Here's a more interrupted valley-bound map, this one with placenames and regio boundaries.
It is still not interrupted enough that, when folded, it makes a good facsimile of Itokawa, but it'll be a lot better than the two other constant-scale valley-bound maps.
I haven't yet folded this one, so I'm guessing that the body will be fairly good; the head won't be there at all, the effect a bit like a turtle with its head drawn in.
Dashed lines on Sagamihara and MUSES-C regios are totally unofficial.

Here is the (old) cylindrical map showing regio boundaries.

Arcoona Regio shows both the outline from Emily's link (shown in solid line), and the outline from Icarus 2009 (shown dashed), which is bit larger.

Neither from the pics nor the link could I find complete boundaries for Sagamihara Regio or MUSES-C Regio; solid line shows the boundary from the link, dashed line shows my guess at closure.

Oh, by the way, here's how Itokawa scales onto The National Mall.
A float around the asteroid the equivalent of, let's say, an half-day tour of the various Smithsonians;
Itokawa's long dimension a loose fit betwixt the Lincoln and Second World War memorials.

happy to be of help.

Here is Phil's first cylindrical map with the USGS features named (craters are marked with a triangle; regios are just generally labeled for the moment because drawing their boundaries is iffy from the pictures.

But there appears to be a discrepancy in the nomenclature lat/longs for Miyabaru. USGS lists it at -40;244, which puts it in the southern hemisphere, and roughly along the short axis. But by the picture Emily links to (and also the 2009 Icarus article Figure 4) Miyabaru is definitely on the so-called head, and in the northern hemisphere. So on the map I've placed it at a depression at roughly +10 lat; 13 long.

Phil, I'll post the rock location discrepancies here shortly. Patience.

Oh, and there's more, now that I double check the regio lat/longs list. I placed these based on the pics, not the lat/longs in USGS. Arcoona is way off. It's the tail end of the otter (and I have a plastic model, so easy to locate it by eye); it can't possibly be where USGS says it is (+28; 202).
The listing for LINEAR regio is at best at the extreme southern edge based on the pics.
The listing for Ohsumi regio is at best at the extreme northwestern edge based on the pics.
The listing for Yoshinobu regio appears to be way way off. By the pics, Yoshinobu is the humpback on the neck, i.e. northern hemisphere around the zero longitude. USGS's point is on the belly.
The listing for Uchinoura regio synchronizes with the pics.
MUSES-C and Sagamihara are so extensive the listed centerpoints are not much help in defining the regions.

I wonder if I'm misreading or misunderstanding the USGS nomenclature chart, but then, the small features (craters) all plot out on target with my plastic model and Phil's map.

So, Emily, perhaps it's no wonder you couldn't make much headway.

Wow! That is a fine piece of work, Phil.

But, to digress, I'm finding a few discrepancies in the plastic model that JAXA made for me, and the location of various features (three prominent rocks, so not very many places) in your earlier map. One reason is that had to draw lat/longs on the model by hand and eye, so my constant-scale natural boundary map, we should expect, is not perfectly aligned with the lat/longs of features on the cylindrical map.
But the curious thing is that the discrepancy is an almost perfect 10 degrees.
I'll post a map later with the misalignments called out, but is it possible that there might be some projection anomalies, let's call them, in your initial projection?

Itokawa on Wembley, at least from my point of view, looks like this:
An outline of the solid body is at upper right; the other shape, of course, is the asteroid's unfolded surface, using a finely branched system of ridges as the map boundary.

Emily, is the lack of lat long lines on the pictures the root of your problem?
I've got lat longs drawn on my plastic model, so -- as I'll be popping Phil's new mosaic onto the foldable map -- I should be able to locate all those features at the same time.
Didn't know you've had trouble; speak up next time.
Let me tell ya, drawing the lat longs onto the plastic model was a J O B! Things get verry complicated around the neck and chin. But now, it's fairly routine to locate a feature on the plastic model and then find it on a map, cylindrical or other-style.

One question -- what happened to Woomera Regio? Did that become Arcoona Regio?

Phil, if it's not too much trouble when you finish, please post (or send me directly) a larger-size file. Otherwise I'll again pixellate in those areas where your image greatly enlarges when it transforms to my constant scale natural boundary format -- the chin and neck particularly.

