I would suggest that, if various portions the vectors could cite evidence, it would be an excellent basis for historic vector maps on Wikipedia. Currently, this whole area is a shambles.
Further, I recently learned some historical maps I had created with great effort for my Tang Dynasty text translation at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Manshu were deleted by some Wikipedia policy-thumber who reckoned including low resolution satellite backgrounds to contextual maps was grounds for erasing them. You'd think being an open source project for academic caliber translations you'd be able to use, you know, open sources under academic fair use. My tolerance for idiots is truly at an all time low.
The notion that there is a fixed line between cultures is itself a farce, but, historically the majority of such maps drawn for empires are written using the implied borders from latter-day interpretations of geography that was mentioned by an eventual victor as annexed. However, the reality on the ground is usually much different. In some cases, thousands of years different.
This is a difficult thing to describe for any pre-modern polity, where vassalage and weak frontiers make it difficult to describe if a central power actually controlled a territory. The Ottoman Empire de-facto exercised little control its North African vassals, the Roman Empire had increasingly weak control over its frontiers due to migrations and incursions, etc.
There's a lot of great work in Wikimedia commons, but I think there are 2 primary / very common issues:
* Format - many of these maps are .svg or illustrator-created images with no projection information, which makes data extraction very difficult. This is why we're trying to share with GIS-formatted data, so people can do with it what they'd like.
* Sourcing - very often, a map is depicted with a source of "own work". That, unfortunately, really isn't good enough & we're trying to source all objects in OHM. What's scary is that putting something in Wikimedia almost ensures wide propagation as "fact", even if it lacks a source. Here's an example... the base map is sourced, but where did this red line come from? It appears to be hand-drawn on a map... who drew it? How'd they get that outline? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comancheria.jpg
Relatively accurate projection detection should be feasible for some, particularly vector, maps. Perhaps a library for this could be made. A simple approach would be convolution of nearby topographic features by assumed potential projection and then a least-difference comparison with observed positions. I am sure the CIA foreign map processing people have had this stuff for decades already.
I would suggest that, if various portions the vectors could cite evidence, it would be an excellent basis for historic vector maps on Wikipedia. Currently, this whole area is a shambles.
Further, I recently learned some historical maps I had created with great effort for my Tang Dynasty text translation at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Manshu were deleted by some Wikipedia policy-thumber who reckoned including low resolution satellite backgrounds to contextual maps was grounds for erasing them. You'd think being an open source project for academic caliber translations you'd be able to use, you know, open sources under academic fair use. My tolerance for idiots is truly at an all time low.