File talk:Forest navel.JPG

It's nice, but you really should have saved it as PNG. It's a bit late now: low-quality JPG introduces artifacts like the ones all over the image. Not sure if it would be easy to clean that up. If you have an original of it or something, maybe a bitmap, that could be used instead.GP

Okay, I think I got most of it; at least, all I could. I decided to keep it as JPG (at a higher quality setting), since saving it like that in the first place has given it too much variation in areas of colour for PNG to have a lower filesize.GP

But ugh, MediaWiki's resizing is making it hard to see at even 400px wide.GP

Well, I still have the original, but it's on Paint. That explains low quality. Do I upload onother one? Snakeboss14

Something made by Paint isn't low-quality unless you save it as low-quality. If you're using Vista, it saves it as JPG by default, whereas previous versions of Windows would use bitmap, which is perfect quality, but large in terms of filesize. If you do have a bitmap or PNG original, upload it and I'll see if it's any better and switch things around for you as need be.GP

BMP is unuplooadable perfection... I'm ~LonelyTurret~ And I approve this message.

Map Accuracy

I have some concerns about this map. For the most part, it is confined to the fact that what it labels as 'twigs' are in fact the bomb-rock deposits, while some gates are incorrectly (and confusingly) coloured. I am unsure how to address these errors short of making a new version, but would like to voice the opinion regardless so that someone with a better idea can offer it. Phineas81707 (talk) 05:37, April 28, 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, we definitely need a much better map. The things you pointed out are true, and the map's style in general deserves to be higher quality. I guess it'll have to stay until somebody creates something better. — {Espyo^T} 12:02, April 28, 2019 (EDT)