IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Google Earth, Sharing SR related placemarks
Nindaru
post Sep 14 2005, 08:11 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



I am using Google Earth with the Seattle Sourcebook and New Seattle to put SR related placemarks on the maps. I was wondering if anyone else does this and if we could share placemarks. I am interested in canon and non-canon items!

Oh, and I have offered before and I will offer again... I live in Seattle. If you need help locating a place, or something else that I may possibly be of some help for, let me know. =)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craigpierce
post Sep 14 2005, 03:22 PM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 25-August 04
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 6,599



nice!

i just got google earth and i haven't thought to do this yet...though i will now and would be willing to trade files...

but i'm just learning the program right now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 14 2005, 04:45 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



No sweat. It's pretty easy for the basic concept. In the bottom right there is a thumbtack. Click on it and you will get a few options. The one we are concerned with is Placemark (Ctrl+N).

You will get a popup that will ask you which folder to put the placemark in. Once you have chosen the location, and click OK, you will see your 'New Placemark' on the map. Right click on it and you will see a new popup that will allow you to enter a name, description, and (if you click on the button) change the icon. That's the basics. Click on the Advanced button and tinker around.

If the placemark is not quite in the exact place you want it, click on the Advanced check box, then location tab. Click the check box for Center Placemark in View. That will allow you to drag the map around until you get the placemark where you want it.

That is as advanced as I have gotten and that seems to be as much as I have needed. Contact me here or check my profile for other ways to get ahold of me. =)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ecclesiastes
post Sep 14 2005, 09:38 PM
Post #4


Jesus Freak
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,141
Joined: 23-April 04
From: Anaheim, CA
Member No.: 6,274



Do you have a site were you upload the needed files to? If not, zip them up and I'll host the file for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 15 2005, 07:11 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



That would be great. Where would they be hosted?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 16 2005, 04:14 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Ok, I am slowly going through the New Seattle book putting each and every listing (that has an address) into Google. I am grouping them by city/district/type. For instance, Seattle/Everett/Business/Boeing plant.

I have guessed as best I can knowing what I know of the area and what I can find online and off. I own several detailed maps (Thomas Guides and such) of the tri-country area and have lived here for nearly 30 years. Some addresses I have encountered in New Seattle make no sense at all. I swear Stephen Kenson threw darts at a Seattle map when placing things.

In two instances that I have found so far, the entrances to Boeing and the Everett Naval Yards are placed across town in the book. For completeness, I have put placemarks for both the listed and the real locations.

I am also adding in a few personal little things like favorite restaurants and such. The best part of about Google Earth is that it is linked with Google Local. I can do a search from within GE and get links to my favorite places. I can then save those as part of my Shadowrun folder and you can then have the Google links to further research these places on your own.

In researching where things are located, I have come to the stunning realization. The placement of buildings and apparent urbanization in the SR world makes no sense based upon the listed population. There are over 3 million people living in Seattle according to the books. However, it gives the impression that the entire downtown district is covered in skyscrapers and office buildings. That is all well and good, but there are currently 3 million people living in the Seattle area NOW!

Consider that there are (depending on where your game is on the time-line) 100,000 people within the Arcology. That condensed number means there are less to spread around the rest of the 'plex. While there are many apartments and such, most of the residential districts in the region are single family units. This means that the demands of the population for space are not indicative of mass urbanization. This not New York. Having skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere (so to speak) makes little sense.

Another problem I have is that the population has made significant gains since the game was created in the late 80's. Yet, even with the massive migration of peoples to the city after the NAN took over, the population has not risen. This makes little sense to me.

These are all things to keep in perspective when developing the city for your own purposes. For me, we always add a zero to whatever population is listed for Seattle and its parts. This puts the population at 30,000,000 and makes much more sense for a 21st century New York like atmosphere. This level of population makes much more sense when you factor in the demands on the land for housing and jobs.

