Kerbin Interstate System + Population Centers

[Tex]

I was thinking recently about the planet Kerbin itself, and the Kerbal society that lives on it. Now, one can assume that Kerbals would live in human-esque cities, because of their apparent aptitude for aboveground architecture (the KSC), and if that were the case, where would these cities most likely exist?

Well, I began first by using a topographical map of Kerbin and drawing what I think a logical, planet-wide interstate system would look like, connecting the various continents and taking logical routes around mountains, near coasts, and saw what it would look like.

EDIT: I just realized that the two images aren't 100% consistent, but what doesn't appear in the above picture appears in the one below.

From this, I could then infer, due to climate, geographic significance, and proximity to natural resources such as the ocean or rivers, where some hypothetical major cities or population centers could be located.

Of course, this does not provide a completely detailed location for every single settlement that Kerbals might construct, nor every road- merely the largest and most important ones. Does any amongst you agree with my conjecture, or perhaps have some of your own?

[Dman979]

On the right-hand side of the bottom map, there are two population centers right above each other. One is by two lakes, the other by the coast. It looks to me like it would be logical and efficient to connect the directly, instead of following the coast all the way around.

Also, there are two sets of cities that are separated by some water and islands; one on the far right and one in the middle. If Kerbals can construct an interplanetary highway system, is makes sense to me that there would be bridges connecting them.

There should be a major population center at the entrance to the large bay northwest of Kerbafrica. I would probably move the city to the west of the isthmus to the northeast until it's on the peninsula. In fact, that entire sea should be filled with people. It's a natural trading area, much like the Medditeranian.

Finally, you'll have secondary population centers at most/all of the major road junctions.

[Ten Key]

The first thing I did when trying to place population centers was to look at the coastlines and try to find the good harbors. That would be where I would start.

[Tex]

I agree that there will be higher concentrations of residents at most of the junctions, I just sort of cherry-picked what seemed to be the locations where the largest centers could likely develop. I also like the idea of bridges, and do think they seem logical and shouldn't be too difficult in certain areas, but on a map they looked quite large for bridges. Good thinking.

15 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

There should be a major population center at the entrance to the large bay northwest of Kerbafrica. I would probably move the city to the west of the isthmus to the northeast until it's on the peninsula. In fact, that entire sea should be filled with people. It's a natural trading area, much like the Medditeranian.

This point confuses me slightly, elaborate?

-EDIT-

I'm liking your ideas, @Ten Key, I had similar ideas when trying to locate population centers on my map. Coincidentally, I was thinking that the capital city of any Kerbin civilization would be the center just west of the KSC, or the one right at the river to the top-right portion of your map, north of the Grand Peninsula.

[Dman979]

31 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

There should be a major population center at the entrance to the large bay northwest of Kerbafrica. I would probably move the city to the west of the isthmus to the northeast until it's on the peninsula. In fact, that entire sea should be filled with people. It's a natural trading area, much like the Medditeranian.

16 minutes ago, Tex said:

This point confuses me slightly, elaborate?

The large desert on the west part of the map seems unsuitable for a major population center.

To the Northwest of kerbafrica's west coast, there is a large sea, roughly shaped like the letter "C." That entire sea, and especially the two significant peninsulas that give it its shape, should be ringed with population centers. The amount of trading going on there makes it very suitable to live in, the mountains to the east of the middle give it plenty of fresh water, and the desert at the southwest brings fertile soil east via winds from the crater.

 

[something]

Population centers are the cause for roads. First people settle and then they build up an economy. By doing so, a lot of separate markets appear. Naturally then people appear trying to make their fortune transferring goods between those markets, essentially connecting the markets. In that process ports, roads and finally airports and freeways appear. Connecting two population centres which are situated at a river or road seems to be a bad idea in the first step. The waterways are way cheaper to operate. At a time when waterways can no longer serve the demands, railroads and roads appear. Naturally, always trying to build the best connection mountains are avoided (if feasible) and as few bridges as possible are build.

Take Alaska as an example. The big markets are connected by road (Fairbanks,  Anchorage, Valdez), while the small indigenous population centres don't even have a road connection. There just isn't enough demand to satisfy the investment of building and maintaining roads. The only reason the Dalton Highway exists is a market at the northern shore demanding maintenance of oil fields...

