Proposal of an intuitive Galactic Cartographic System

GALACTIC PARTITIONING AND DESIGNATIONS
I've thought up a simple intuitive system, drawing inspiration from real-world sytems, such as USNG, streamlining it.

teaching-01.jpg

A. The most obvious landmark of the Galaxy is its center.
B. Drawing an axis through Earth and the galactic center, we get a coordinate system. This is the old Earth-bound (angular) galactic coordinate system, dividing the galaxy into 4 quadrants, with galactic longitude marked on the edge, going counter-clockwise.
C. The new (Universal Cartographics) rectangular galactic coordinate system. I marked the quadrants; you'll see they will become very useful.

teaching-02.jpg

D. The galaxy, partitioned into squares of 10,000 light-years per side. Let's call these squares "great-sectors", as they are the biggest multiples of 10 that can divide the Galaxy.

How does naming work? In this image, it's one digit per axis, X first, Z second. You don't need more than that at this point. One digit of accuracy simply means "the next lower order of magnitude, starting from the whole galaxy". Since the whole galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across, the next lower order of magnitude means 10,000 lyrs.

Notice how the designations are mirrored for each quadrant. To get unique designations for each "G-sector", just add the quadrant number in front, for example "1.23". So every point inside this sector is at least TWENTY thousands of lightyears across the X-axis, and at least THIRTY thousands of lightyears across the Z-axis. Being quadrant 1, the X would be negative and the Z positive. By using the quadrants we can avoid using the negative sign, which would look awkward for sector designations.

E. Notice how with this system, the numbers inside a square spell out the distance from its perimeter to the axes. Notice also how for the "00" sectors, the distance from their perimeters to both axes is, indeed, zero.

teaching-031.jpg


F. "G-sector 1.23" partitioned into smaller squares of 1000 light-years per side. Let's call them (surprise! surprise!) "K-sectors". A K-sector uses 2 digits per axis. The full designation of the emphasized sector would be "1.2337". Every point inside this sector is at least TWENTY-THREE thousands of lightyears across the X-axis, and at least THIRTY-SEVEN thousands of lightyears across the Z-axis.

Notice how you don't necessarily need to spell out "K-sector" in front of the "1.2337", as the number of digits indicates which size of sector it is. Two orders of magnitude lower than the whole galaxy means 1000 lyrs.

G. So on and so forth. A sector of 100 light-years per side would be called "hecto-sector", or "H-sector", and would use 3 digits per axis. A sector of 10 light-years per side would be simply called "sector" and would use 4 digits per axis, with a full designation such as "1.23523768".

POSSIBLE USES OF AN ANGULAR SYSTEM
teaching-04.jpg

H. Imagine you're somewhere in the galaxy, at the point marked with the blue "X", and a friend asks "Where are you?"

You could give the X,Y,Z of your system, or its name. But what if you only want to give out your general whereabouts? Then you could say "My heading is about 30 degrees and I'm over 40000 Lys away from Sol". You need the angular system for that.

Or, for maximum coolness, you could say "I'm 40K deep into Aquilae". You need the angular system with constellation boundaries for that.

J. It could also be useful you want to partition the Galaxy; You could sub-divide the 4 galactic quadrants into slices of 30-degrees.
F. Or even further.
 
Last edited:
This is an awesome post!


As a mathematician I am thrilled at the various systems you are considering. As a mapmaker I am a bit more reluctant... it has to be workable and practical and all that...

If I was thinking as a mapmaker and had to do a partitioning of the galaxy map I would perhabs do it something like this:

Z4yJgxN.png


I would not want to have too many partitions - because if there is too many maps (e.g. a 7x7 partition) then the map-system becomes unwieldy as it gets harder for the users to find the right map. And if there is too few maps (e.g. a 3x3 partition), then the individual map becomes too large and unwieldy.

And the partitions should also be an uneven number along each axis - to avoid dividing the map along the galactic meridian - the most heavily travelled area.
 
