Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 17

How Coor(d) templates work[edit]

Reverse-engineering {{Coord}}, it looks at/for:

Template parameter named "display"
4th positional parameter is empty for "dec"
4th and 8th positional parameters for N E,N W,S E,S W for "dms"
3rd and 6th positional parameters for N E,N W,S E,S W for "dm"
2nd and 4th positional parameters for N E,N W,S E,S W for "d"
"format" and "name" are the other (2) named Template parameters (besides "display").

it transcludes Coord/display and Coord/input template families (which transclude Coord/link ...).

What Coor templates do:
Name	Transcludes	Named Parameters	CSS id	CSS class	Description
{{Coor d}}	{{Coor URL}}	name		plainlinksneverexpand	(5) positional parameters and "&title={{urlencode:name}}"
{{Coor dm}}	{{Coor URL}}	name		plainlinksneverexpand	(7) positional parameters and "&title={{urlencode:name}}"
{{Coor dms}}	{{Coor URL}}	name title		geolink plainlinksneverexpand	(9) positional parameters and "&title={{urlencode:name}}"
{{Coor at d}}	{{Coor URL}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(5) positional parameters
{{Coor at dm}}	{{Coor URL}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(7) positional parameters
{{Coor at dms}}	{{Coor URL}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(9) positional parameters
{{Coor title d}}	{{Coor dm}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(5) positional parameters
{{Coor title dm}}	{{Coor dm}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(7) positional parameters
{{Coor title dms}}	{{Coor dms}}		coordinates	plainlinksneverexpand	(9) positional parameters
{{Coord}}	Either {{Coord/dec2dms}} family or {{Coord/dms2dec}}, 1 of Coord/display/* inline is default, 1 of Coord/input/*, {{Coord/link}} indirectly ...	display format name	coordinates	geo-default geo-nondefault geo-dms latitude longitude geo-multi-punct vcard geo-dec geo fn org	(9) positional parameters

There are inconsistencies in the Coor templates:

Difference(s) between CSS class=geolinks and CSS id=coordinates?
Only {{Coor d}}, {{Coor dm}}, and {{Coor dms}} accept a "name=" template parameter (which passes on to GeoHack as "&title=name") and
{{Coor dms}} accepts a "title" template parameter which "triggers" the "class=geolink".

Coord's documentation says is outputs the appropriate Geo Microformats, See {{Coord/link}} (CSS) class= geo-default, geo-nondefault, geo-dms, latitude, longitude, geo-multi-punct, vcard, geo-dec geo, fn org. I do not know what Coor family's CSS "id=coordinates" does compared to {{Coord/link}} Geo Microformats? LeheckaG (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFD Coord named[edit]

I nominated {{Coord named}} for deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_24#Template:Coord_named. It is only a redirect to {{Hcard-geo}} as a result of Hcard-geo being renamed to "Coord named" and then being renamed back again, and it is not used by other Wiki articles or templates Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Coord_named, for details see discussion under the TFD log I cited. Please Vote as appropriate, either: Delete or Keep. LeheckaG (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have nominated Template:Hcard-geo directly. --User:Docu

Polygon on maps - urgent.[edit]

I think Wikipedia should seriously consider adding polygon capabilities like WikiMapia. There are many contributions Wikipedia is losing to Wikimapia due to Wikipedia's very poor support for polygons and overlays. Just a thought.

I am particularly troubled by WikiMapia's very limited licensing. -Regards.

Response[edit]

I took another look at Wikimapia, I had previously looked at it briefly. The majority of Wikimapia "polygons" appear to be rectangles derived from Wikipedia's type: and scale: parameters. Wikimapia can create more sophisticated polygons based on up to 150 corners or turning points. Wikimapia appears to have nowhere near the quantity of coordinates (articles) which Wikipedia has on Google Earth and Google Maps.

Personally, the first (2) steps are to:

have Wikipedia output a 3-D coordinate (i.e. elevation or altitude) and
then a way of doing simple vectors "pair of coordinates connected by a thin line".

There already is a way (GeoGroupTemplate "Map all coordinates") to do a list of coordinates as individual plotted "pushpins" on Google Maps, so making the jump combining a vector (pair of coordinates + line) and list of coordinates to create a polygon would not be a big jump (AFTER a way of doing a vector is implemented). LeheckaG (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. You are right that Wikimapia is lagging behind, but don't expect that to last too long. I'm afraid I can't contribute technically. But I can only urge you to consider Wikimapias dead simple interface and the ease of use that is superior in everyday to Wikimapia in terms of mapping capability. They will catch up quickly.

