Everything is super subjective, and I rate mostly for myself, to see what my standards are and how they change over the years.

5 = Maps which I often take inspiration from and/or reshaped my knowledge about mapping

4.5 = Maps where I have virtually no mistakes to point out. They have mastered what they were going for.

4 = Maps where I subjectively wish they changed a couple of things, but an excellent map nonetheless.

3.5 = Maps which are structurally very solid, but which have a few things that could have been modded.

3 = Either occasional major blunders, or map-wide aspects that I'm not a fan of, but the overall style is ok.

2.5 = I don't like it, but I'm not all too bothered by it.

2 = Maps that I either conceptually do not understand (or agree with), or maps with a few really significant mistakes.

1.5 = Overall bad maps, with either lots of stuff which could have been pointed out, and/or which just suck to play overall.

1 = Really bad maps, either with consistent glaring issues which absolutely should've been addressed, or where I flat out disagree with the entire idea.

0.5 = Lowkey worse than 0. This never should have seen the light of day.

0 = Reserved for laughably bad maps, or where I believe they actively bring negative value from their sole existence in the game.

Hide less-relevant maps (Most rated and/or highest charted, min. 10 shown)