Made this from a dataset I put together for a German food site. The point is the gap between origin and production: dragon fruit is a Central American cactus that only reached Vietnam ~100 years ago, kiwifruit is Chinese, and every cultivated apple traces back to wild forests in the Tian Shan near Almaty.

Base map: Natural Earth 110m, Mercator, drawn with Pillow. Coordinates are the earliest documented place of origin — for domesticated crops that is the domestication area, for dishes the place they were first made.

Interactive version with all 415 points: https://www.wie-schmeckt.de/weltkarte-der-lebensmittel/ (German)

dark red = very bad

red = bad

yellow = ok

light green = good

dark green = very good

Via G25

https://history-maps.com/canvas
Whenever I get a chance, I’ve been improving Canvas and Map Studio—both the UI and the feature set.A lot of the best product design happens when I’m actually trying to make something. I hit a limitation, figure out what the tool needs, then either improve an existing feature or build a new one.That’s been especially true with Canvas.Recently I recreated a map of the Vandal War involving Belisarius and the Byzantine Empire, partly as a test: how easily could I reproduce the kinds of historical maps I use as references?Pretty easily, as it turns out.Canvas has become extremely flexible for visual storytelling, especially with maps—callouts, arrows, paths, shapes, labels, images, and a lot of control over how each one looks. I’ve added things like callout-line opacity, smoother Bézier curves for paths, and better controls for placing symbols along a path.The nice part is that every time I use it, the process itself reveals what should be improved next. At this point, most of the annotated historical maps I come across are things I can recreate directly in Canvas.

Blue: First World, Red/Pink: Second World, Green: Third World

Based on my own (probably very controversial) classification attempt. It seems that dividing the world into just three categories is, by its very nature, bound to be inaccurate and messy.

In 1917 the wartime government of Robert Borden was re-elected with a massive majority. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and I’ll be more than happy to answer.

never forget what they took from us

This is the map i made. I am Polish

Made with my own code (Node.js + sharp). Elevation comes from AWS Terrain Tiles (Environment Agency LIDAR, EU-DEM and SRTM). Multi-directional hillshade with cast shadows from the north-west at 28°, hypsometric tints, 50 m contours, lakes detected from flat surfaces in the DEM, and summit names and heights from OpenStreetMap. No AI involved anywhere. Happy to answer questions about the process.

Data: © Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 2015 (OGL v3); Copernicus EU-DEM; SRTM courtesy of the USGS; © OpenStreetMap contributors.

This is my interpretation of the map of the Aztec empire. I’ve drawn from a couple sources:
Berdan’s map - Looks at provinces explicitly under tribute or imperial control. Very good for getting a sense of the ‘core of the empire’. However, only looks at tribute codecies which might obfuscate other forms of imperial subjugation (such as coercive alliances) or informal hegemonic influence/subjugation. It also imposes arbitrary borders around conquerered regions which we have no idea of.

Hassig’s maps - Show aztec military campiagns which are very useful at showing aztec military projection. However, the capacity for a military campiagn does not mean the ability to exercise permenant control.

Trade routes - aztec trade routes, trevalled by the pochteca and routes the aztec state was very eager to control. However, just because the pochteca travelled along them doesn mean they were necessarily udner aztec control.

I have attempted to synthesise all three into an approximate map of the aztec empire.

I have not diffrentiated between strategtic or tributary provinces since the idea is to nail down what was actually under Aztec control, so the distinction is irrelevent to the purpose of this exercise. Of course, borders are approximations.

Teotitlan and Tehuantepec:
Teotitlan sat directly along vital, highly lucrative Mesoamerican trade corridors connecting the Valley of Mexico to the Mixtec highlands, the Oaxacan coast, and the Maya frontier. Conquering it outright would have been economically disruptive and logistically costly. Instead, the Aztecs permitted Teotitlan to remain autonomous on the condition that they kept the roads open, guaranteed safe passage to Aztec merchants (pochteca), and provided logistical support to military troops passing through.

In a similar vain, In 1496, the Aztec Emperor Ahuitzotl launched a massive invasion against the region. Facing this existential threat, the Zapotec king, Cosijoeza (also spelled Cocijoeza), formed a rare defensive alliance with his traditional rivals, the Mixtecs. Instead of fighting in the open, the Zapotec forces retreated to Guiengola, a formidable mountain fortress overlooking the Tehuantepec plains. The Zapotecs successfully held off the Aztec forces, drawing them into a grueling, multi-month siege.

The outcome was a kind of white peace. the arrangement allowed the Zapotecs of Tehuantepec to maintain their political autonomy and sovereign ruling dynasty. In exchange, the Aztecs secured unhindered passage for their imperial merchants (pochteca) along the Pacific coast and into Central America.

However, both of these ‘alliances’ were highly coercive. It was not a partnerships of equals, they were enforced by the implicit or explicit threat of military destruction - hence why I’ve coloured them as aztec influenced on the map.

According to the IMF, Taiwan's GDP per capita in 1996 is 13,558 USD, and in 2026 is estimted to be 43,952 USD.

Some micro-states are excluded in this graph.

Source