Look at this link: [1]. Look how easy it is to instantly understand what each neighborhood is, and where it is in relation to all other plot points. To get the same concept in Wikipedia via text and singular plot points is simple impossible. Wikimapia has made modifying map points as easy as editing text on Wikipedia. This simplicity will soon lead to a a parity in number of waypoints, and eventually, WikiMapia gaining the lead.

Do not underestimate them.

Venture capitalists know this as well. I recall the Russian programmers behind WikiMapia were seeking VC funding not too long ago. I'm pretty sure they already have it now.

Try editing Wikimapia and you will see why.

I think Wikipedia should embed an small Google map with a square overlay which can be as quickly and as easily edited as Wikimapia. I think Wikipedia is loosing its chance at a massive growth market by not pushing a competitor to Wikimapia no matter how beta or buggy... Just look at the history of web mapping: Google maps pushed a product while MSFT, Yahoo, and even once dominant MapQuest lagged and are now nothing. MapWho? -Regards.

Wikimapia and Wikipedia have different funding models, licensing/open source-public domain, and as well as source/verifiability criteria.

Wikipedia is non-commercial, open source, public domain (supported by donations/non-commercial sponsorship) whereas I am not sure what Wikimapia's long-term intentions are?
Wikipedia requires citations and references for information to be generally verifiable. Whereas Wikimapia can be more easily "polluted by bad information".

Wikimapia is working by embedding Google Maps in a frame and just handling the coordinates/rectangles/polygons on their site as an overlay over the content provided by Google Maps. Not likely something Wikipedia would do because of several licensing/policy issues, but I cannot speak with authority on that.

Wikipedia does not really support embedding "frames", especially not embedding outside (commercial) sites (like Google). Wikipedia would more likely use a similar "non-competing"/non-commercial source, like GIS/mapping data and imagery available from free/Public Domain sources: the U.S. federal government or non-commercial sites with philosophies and policies similar to Wikipedia's (compared to embedding Google Maps - which is a "commercial" site).

That said, Wikipedia uses Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) ids and classes which enables Geoboxes and Infoboxes to work. Geoboxes and Infoboxes can contain one or more images or maps (depending on the particular one), but those are "static" image files uploaded to Wiki "Commons". It is technically possible to overlay such with other content using CSS (which is how the "Location map" or "Pushpin map" works). There might be something more sophisticated, but the available templates I have seen so far overlay a larger map with one or more "marks". LeheckaG (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Let me first point out that Wikimapia is far from polluted with information. Its information is easily 2 to 3 times more potent and higher volume than Wikipedia. No contest. Wikipedia's source requirements are also a sort of null to my point:

My point is that whatever you are doing now, it is obviously insufficient in comparison to Wikimapia. The different licensing is not an excuse or explanation for Wikipedia's lag: but the very reason why Wikipedia must do better that Wikimapia. All contributions to Wikimapia are explicitly. Explicitly. Licensed away to Wikimapia - likely for commercial use. [2]

"Wikimapia is working by embedding Google Maps in a frame and just handling the coordinates/rectangles/polygons on their site as an overlay over the content provided by Google Maps. Not likely something Wikipedia would do because of several licensing/policy issues" This is huge.

Wikimapia has a license or agreement with Google to make money off of Google. I am more than positive that Google with allow Wikipedia usage of it's mapping for GFDL & Educational purposes. There is no doubt in my mind. Period. I'll go do the legal foot work myself on this if the devs here are willing to smash something together that resembles what Wikimapia can do, including overcoming whatever technical hurdles in the way. Google uses Wikipedia on G Maps and G Earth. There is absolutely no reason short of insanity that they would not extend Wikipedia the same courtesy. -Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.213.196 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I found the following template while looking through articles. {{Geofact-inline}} Does this mean that coordinates need citations? Spencer^T♦^C 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using {{Cite gnis}} with "ref" tags whenever I am citing/using coordinates from the United States Geological Survey, it is nice because it provides a "one-click link" to the exact reference source page in contrast to {{GR}} (which I HATE) since it dumps you off at a "search engine site" and results in "exactly where did you find that on Census.Gov or USGS.Gov"? If or when something needs to be "explained", like "manually plotted in Google Earth", or "mid-point between two published coordinates", ... I add a "Notes" section before the "References" section and put a {{Cnote}} there explaining just that (whatever the explanation is and citing references), then I place a {{Cref}} in the article to refer to the {{Cnote}}. LeheckaG (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "good" reason for doing the citation or reference (even when using GNIS) is because sometimes there may be more than one set of coordinates for a "named feature", mostly to do with "Populated Place"s. In both Alaska and Ohio, I have encountered multiple "feature classes" for the same names:

"Civil" (for an incorporated municipality - usually the center point of the boundaries)
"Census" (U.S. Census Bureau's center point of their census tract boundary - which often does not match civil/geographic/political ones)
"Locale" (either a general or historical area known by that name - sometimes the "Populated Place" moves)
"Populated Place" (where the U.S.G.S. plots "civilization" on a map - meaning buildings, industry, people, residences, ... usually where the people actually are)

If I am trying to say where a "city" is, I try to use the "Civil" coordinates unless they really do not "make sense" when plotted on a map. For instance, in the "water" or on a "mountain", ... ONLY for a section where I am talking about U.S. Census figures would I usually use a "Census" coordinate. For the majority of other uses, "Populated Place" is where the people (usually) are and makes the most sense. There are counter-examples, when I run across one, then I try to use a Cnote and Cref pair explaining which "published" coordinate and why. In a Geobox or Infobox with a "GNIS" field, that is the "reference citation" unless either a coordinate or altitude/elevation deviates from a published one for some reason. Likewise in a table. But if there is no link or reference, and some explanations are needed, then you should have a reference. Coordinates needs to be reasonably verifiable as to their source, {{Cite gnis}} makes at least the GNIS ones relatively easy to verify. As to coordinate accuracy or number of digits, many are either under or over specified, for larger states Degrees are usually close enough, for many counties minutes are close enough, for 99% of the smaller features seconds are more than enough unless you are documenting a surveying benchmark monument. LeheckaG (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geofact-inline}} was recently created and has no documentation. Ask the creator what its purpose is and that it should be documented. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visualization of Wikipedia articles with Google Maps[edit]

Sfan00 IMG proposes deleting:

www.geonames.org (See "discussion) over 800,000 Wikipedia articles in 230 languages on Google maps. The placemarks include short descriptions of the displayed items, extracted from the Wikipedia articles. Webservices for full text search and reverse geocoding of wikipedia articles.

Citing: (Remove Geonames ambiguous (C) (see - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Geonames - Wikipedia needs to review it's relationship with this site)

I reverted the edit so that it can be discussed before changes are made to the WikiProject page. The concerns raised are:

Traceability/Verifiability of Data
Copyrights/Licensing (of data and imagery)

Background information:

It is in the last link above that the concerns are raised. I do not see an issue with presenting GeoNames are a "non-authoritative/secondary source" or with offering it as an external link or reference (provided that it is not "used out of that context" as an "authoritative/primary source".)

GeoNames is an important "one-stop" link to locate the authoritative/primary sources, and I agree that appropriate guidance is needed so that contributors do not use it as an authoritative/primary source. LeheckaG (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 proposes deleting what from where? You've provided links to external sites; what Wikipedia info might be modified? I don't see any need to delete mention of GeoNames, but I also don't see that it is necessarily notable enough to mention. It might have GFDL violations (the http://www.geonames.org/wikipedia.html link suggests there is Wikipedia text presented but I didn't find some). The coordinates themselves are not copyrightable, but no sources are provided for individual coordinates so it is hard to judge the reliability of their coordinates. I didn't see GeoNames providing any images other than icons and legends, and nobody has mentioned anyone trying to copy those icons here. The imagery from Google Maps is probably being used following the Google Maps API license, and no specific violation has been mentioned here. So what's the Wikipedia issue involving GeoNames? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that Sfan 00 had deleted GeoNames from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, so I started this discussion and reverted the change:

2008-07-29T15:24:32 LeheckaG (Talk | contribs) (31,693 bytes) (Undid revision 228594318 by Sfan00 IMG (talk) Reverted - Added new section to WP discussion page) (undo)
2008-07-29T12:57:40 Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) (31,386 bytes) (Remove Geonames ambiguous (C) (see - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Geonames - Wikipedia needs to review it's relationship with this site) (undo)

My personal belief is just that some guidance is needed ... i.e. that GeoNames is a secondary source and not an authoritative/primary source. Secondarily whatever copyright/licensing concerns there are, if they are found to have some basis. LeheckaG (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external comments don't seem very relavant to Wikipedia. I don't think coordinates themselves are relevant to copyright issues, being similar to addresses and phone numbers. But the GeoNames pile of unsourced coordinates is a limited benefit to us. Its primary advantage is a timesaver for an editor in finding that a coordinate has been defined, but then one has to do a normal search to find a source (the only help from GeoNames might be the exact name to search for). -- SEWilco (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]