Anyhow, enough of my rant. I could go on and on about things in Seattle, canon vs. real. =) If you want to discuss these things further, start a thread on the topic and I would be happy to chime in. I only bring it up here to explain why I have made changes to the canon placement of things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 16 2005, 04:49 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Ok, DeClerry's neighborhood bar in Tacoma is listed at an impossible address. If you fudge the numbers in a given direction you can make a the address work. For instance, it is listed as 15th Avenue NE and 38th Street NE. If you swap the Avenue and Street, it still does not work. But if you Google things like 1500 38th Street and/or 1500 38th Avenue you can find an address. Same goes for 3800 15th Street/Avenue. I'll let you guys decide where you would like to put that one. =)

Same goes for Gianelli's Restaurant. Listed as 15th Avenue NE and 42nd Street NE. Bascially, there is NO 15th Avenue (NE or otherwise) in Tacoma. So, place it where you like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 16 2005, 04:57 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



The Palace of China, listed as Soundview Drive West and Brookside Way, is yet another address that doesn't exist. I cannot find the existance of either road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Sep 16 2005, 06:37 PM
Post #9


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



You might want to add in some (or all) of the locations in the TSS 'Downtown Seattle' edition.

I always figured the population numbers listed in the various books only account for people with SINs, and didn't take into consideration those that are SINless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 16 2005, 10:13 PM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



TSS! I had forgotten about that! Thank you!

I can't imagine that are THAT many SINless people out there. Especially that significant a population to warrant the demand on land and jobs that is portrayed in canon. Besides, when would the establishment give a rats arse about the SINless?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Sep 16 2005, 10:37 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Here is a screenshot from the Mistuhama Towers. Six skyscrapers in a tight circle shown in New Seattle as surrounded by other building about half as tall. It looks like a downtown scene, but (as listed) is nearly 9 miles from the city center.
In the screen shot you can see the towers of the downtown area on the horizon. You can also see that the Mitsuhama Towers have been put into a clearly residential area that has yet to be developed. Not that it wouldn't ever BE developed, but this is just one example of something being put on the map arbitrarily.

Again, my argument is that there is already 3 million people in the Seattle area now and there has not been enough demand to fill all the available spaces. If the population doesn't change in the next 60+ years, why would there suddenly be skyscrapers and massive urbanization in areas that are barely suburban?

On the other hand, with 30 million people, I can easily see every available inch of land (with the canon exception of Snohomish being nearly rural) being taken advantage of.

Considering there are approx. 20 million in the New York area, canon Seattle appears more like New York in the books.

Anyhow, that's my take on it. I'm sure it wouldn't make a bit of difference to anyone not from here. But my group is just as anal about this as I am and it is hard to override them and retrain them according to canon when I agree with them...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roadspike
post Oct 11 2005, 04:18 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 389



I always assumed 2-2.5 million SINless living in the greater Seattle area, but that was just an assumption without any basis in fact, made for the sole reason that it feels grittier and more cyberpunk if nearly half of the population of the city doesn't officially exist. In my vision of SR's Seattle, somewhere around 1.5-2 million of these SINless live in one of the Barrens (this is doable simply because they cram more people into a space than it was designed to hold--20-25 people in what used to be a one-bedroom apartment), while the others are scattered across the city proper.

It may not make as much sense as 500k-1 million SINless, but I think it just -feels- right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Oct 11 2005, 04:41 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



And that works well if you and your players don't know the layout of the city. =)

The problem with the two barrens is that they are really the two most empty areas in region. Puyallup and Remond barrens are mostly trees and fields. The 3 million people currently living in Seattle are mostly in the major areas along I-5/I-405. And even those areas have gaps in them where there are trees and fields.

My point is this, even doubling the population you only manage to fill in the gaps in the major areas, if that. Considering that New Seattle shows the Downtown area as having 545,000 is just silly. The actual city limits of Seattle are much smaller than the "Downtown" district in Seattle and yet we ALREADY have 563,374 according to the 2000 census. This means that there are less people in the Downtown district. Even accounting for SINless, it makes little sense. Where are the people required for this massive super-urban push? Consider, depending on your time-line, that 100,000 people are in the Renraku Arcology. That leaves less people to populate the rest of this incredibly built up 2060's Seattle. The numbers don't back it up.

And what about refugees? Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia = Over 15 million. Yet, New Seattle specifically states that "over 200,000 people descended upon Seattle..." after NAN lands were ceded.