And, for those of you who insist on the most accurate doodads and nick knacks, here is a link to the constant-scale natural boundary foldable map with the reprojected DLR shape.

Here is Phil's new mosaic in a cut 'n' fold constant-scale natural boundary map;
http://rightbasicbuilding.com/asteroid-map...le-phobos-2010/

My, this'll teach me to run off to D.C. and miss all the action. Lovely improvements.
I'll just sit quietly until you finish, Phil. Then, please steer me to the full-res version and I'll pop it (warp it) onto one of the constant-scale natural boundary Phobos maps.

Here are two constant-scale natural boundary maps of Enceladus showing geology, based on the most recent map from 41st. LPSC.

I'll refine these, and get more accurate and realistic as time goes by. For now, these are the best we've got, one step away -- just a little folding required -- from globes of Enceladus.
More pictures and discussion is here.

Here's the ridge-bound constant-scale natural boundary map of Itokawa marked with tabs and seam slices. The areas where the slices are very close together are the two "ears" on the otter's right-hand side.

If you are daring enough to try cutting and folding this map, don't use this a print of this image itself -- it is only a snapshot of a print of the map; it is not flat on a table. (Dumb of me not to produce this the accurate way, in the Photoshop file itself.) Scroll up and download the map; use this image as a guide for where to put tabs and seam slices.

Here also is the less-compact version of the valley-bound map pictured above in outline.

Oh, as far as Enceladus geology goes, I spent some time at the conference transferring the latest geology info onto a grapefruit, and onto a minneola, which I cut and peeled into a map. That old saw about how making a map is like unpeeling an orange is not so good -- oranges don't peel very easily; neither do grapefruits. It's more like unpeeling a minneola:
http://rightbasicbuilding.com/enceladus-first-globe-ever/

Well, several misalignments in the graticles at the folding seams, and one loss of constant scale at the edge -- my pen must have slipped or some other by-hand error. A seam slice into the map between points f & j on the body side was needed to match things up.
This shows both valley-bound versions A and B folded up. "A" has the image on it, "B" is the gridded object.
Note that the objects do not look like the asteroid. That's because the boundary tree is very short and not well spread across the object. Still folds up, though. Odd, no?

Visit My Website for the polished image of the handout for next week's LPSC 41.

Here also is a comparison of the ridge-bound map with some JAXA shots of the asteroid; [EDIT] that's the paper model on the top, the photos of the actual asteroid on the bottom.

Oh, forgot to say, I didn't try to unscramble the trouble spot, so the valley-bound map is a straight cut-and-paste off of Phil's cylindrical map.
And, now that I think to comment on it, this valley-bound map will fold up into something that will look like an apple turnover, if the earlier valley-bound maps (of Phobos, Deimos, Eros and Ida) are any guide. I won't start putting one together until sometime tomorrow.

And this is how the Valley "A" map looks.
That's the body on the left, and the head on the right.
See above for the model photo with the bright white line -- that's the edge of this map (less the pruned branches).

So, on to the valley-bound map. This map organizes Itokawa's surface into districts of hills. (the earlier one organized the surface into districts of basins.)

Unlike Eros, Ida, Phobos and Deimos, Itokawa has a more complex valley-tree. E, I, P, & D. all resolved their valley lines as single lines, no branches. But Itokawa's valley system is difficult to prune to a single line.

So, a poll, unfair perhaps, because the maps are incomplete, but of A or B, which do you prefer for a general purpose map?
A is more compact. The branches marked 10, 11, & 17 have been pruned away.
B gives more articulation to the various hill districts of the head.
Both A & B have considerable size distortion on the body section, but far less than in a standard cylindrical map. (It'd be interesting to quantify and compare precisely how much the two systems differ -- constant-scale natural boundary vs simple cylindrical. Hmm. Wonder how to do that . . .)

And here's a beta version of conference handout.
Not sure if I'll be able, on the model, to sketch the boundary systems that'll make the two maps.
The Valley map isn't far enough along to paste in yet.
Oh, and I used the wrong cylindrical map; the orange "troublespot" (see above) shouldn't be marked.
Plus, this image will get some adjustments to the model levels for best printing results.

And to wrap up the tour -- everybody say cheese -- here's the group photo:
Odd how the test map holds its shape better than the final.

