings, and I moved the abbreviations to places that look a little better and more legible, even if they are not at the centers of the colored areas. I guess the SER color became the NER color. It was hard to figure out anything different while keeping 11 unique colors. Yeah I know you only need 5, but, at least to me, this shows how each region is its own region... I guess. As long as the pixel dimensions and places of each region remain the same, there is no rework of the link polygons in the image map. How does it look?

That link just goes to a generic map, not whatever you're working on (but, now we know the secret ).

Kartografer wrote:I know, I can't save it there. Gotta download and work up locally

I misread and assumed you wanted us to look there for your current colors, rather than on your wiki page from an earlier post. It looks better in terms of colors that are next to each other, but muting them all would be better (less painful to look at). I would also suggest splitting ATR like the original map, so it doesn't look like all of the Territories are in the Pacific.

Kartografer wrote:OK, muted and split

Better, thanks.

I don't supposed you could define the lines between the states better than that light grey? Maybe a darker grey like the current map?

You only really need five (four plus one to be sure the territories stand out as their own thing): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem

In general, I'm good with it. Of course, it's hard for me to read that ancient text and not want to do some wordsmithing.

Suggestions on the map (thank you for the rework!):

I understand that the TLAs are placed at, essentially, the centroid of the given region. The NWR location was the first thing that threw me, but I understand why it's where it is.

I'd like to suggest, for readability, that "GLR" be scooted down just a bit, so that it sits entirely over color, rather than having coastline underneath.

I'd like to suggest that "SER" be scooted up just a bit, for aesthetics.

In both cases, I think it's pretty clear that the " land extensions" belong to the given region.

Not much we can do about NER, I'm afraid, but the coastline there does interfere with readability, as well.

The above are assuming that this won't play some sort of havoc with the image map - I didn't look to see how this image was constructed.

The directly adjacent colors for SWR and SCR are quite similar, no?

Even more minor ticky-tack: the colors for SER and MAR could maybe be lightened a little, to provide better contrast with the letters? These colors are significantly more saturated than the original ones.

Then, of course, I want to go to matching the regions' colors on the grid below, at least in the first column, but that gets wacky, and results in some pretty bright coloring under text....

Finally, I wonder if the landing pages for each region should include the TLAs....

As long as our RCs are OK with this, I think it makes sense to use the abbreviations in the map instead of numbers nobody uses. And then to make everything easier to find.