[Information] The Galactic Mapping Project & Expedition Hub

On another note, while not being part of the GMP team, with the recent updates I don't really get what now the difference between "Other POI" and "Historical POI" is.
Like for example, the furthest stars South, East, North and West (Amundsen's, Magellan's etc.) are "Historical" ones, while the meridian stars (Manifest Destiny etc.) are "Other". That doesn't really make sense to me.
Historical: Historic records reached, points in time that are notable, and other things dealing with "history of the game" or "history of exploration"
Other: Stuff that doesn't fit in other categories. Things that were POI that are no longer valid POI are being included in here (we previously had put some of those in 'Historical')

And, if you think something is misclassified, feel free to suggest a different category.
 
And, if you think something is misclassified, feel free to suggest a different category.
Alright, think you should introduce a new one:
Navigational POI. Should include all those most distant in each cardinal direction, meridians, Sol, Sag A*, beacons in or at deep arm gaps, starting points of crossing routes and the likes. You get the idea.
 
On another note, while not being part of the GMP team, with the recent updates I don't really get what now the difference between "Other POI" and "Historical POI" is.
Like for example, the furthest stars South, East, North and West (Amundsen's, Magellan's etc.) are "Historical" ones, while the meridian stars (Manifest Destiny etc.) are "Other". That doesn't really make sense to me.
Ill admit that the distinction is somewhat arbitrary and rooted in some exploration and GMP history.

Most of the "furthest stars" were reached relatively early by Allitnil in his search for the galactic limits. This was a major achivement at the time and something we wanted to clearly mark on the map to celebrate one of the pioneer explorers. Thus these stars are marked as "Historical".

If memory serves me right, the meridian stars was originally introduced as a helpful feature to mark the compas points compared to Sol - and I think the first meridian systems had not even been visited when they were added. This was in the days of less efficient route planners and a more limited in game galmap, and for some explorers it was perhabs helpful to be able to target a system and get a bearing. At some point it became a quest to reach further out along the meridians, but even so, it was our impression that these systems never really gained the status among explorers that the "furthest stars" had gotten. Thats why they are kept as "Other POIs".

Alright, think you should introduce a new one:
Navigational POI. Should include all those most distant in each cardinal direction, meridians, Sol, Sag A*, beacons in or at deep arm gaps, starting points of crossing routes and the likes. You get the idea.
We used to have this - they were called "Beacon POIs". With longer and longer FSD ranges and better in game navigational tools we abolished this category some time ago, as we felt it no longer served any helpful navigational purpose.

---

We are currently considering to add a sort of "archive" or "legacy" category to the GMP - a place to put the POIs that have either become obsolete due to game updates, or were significant at the time, but not really any more. This was suggested in this thread a little while ago, and it is a good idea that we are considering how to implement. The difference between the "Historical" category and the "Legacy" category, is that the Historical POIs would be places that we actively want to highlight to celebrate exploration history. Currently my personal take on this (it is not something we have yet discussed in the team) is that I would like to keep the "Furthest Stars" as Historical but I would move the "meridian systems" to Legacy - based on the argument that the meridian systems has lost their practical navigational value, and also never really gained the popularity of the "Furthest Stars" among explorers.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of stuff that's no longer valid, there is something else. As I was going through the planetary nebulae, I noticed that there were a number of entries for "nebula clusters". These entries all use only the procedural names for both the cluster and the nebulae listed within: for example, Stuemau Archer Alpha, Stuemau Archer Beta and so on. The descriptions are all copy-pasted stuff, one lines about the contents of the system. The cluster entries themselves often consist of only three, sometimes two nebulae - I'm not sure if these would qualify as clusters even. Distances between can be erratic, too. Personally, I'd say these are low quality submissions.

Oh, and these are all inside the core as well. Plus a good number of entries have missing screenshots. ("enter image description here")

If you wish to find them all without downloading the database dump, you can use the CGN for that: search for "alpha", those systems will be the ones used for the entries. For example, Schee Pri NT-Q e5-1532, Lyaisae HA-A e3363.
 
So, those clusters only exist because someone submitted a bunch of completely generic PN, and instead of just deleting them (which causes some controversy), I consolidated nearby ones into “clusters”.

It was a way to reduce the overcrowded Galactic Center map w/o deleting previous submissions which we have been uncomfortable doing.
 
Xenoneo's Triangle <- Currently checking the rarity of this phenomenon.
Not to press the point too much, but regardless of the ruling on the "rarity" of trojan worlds, they are still notable phenomena. If there are none already in the GMP, then perhaps that itself could be a consideration, in combination with that submission's added benefit of the view of the Cat's Paw. I believe the region to be lacking in notable POI's.

Also, as a rule of thumb we try to avoid POIs being named after commanders. You are welcome to suggest another name.
How about "Meowzipan's Triangle," for my late favorite feline.
 
Top Bottom