Last edited:
Awesomeness!

I'll be busy with DW until April but this is something I'm very keen to see somehow incorporated into the mapping project, along with the Corbin & Finwen maps. We all have to get together for a chat after DW! This is great work :)
 
Last edited:
Awesomeness!

I'll be busy with DW until April but this is something I'm very keen to see somehow incorporated into the mapping project, along with the Corbin & Finwen maps. We all have to get together for a chat after DW! This is great work :)

I can only second that. I am especially fond of the radial map showing the constellations - it may not be the most practical way to divide the galaxy, but it sure adds a LOT of flavor!

Looking forward to picking this up again after DW.
 
Brilliant!!!

Another use of this would be to convert the rectangular coords of unknown placed (non-PG) stars into spherical coords. Then convert these into RA/Dec and try to look up the object on SIMBAD.
 
I can only second that. I am especially fond of the radial map showing the constellations - it may not be the most practical way to divide the galaxy, but it sure adds a LOT of flavor!

It's a very earth-centric view of things, which makes it kind of inconvenient when you're actually trying to locate things within the galaxy. On the other hand, it makes it really fun for finding real-life objects to visit. "I'm headed towards Hercules. What objects are in Hercules at about my distance from the sun?"
 
Thanks for all the feedback guys.


If I was thinking as a mapmaker and had to do a partitioning of the galaxy map I would perhabs do it something like this
Well yes, I thought about that. A 5x5 partition would be good for large-scale forum maps. I'm not so happy with the naming system (call it a pet peeve): "A4", "D2" sound too much like playing a game of battleships :) . Since they're the largest map partions (and would see a lot of use), we could add some flavor by naming them by the constellations they line-up with along the galactic equator.

gal_megamaps.jpg


Then how about when we need a smaller-scale map, like "Points of interest around Eagle's Nebula" or "Jumponium before Beagle Point"? What I'd consider ideal is a comprehensive system for chopping up and naming any part of the Galaxy at any scale (I'll post a refreshed proposal one of these days).

My goal was admittedly too theoretical, and not grounded enough in actual ED exploration needs. I thought about a system that would offer both versatility, simplicity and consistency, regardless of scale. What I posted is not complete; I was still pondering a way of naming maps that straddle the axes.

But yes, you do have a point about practicality, making me think about improvements.


I am especially fond of the radial map showing the constellations
Uh, by the way, you may find the following useful:
My constellation data, in galactic longitude degrees
359-15: Sagittarius
15-17.2: Serpens Cauda
17.2-28.6: Scutum
28.6-35.4: Aquila
35.4-36.7: Serpens Cauda
36.7-51.45: Aquila
51.45-54.9: Sagitta
54.9-66.3: Vulpecula
66.3-100.4: Cygnus
100.4-111.4: Cepheus
111.4-141.3: Cassiopeia
141.3-149.3: Camelopardalis
149.3-161: Perseus
161-180.5: Auriga
180.5-186.6: Taurus
186.6-188.6: Gemini
188.6-199.5: Orion
199.5-225.6: Monoceros
225.6-232.2: Canis Major
232.2-257: Puppis
257-283.6: Vela
283.6-292.1: Carina
292.1-296.6: Centaurus
296.6-303.7: Crux
303.7-316.3: Centaurus
316.3-323.6: Circinus
323.6-336.75: Norma
336.75-339.35: Ara
339.35-359: Scorpius


Another use of this would be to convert the rectangular coords of unknown placed (non-PG) stars into spherical coords. Then convert these into RA/Dec and try to look up the object on SIMBAD
Conversions should probably better be left to specialized calculators; Not sure if maps would be precise enough.


It's a very earth-centric view of things
It is Earth-centric because FD made the coordinate system as such. That's the ground zero from which any mapping effort should start, I think. Not sure it could be precise enough to find real-life objects, other than nebulas. I think specialized calculators is what we need for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom