h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You might want to check out the Peer Review tread again.
the moderator of the h2g2 photograpers group is proposing I take an original chart (no third party charts allowed) e-mail it to the photographers group and they would fast-track it like they do photos.
The way I see this happening you tell me where to find your original chart, I save it to my hard drive and then e-mail it and I will let you know the results.
I can do this because I ahve a membership in that group.

I understand one of the curators (Gnomen) has e-mailed the editors a chart.

Sorry for the (too?) late answer but h2g2 doesn't send email notifications. Anyway, I prepared two maps, one for Goo and one for the rest. If I remember correctly, h2g2 required these two versions, at least a couple of years ago:

http://www.sportarten.rwth-aachen.de/Fechten/Statistics/ursa_major_blue.pdf
http://www.sportarten.rwth-aachen.de/Fechten/Statistics/ursa_major_white.pdf

Those are PDFs because I don't know the resolution and size requirements. Everyone with a bitmap paint program can convert them to bitmaps. I can do myself if I'm told how big they should be.

thanks for the effort but the editors decided to go with the chart Gnomen gave them.

Just for future reference the standard size for graphics in Edited articles is 200 pixels square. If submitted as a bitmap I'm sure the editors could put it in the format they require.
But at this juncture it is a moot point because a chart has already been chosen.

Does http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A23965347 contain the final graphics? If so, the image guidelines are still as misguided as they used to be four years ago. I know that this thread is the wrong place to say this, but this graphics MUST be a PNG rather than a JPEG. You see JPEG artifacts all over the image after all. The upper limit of 200px for the width seems also very artificial to me. Besides, it is not very pleasant to say the least (eg no anti-aliasing) -- but this may be biased.