Posted by Robert Hill on July 16, 2002 at 15:42:38 from 195.92.168.163 user eclrh.
In Reply to: Re: My thoughts on maps posted by Robert Hill on July 16, 2002 at 15:07:42:
Dan Lind wrote:
> You do, of course, know that the scale is 1/4 inch equals 100 yards,
> as defined by AR himself in SD and shown clearly in PM?
and I replied:
> Could you expand on these remarks please?
> I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Ah! No need! I've found it! Dan is referring to his message 9086
"Re: map of the lake" of 2nd June, in which he pointed out that
Swallowdale is described in the eponymous book as about 100 yards long,
whilst its representation on the map in PM is a quarter of an inch long.
But other people presented counter-arguments at the time. Even if the
maps in the books are roughly to scale in general, they are only
sketch-maps, and the representation of smaller features like Swallowdale
is likely to be exaggerated. And there are other things in the books
which suggest a larger size for the lake than you get by Dan's method.
Personally I think of the lake as being at least as long as Coniston
(5 miles) and probably nearer the size of Windermere (about 10 miles
if you don't include too much of the very gradual transition to river).