Initially, I had some trouble locating my points on the Hereford Mappamundi because the writing isn’t readable on the map. However, once I found out how the countries were laid out, I was able to approximate where they would’ve most likely landed on the Hereford map. I wasn’t able to include all of the points that I plotted on the modern map. Unfortunately, the points became too close together as Fabri’s route entered Italy to plot on the Hereford Mappamundi which could’ve contributed to some of the differences in the shape of Fabri’s route. The first major difference I noticed between the modern map and the Hereford map was that on the Hereford map, Fabri’s route looks much more direct than it does on the modern map. On the modern map, Fabri’s route is less direct and winds through the mountains. Because of the lack of physical features and details on the Hereford map, it was harder to depict the more specific aspects of Fabri’s journey and the route appears to be an almost perfectly straight line from Ulm to Venice. The Hereford map depicts rivers and lakes, with debatable accuracy, but it doesn’t illustrate any mountain ranges. Considering that nearly half of Fabri’s journey takes place within the Alps between Austria and Italy, the lack of mountains contributes to how different his journey looks on the Hereford map compared to the modern GIS map. The lack of mountains also made it more difficult to illustrate an accurate depiction of Fabri’s route and contributed to how straight the route looks on the Hereford map. Additionally, on the Hereford map, Fabri’s route looks horizontal because East is positioned at the top where North would be on a traditional modern map. On the modern map, Fabri’s journey looks vertical, as if his journey is taking him down the map. However, this is mostly due to each map’s differences in orientation, as the modern map is oriented with North towards the top, unlike the Hereford map.