I'll have some slightly larger maps (12x18 super-tabloid) at LPSC
Gotta run. I need to make the valley-bound Itokawa map -- the map bounded by the white line on the plastic model -- in time for Thursday's poster session . . .

Same photo credit: Sara Adkins Studio / C.Clark

Here's the last taping and folding sequence. The middle panels are marking the template for more seam slices at the ears (top) and at the nose (bottom). I'll reissue the main map with tabs and seam slices.
Note the small tool -- a length of piano wire with a loop at the end, a substitute for too-large fingers -- I'm using to apply back pressure for the tape to stick.


And here's the final model sequence. It's not a stunning success:

along the lower spine in particular, as well near several hinge-points, there are gaps; these, I think, are artifacts of the hyper-detailed model. This well-detailed surface is a wonderful part of the JAXA model, but the many rocks peppering the surface made it difficult to trace boundaries precisely. I'd have done better with a special-purpose model that smoothed out this scale of relief.

the big "hindquarter" rock (mentioned above) is not expressed;

extensive use of tape is overpowering the thin paper's ability to hold its shape, especially around the neck. This happened with Ida, too, so perhaps a couple of internal ribs are needed for Itokawa, too. Then again, Itokawa is perhaps an elementary representative of a class of objects (objects with concave curves, let's say, which would include Kleopatra) that may be foldable only in theory or in computer simulations. More complex members of this class would be things with holes, such as crania here's a few examples of CSNB-mapped crania (Very difficult to fold these things up.)

On the plus side, my fix of the unexpressed ear worked -- happy to learn how to go back in and refine the map edge -- although it's tiny size was almost too small to tape.

Overall, the starting map-size of 11x17 is too small for the taping method. I'll have to try Emily's cardstock-and-glue approach.

So, let's throw this tour wide-open -- anyone out there giving it a try? Post your folding results here!

Same photo credits: Sara Adkins Studio / C.Clark

Here's the group photo.

On the plastic model, the orange region marks the district that gave me the most trouble in the basic layout. In the simple, "unpeeled banana" layout (where each branch of the map is nearly the same length and breadth) I could not eliminate district overlaps. The ad hoc solution was to append the "orange" district onto the end of another section of the "peel" (orange arrows). That's why the map has unbalanced branches. It also makes the folding a little trickier because you've got to connect this district out of sequence from a simple, end-to-end assembly.

The orange district also contains the area discussed above, where I could not unscramble the cylindrically projected map.

The white line around the throat of the plastic model identifies Itokawa's primary valley line; it will become the boundary for a map which organizes and presents Itokawa's surface as two hill districts. (The current map presents the surface as basins, or, to use Maxwell's 1875 term, "dales.")

Another failure of accuracy: note the big rock at 12:00 o'clock on the top right plastic model. I had thought that my map would be able to capture this bulge on the assembled form, but it doesn't. I ought to have caught that earlier -- as I did with the ear -- I could have fixed it. Good thing nobody's paying for this map.

Same photo credit: Sara Adkins Studio / C.Clark

Thank you, nprev. nice to be appreciated.
My little project is self-supported -- it's grown (and mightily so, I might add) out of an apprentice problem I'd been given a long time ago, when I chose architect as my job.

We all have our motivations; this, to quote out of context my mentor who gave me this problem, "is my best bid for immortality." (added emphasis.) In the meantime, we all need to live and eat.

Let me know if you happen across a well-heeled space enthusiast seeking to inspire the public with a low-risk hi-reward cartographic innovation -- constant-scale natural boundary mapping, an orphan idea if there ever was.

While those blockbuster Hi-risk high-reward projects hog the limelight, I'm puttering along in my basement lab, using renaissance-era tools and techniques to fiddle with space-age discoveries. Well, okay, and eighteenth century innovation, the spring-loaded scissors.

I justify this project because architects are required by law to continue education -- and what better educates than a better look at the planet -- but that excuse gets slimmer as CSNB enters its third decade of focused activity. Doesn't help, that each new subject takes me farther from Earth.

Hmmm . . . Have you noticed that the new Enceladus global geology map looks to be promising raw material for a CSNB map . . .

And, not to digress overly, but I speculate that a spin-off application of CSNB to molecular mapping might be useful for addressing real world problems here on Earth. Not to mention that molecules are unchanged throughout the universe and time, so a way to map them into peculiar but eternal shapes, comparable (overlayable) as we architects compare floor plans ought to useful for basic science, shouldn't it? And then, you have the fun of cutting them out and folding them up . . . I'm just sayin'.