Another example is France. The big markets are connected with a special focus on Paris, since a certain investor called 'the king' used to live there. Such a centralised system can be seen in Spain, Russia and the UK as well. On the other hand, a decentralised political system as Germany has kind of a fuzzy road network. With the invention of the railroad and cars first long distance networks were build and they connect the big markets... On the other hand a country like Norway features almost all population centres at the coastline, which is why - even today - a remarkable part of goods is shipped - by ship.

Having said that, I think you should place cities first and then connect them with special regard to their geographical and political background.

[Tex]

11 hours ago, Dman979 said:

The large desert on the west part of the map seems unsuitable for a major population center.

To the Northwest of kerbafrica's west coast, there is a large sea, roughly shaped like the letter "C." That entire sea, and especially the two significant peninsulas that give it its shape, should be ringed with population centers. The amount of trading going on there makes it very suitable to live in, the mountains to the east of the middle give it plenty of fresh water, and the desert at the southwest brings fertile soil east via winds from the crater.

 

 

Ah, I'm seeing what you mean now. For the desert city, I was imagining some sort of parallel to Earth's Dubai, as a rich and influential city right where it really shouldn't be. In my mind, because Kerbin was conceived of by earth-dwellers, parallels can be drawn between the two of them with reasonable certainty. To me, at least, the deserts would be a major source of ore, and that gives the resource and reason for the city there.

 

3 minutes ago, something said:

Population centers are the cause for roads. First people settle and then they build up an economy. By doing so, a lot of separate markets appear. Naturally then people appear trying to make their fortune transferring goods between those markets, essentially connecting the markets. In that process ports, roads and finally airports and freeways appear. Connecting two population centres which are situated at a river or road seems to be a bad idea in the first step. The waterways are way cheaper to operate. At a time when waterways can no longer serve the demands, railroads and roads appear. Naturally, always trying to build the best connection mountains are avoided (if feasible) and as few bridges as possible are build.

Take Alaska as an example. The big markets are connected by road (Fairbanks,  Anchorage, Valdez), while the small indigenous population centres don't even have a road connection. There just isn't enough demand to satisfy the investment of building and maintaining roads. The only reason the Dalton Highway exists is a market at the northern shore demanding maintenance of oil fields...

Another example is France. The big markets are connected with a special focus on Paris, since a certain investor called 'the king' used to live there. Such a centralised system can be seen in Spain, Russia and the UK as well. On the other hand, a decentralised political system as Germany has kind of a fuzzy road network. With the invention of the railroad and cars first long distance networks were build and they connect the big markets... On the other hand a country like Norway features almost all population centres at the coastline, which is why - even today - a remarkable part of goods is shipped - by ship.

Having said that, I think you should place cities first and then connect them with special regard to their geographical and political background.

Yes, I can perfectly see the logic there. Should I start over, though, I would actually think that I'd place the population centers at roughly the same places they already are, and then draw a highway road network that was similar to that one 

After all, the genesis for making the road network was to create ties between where convenient places to settle would be, noting that the ice caps and the very far north and south are neglected due to colder climates and lack of more resources. Of course, once again, the map is only of the biggest, baddest roads. Certainly there would be exploration and settlement in areas I haven't marked, I'm just hypothesizing where the largest centers might be. Would you like to create a map of where you think centers would be? I'd love for multiple opinions.

[something]

I don't know if that'd be possible easily. After all I had to come up with a political map, an economical map with resources and then derive an infrastructure out of that. To see where certain resources are locate, I needed to derive the history of the planet Kerbin back several Megayears including continental drift etc.

[Tex]

4 hours ago, something said:

I don't know if that'd be possible easily. After all I had to come up with a political map, an economical map with resources and then derive an infrastructure out of that. To see where certain resources are locate, I needed to derive the history of the planet Kerbin back several Megayears including continental drift etc.

Aye, there's the rub. As far as everybody knows, Kerbin, and Kerbals themselves, don't really have a history, as such. We can assume that either every Kerbal was born, or cloned, or whatever, and that they have some technical know-how because of their scientific advancement, but who's to say that Kerbal society isn't a generation or two old? Maybe being so peaceful allows them to advance at a terrific rate, and allowed them to simply establish large markets where the resources were.