From: Marseilles, France
First, thanks Kevin for answering my 7 months old question about Oregon
"The Below is the Willamette as depicted on the map, and the 2 other views are the Willamette as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River. The center map shows Willamette River watershed, and the rightmost one show the tributaries of the Willamette River. According to the center map, our drawing is wrong, but according to the rightmost map our drawing could be the better one to depict the waterways that can block movement.
So, is the Willamette River right ? "
You are correct to question the south end of the Willamette (Wil LAM it) River. Add one more length of river to the southeast.
Well, I was questioning the layout of the river, not the length. I think I'll leave it the way it is and not lengthen it. I'll consider that the rest of the River is not lager enough to warrant a WiF River hexside (this is where the Australian observers should gang on me saying that by this reasoning, there should be no river hexsides in Australia -- I know, I know, but ADG wanted them, so let's leave them here.
Additionally, there should be one more clear hex (farmland) instead of forest to the southwest of the current southern most clear hex. It would be the center hex of the three forest hexes. While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms.
About this clear hex, I'm happy that you talk about it, you know why ?
Because initialy, on the CWiF map where the MwiF map comes from, this hex is a clear hex.
Someone in the initial steps of the map editing suggested that this hex is changed to Forest, which was done. Now you come and tell me we should not have. So what to do ? Your argument that "While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms." is sound, and this added to the fact that originaly if was a clear hex makes me want to do that change.
Any other opinion about that hex ?