It's upstream on this post, but I'll mention it here again, thanks to JAXA for contributing the model used to make this CSNB Itokawa map.

Here is the folding sequence so far, maybe the better part of an hour counting extra time to keep track of seam slices:
photo credit Sara Adkins Studio / C. Clark

I'll post some group photos of the model, the test fold-up, the current current fold-up; then back to taping . . .

Okay. Three-fourths of the way put together. Here is a montage of typical activities when assembling.
Far left: I'm using the Scotch tape method, little pieces.
Left: applying tape.
Right: adding seam slices at an "ear," the same one I had to fiddle with earlier, after the test fold-up. I'm optimistic the ear is going to go together alright.
Far right: marking the tabs template with the extra ear seam slices.

I'll update the tabs template after I get all through with the assembly.
More later.

photo credit: Sara Adkins Studio / C. Clark

Phil,
Can you remake the hi-contrast Itokawa cylindrical map with, let's say, twice the resolution of the existing?
I'm finding myself less than pleased with the results on the constant-scale natural boundary map in those areas where I have had to resample-up, sometimes by a factor of 5 in the x direction (under the chin).
Most of the rest of the surface is nearly 1:1, and of course at polar districts I'm reducing your cylindrical pixels a great deal.
I won't need latitudes and longitudes.
By the way, your touch on setting the high contrast is just right (mid-tones, darks and lights all hold up in both Photoshop warping and in printing); my one attempt went blotchy.
Thanks. Hope that's a doable request so near to LPSC.

Here are the tabs I'm gonna try this time -- I neglected to keep track of the tabs I used to fold up the grid-only map.
The general rule I use when deciding whether to cut on the map-edge or leave a tab attached is to begin at any random "spot," i.e., the triple junctions (solid circles marked by letters) and the hinge points (open circles marked by numbers), and then switch (from cutting map-edge to leaving a tab) when I arrive at the next "spot."
This give a nice interweaving of tabs when assembling, and it seems to work out automatically, so you don't have to strain to think too far ahead about which edge will eventually match with which edge. This alternating tab-or-edge scissoring method means that there are basically only two possible tab layouts -- this always surprises me, but perhaps it is not news to mathematicians? One may be preferable over the other when it comes to assembling the tricky parts, the neck and the two, right-side "ears." Or the tab-and-edge rule may be better not followed in these areas; we don't know yet.
When cutting edges and tabs, check yourself where it's easy to do, though; it took me an hour or so to cut this out, and if I had missed a spot-changeover, then during assembly things would be all fouled up -- tabs matching tabs and no tabs matching no tabs -- not a fun outcome.
Seam slices -- to use Emily's vividly descriptive phrase -- are NOT shown. I'll use this cutout to keep track of minimum required slices and re-post it.
I can do that because I'm learning the hard way not to print (11x17 size, by the way, in case you lost track) the image on standard color-copy paper. It's too shiny for Scotch tape to stick well; I have to print and cut out another.

Be patient, that's gonna take me a few days because my good printer (Canon i9900) is on the blitz -- color is all screwed up and I'm at a loss how to fix it. I pinched pennies on my last ink cartridge order, going for the less-expensive Canon-compatible inks. I now have a mix of Canon and generic in it, which may be the source of my problem; or maybe the photo inks are fugitive, and -- I temporarily had the printer set up where it got afternoon sun -- the inks got bleached? Then again, maybe I have to haul it into the shop. Anybody have any experience with this?

By the way, since many of the hinge points (the numbered points) swing very narrow arcs, I had to place the numbers far up-stream of the points themselves. Other option was to shrink the font to ultra-teeny and put it in the open circles, but then unreadable. Why do you need them? The cylindrical map is marked correspondingly, so the numbers (and letters) help with orientation if you find yourself working back and forth from the conventional projection and the constant-scale natural boundary projection.

And, one final tip, when cutting into those narrow-arc hinge points: forget the alternating tab-and-edge rule; cut whichever side is easiest. I hold scissors in my right hand, so I cut the left side (working toward the hinge point) of the boundary. I see what I'm cutting rather than cutting blind.

Photo credit: Sara Adkins Studio / C. Clark