Obviously, not everyone went to Seattle. Native Americans are likely to have stayed. However, the 2000 census lists Native Americans as only 1.6% of the population. Others may have already died from VITAS, and other may have went East. I just have a REALLY hard time accepting such low population numbers in what is obviously being portrayed as a very urban (in population, and land use) Seattle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gutshank
post Oct 22 2005, 09:49 PM
Post #14


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22-October 05
Member No.: 7,880



QUOTE (Nindaru)
Considering that New Seattle shows the Downtown area as having 545,000 is just silly. The actual city limits of Seattle are much smaller than the "Downtown" district in Seattle and yet we ALREADY have 563,374 according to the 2000 census. This means that there are less people in the Downtown district. Even accounting for SINless, it makes little sense. Where are the people required for this massive super-urban push? Consider, depending on your time-line, that 100,000 people are in the Renraku Arcology. That leaves less people to populate the rest of this incredibly built up 2060's Seattle. The numbers don't back it up.

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, the 545,000 population of downtown do not count those inhabiting the arcology or the Azzir complex. At least not in the Seattle Sourcebook anyways. Those other areas have their own sections.

I wonder if that 545,000 counts the orc underground too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Oct 22 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



If those numbers do not count, it still supports my point. There are 560k of people already within the Seattle city limits NOW and we have not begun to push the limits of available land. This means that in the SR world there are even LESS people demanding available space, over a greater area (The Downtown district being larger than the actual city limits of Seattle).

The Orc Underground, which is a logistical joke, isn't a part of the equation because they aren't making a demand on the land. Same goes for those in the Arcology and, as you mentioned, the Aztec pyramid. If they are counted, then that leaves even LESS people to populate the available land.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gutshank
post Oct 22 2005, 11:07 PM
Post #16


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22-October 05
Member No.: 7,880



I agree that the population numbers are off.

However you can account for some of the urban buildup. Some of that space would be taken up by the Metroplex Guard. There are 3 battalions (albeit small ones). The equipment, facilities, vehicles, airstrip, armory whatever would take up some of the free space.

With increased trade it would increse the number of people passing through the city thus upping the amount of businessess to cater to the increased traffic. There's a little more space.

Ummm....and 60,000 (2% of pop.) trolls take up alot of space? Okay, that's reaching.

I hadn't bothered to realize that they didn't increase the areas population from our present times until reading this post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Oct 22 2005, 11:35 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



A battalion is 300 to 1000 soldiers. We have way beyond that now, in Ft. Lewis and McChord AFB. As a matter of fact, Ft. Lewis is listed in the 2000 census as having 19089 people, and McChord AFB has 4096. The Ft. Lewis website talks about there being three Brigades there. Brigades have from 3000 to 5000 soldiers. This is just the area to the South of Tacoma.

Or am I reading that wrong and assuming the Metroplex Guard IS the UCAS Army? If they are different, I would love to know where in the city they are going to place 3 battalions worth of people, equipment, etc., like you said...

Besides, we were just previously talking about the Downtown District vs. the actual Seattle City limits. Ft. Lewis is nearly 40 miles from Seattle; well beyond the limits of the actual city or the Downtown district.

I can understand the increased trade. While Seattle is the biggest port on the west coast already, the closing down of Portland makes a big difference.

Making the population 30 mil instead of 3 mil makes much more sense. The 2000 census shows the Metropolitan New York area as having 21 million people. And they have TEN times the area to work with (5000^2 miles in the NY area and only 500^2 miles in the Metro Seattle area). That means that 30 million people are going to be cramped. That means that the ultra-urban, cyberpunk feel is preserved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shemhazai
post Nov 2 2005, 01:55 AM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 7,835



I don't know much about New York, and even less about Seattle. I am surprised that New York has over 20M people. I thought it was close to 10M.

But, if NYC has ten times the space for 20M, wouldn't 3M in Seattle be 1.5 times as crowded as modern-day New York? This makes some sense to me, but I am basically ignorant on the subject. Maybe 13M would be a less-extreme alternatetive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Nov 2 2005, 03:29 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Upon further research, my data was slightly misleading. While NY has over 22 million people in the metro area, it has only 8 million (8,168,388) in the proper city limits (309^2 miles). Seattle has a metropolitan population of 3.8 million, but only 571,480 within 386^2 miles.

