While it's true that any player wouldn't normally see some areas of the maps, in the cases here I don't think it's confusing or unwieldy to show the full map area, especially for consistency's sake since that's how he mapped the rest of the game.
Because of Zerker's method of mapping (and in the forums he demonstrates that), it's obvious to me that he mapped it independently, and is not merely appending to your maps, which is a concern I have when having to choose someone's map to replace another's.
I hate having to make judgment calls like this in any case. Here I thought it would be redundant to have both versions, and yet I felt I couldn't reject his when he mapped the game so thoroughly. Though if Zerker hadn't made the topic that he had where he taught how to hack/disassemble the game, by virtue of your maps being first, they would have had a better chance of staying.
Though I still have copies of your maps if you really feel that I should put them back. Question is, what would I call them?
The concern of redundancy from two (or more?) mappers has been raised a few other times, including recently. When choosing which maps to feature and which to replace, it seems like a case-by-case basis, which is why I haven't been able to post some ground rules for how the situations should be handled. I could probably post a number of criteria that influence my decision, but I don't know that it would be like a flowchart that could be easily followed.
Regardless, remember it's nothing personal if I pick someone's map over yours. I'd like to think my judgment isn't usually horrible. And if/when your maps get rejected, remember there are still thousands of other games yet to map. There is no shortage of opportunity.