People per square mile
NY - 26434.9
Seattle - 1480.5

NY has nearly 18 TIMES the people Seattle has in nearly the same area.

If any of you have ever seen how crowded the sidewalks are in downtown NY, let me tell you that Seattle is nowhere near that level of crowded and likely won't be within my lifetime.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blakkie
post Nov 2 2005, 04:14 AM
Post #20


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263



QUOTE (Nindaru @ Nov 1 2005, 09:29 PM)
If any of you have ever seen how crowded the sidewalks are in downtown NY, let me tell you that Seattle is nowhere near that level of crowded and likely won't be within my lifetime.

... until the immediate surrounding area becomes extremely dangerous and it's cheaper to live in a crowded downtown than to buy a tank and/or radiation suit to live in the "burbs". :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Nov 2 2005, 05:49 PM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Immediate area? If you are referring to the radiation, accidents and such that happened in the Redmond area, New Seattle lists the area as STILL containing 480,000 residents. That's near a half million people that AREN'T crowding the downtown area.

Puyallup - 506,000 according to New Seattle. Again, a devastated area that is filled with as many people that are in the real Seattle now, that aren't crowding the downtown area.

So far, that's 1 million of 3 total that live far enough away, and are likely to have insufficient funds/transportation, that it would be unrealistic to expect them to be crowding the downtown area.

This all just takes me back to my underlying question: Where would the demand for this massive super-urbanization come from? There's nowhere near enough people, according to New Seattle, even if all 3 million were clustered within the downtown district...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Nov 2 2005, 06:04 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



Just to add: Pictures in New Seattle show Novatech's skyscraper as being surrounded by other really tall buildings. The address listed is nearly two miles (which is quite a ways when you consider that all the tallest buildings in Seattle are tightly clustered together) from the downtown area.

Pictures also show Mitsuhama's 6 towers as being surrounded by other, smaller office building when in fact, that specific address is currently 10 miles from the downtown area, a stretch of untouched forest, on the side of a large hill, surrounded by residential.

My point is this: What kind of demand would dictate the kind urban sprawl that extends from the traditional downtown area for *ten miles* in a direction? I'll tell you. Chicago's downtown area stretches roughly two miles north to south. New York, from the Southern end of Manhattan to Central Park, is approximately 7 miles. Considering the population of those cities, it is easy to imagine *why* they are how they are. The demand is there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
El Ojitos
post Nov 29 2005, 02:57 PM
Post #23


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 13-June 05
Member No.: 7,443



Probably the numbers in the sourcebooks do not count foreigners - an that includes citizens of extraterritorial corps. Not all corps have their people live in arcologies. I would guess, that a city like Seattle would house many millions of those - much more than UCAS-SINners. And these are people with money, therefore they will certainly factor in the city's developement into an urban sprawl.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SL James
post Nov 29 2005, 06:35 PM
Post #24


Shadowrun Setting Nerd
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,632
Joined: 28-June 05
From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower.
Member No.: 7,473



This is fun.

Just to add my two cents. I figure that a good mix of player ignorance and style that goes back a long time (cyberpunk heyday) insisted upon the impression that Seattle was a densely populated area. This is hardly worth really fretting over. The MCT building is in a forest? So what? Century City used to be orange groves (well, so was almost all of L.A. county) and was specifically created to get away from downtown L.A. (city). This is also a setting that IMO treated Redmond like a burnt-out urban wasteland rather than simply an abadoned city of office parks, subdivisions, and gated communities (which I think is even more fun) created because the tech bubble burst (which doesn't make sense given the tech explosion post-Crash, but "meh").

I do like the idea, though. I'm running a campaign spread across the city, and I'm using GE to track everyone's movement around and out of the 'plex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nindaru
post Nov 29 2005, 10:58 PM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5,643



RE: El Ojitos - There would have to be more foreigners that citizens to account for the issues I have noted here...

RE: SL James - Our group alternates between D&D3.5, SWd20, and Shadowrun and it's been a while since we played. Otherwise, I would offer you what I have in the way of GE placemarks. I still have a few, but I was nowhere near finishing the New Seattle book when we changed games...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2014 - 11:42 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.