Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ixnayonthetimmay (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 14 October 2012 (→‎US place location maps: w00t!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconGeographical coordinates
WikiProject iconWikiProject Maps is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Geographical coordinatesWikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesTemplate:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesGeographical coordinates articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


Related WikiProjects

The parent of this WikiProject is the Geography WikiProject. WikiProject Maps also is a management type WikiProject for pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia. The following illustrates the position of WikiProject Maps within the Wikipedia WikiProject lineage:

Extended content
  • Creation/improvement of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Acquisition of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Distribution of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Monitoring of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia

WikiProjects that have made use of geographical maps include:

RfC: Guideline on depiction of disputed lands/territories

{{rfc|hist|pol|policy|rfcid=7D16D98}}

Extended content
There is no explicit guideline or convention on the depiction of disputed lands/territories. A discussion is going on Talk:China#Chinese map as depicted in the article about the depiction of disputed lands for quite a time. --kondi talk/contribs 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this depends on the map in question? Maps meant for different things could quite conceivably need different guidelines. CMD (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis makes a very valid point that 'what you want the map to show' makes a big difference to what it ought to show. But having read all the thread you mentioned above and wishing to steer clear of the politics as best I can, it seems clear you are talking about how maps display regions that have any regions that are not claimed, controlled, and internationally recognised as one entity.
And lets discuss a different region with disputed territory, as that may diffuse any nationalist emotions. Lets try Somalia as our example - I've deliberately not checked the articles yet.
Somalia has 2 other nation entities within it's claimed territory.
When I go to the Somalia article (and look at the map of Somalia) I'd expect the entire region claimed by Somalia (which I think incidentally is the same as the region that is internationally recognised) to be shown on the map - but with Somaliland and Puntland in a different shading.
When I go to the Somaliland article (and look at the map of Somaliland) I'd expect the entire region claimed by Somaliland to be labeled Somaliland with the disputed Puntland region shaded differently, and the remaining section of Puntland labeled Puntland. And similarly the reverse on the Puntland atricle page.
Ok I've now looked at those articles - and I'm pleased to see that the results are quite close my expectation.
So I'd like to suggest as a guideline, we treat all border claims a bit like fiction, where articles get written from an 'in universe perspective'. So similarly when making a map for an article for a country I would expect to see claimed boundaries from an 'in country perspective' and any areas that are claimed but not de facto controlled by that country labeled as such (grey or striped) in that map. But the region map (showing affected and surrounding countries)- should show all the NPOV de facto borders and none of the claims, and any areas with de facto contested control as dotted/hatched/or similar.
I'm basically in favour of drawing multiple maps for different articles in those cases of disputed control, with each map showing map boundaries from the point of view of the subject of each article, and labeling(greying out) any areas that are claimed by the subject but which are not actually controlled.
I'm not interested in the political debate that was going on. I hope this suggestion sounds reasonable to the other wikiproject map contributors. I know it means different versions of the same region map for different perspectives on the political control, and the defacto map would be simpler. But I really hope this may perhaps draw a line under a fair number of possible wikipedia disputes. EdwardLane (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds reasonable to me insofar as I have thought about it. I’ll keep thinking about it. Strebe (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does denoting the disputed areas in the administrative map constitute original research? Because the current version of administrative map, albeit conforming your thought, does not straightly display the only source we have for the map, i.e. the official version from the PRC website[1]. In fact, PRC does not regard those claimed lands (South Tibet and Taiwan) "disputed" while including them in her administrative map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An in universe perspective. That's a novel suggestion. I agree it sounds reasonable.
@Sameboat It's not OR, as there are tons of maps and sources out there which note that China doesn't control South Tibet and Taiwan. CMD (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is OR if reliable sources do not add such note on maps of the specific topic. You can't just insert the dispute to every map just because the dispute exists, without at least a minority of sources backing up the relevance of border dispute to the specific topic. Natural resources and foreign relation maps may mention border disputes, but do you see such notes in rainfall distribution map, on climate Map etc in real world? We should not mention border dispute in every map.
I'm perfectly OK with the current version, it's user:Skyfiler's concern that "disputed land map" and "administrative map" should be distinguished from each other, not mixing both if the source does not denote disputed land in the administrative map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to copy source images, per WP:OI. As long as the image reflects reliable sources of any kind, there is no sourcing issue. CMD (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image should only cite reliable sources on the map's topic. For example you should not add rainfall distribution on a population density map.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Border claims and facts on the ground are independent of the map’s subject. A country’s claims and holdings do not change according to whether the map displays butterfly habitat versus rail systems. Hence the matter is not one of WP:OR, but rather one of editorial style and consensus. Strebe (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compiling sources on the same subject and represent their conflicts is not OR, but combining sources on different subjects without reliable sources explicitly suggesting the relevance is. Relevance is not something you can get by seeking consensus within a short time. You can't just pretend there is a relevance between two topics and you need to mention both in each other's context. You need reliable sources to make the relevance verifiable in the long run or your insertion will always be challenged as everyone evaluate relevance differently.
The same combination can be used to advance an opposite position, a typical result of WP:SYN. Border disputes are not against provinces (fact) and province borders are not drawn with border disputes remarks (fact), a mixture of those two have no significations in either topic (verifiable opinion) and should not mentioned in an example border dispute map or provinces border map per WP:DUE (An opinion that is more in line with image search results). --Skyfiler (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a persuasive argument for me. Your argument supposes mapmakers for all these topics even have in mind the subtleties you describe, let alone are experts on them. In general they do not and are not, so representations amongst sources as you describe have little better than random meaning. Most maps are created by specialists of the subject they portray, not specialists of border politics. They think about their subject when they make maps. Borders are generally just an annoyance for them. In order for your argument to hold water, you would have to demonstrate that border representations on archetypal maps represent a scholarly statement on the topic of border representations as they pertain to the subject of the map. You cannot do that, so you have no thesis.
I agree with you that map makers do not have the subtleties in their minds, therefor we editors should not add subtleties that do not reflect what the map makers published and should only add what they do published. You can't honestly say an administrative map with border claims is a typical administrative map.--Skyfiler (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I do not advocate adding (or forgoing) border dispute data to just any old map. I support clear and consistent editorial guidelines. For example, a map showing rainfall statistics using maps conveying border conflicts may have no precedent in the literature, causing your argument to declare WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Meanwhile a map showing cloud cover that also conveys border conflicts might pass your theory’s muster because several such maps appear in the literature. Clear, consistent editorial guidelines would treat the situations the same, as they should. Strebe (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what I am proposing, we should not add trivia that is not important to the map's topic. I don't think we should encourage adding editorial bias to what reliable sources present on a topic. There is an essay on what is not original research, but those discuss facts that is on one subject, not about facts that belongs to two different topics connected with shaky relationships.--Skyfiler (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of sources noting China claims Taiwan (and all the information that phrase implies). Relevance is, as noted above, determined by consensus. Facts can often be used to advance different positions. If an image only shows what's verifiable, and what editors agree is relevant, than there is no SYN problem at all. CMD (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Relevance of content:A fact that connects two subjects may be appropriate for mention in the article of one, but not the other. This is often the case with creative works: what is important within the creative work may not exert a measurable influence on the other subject. In this case, the creative work is influential to none of the subject it connects to--Skyfiler (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And appropriate mention is, as noted above, determined by consensus. CMD (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought WP:HTRIVIA is established consensus. If a trivia is important to none of the subject it connects to then it should not be added to either topic. Are you saying that we cite our own subjective judgement as source to support the importance of a trivia, instead of waiting for reliable sources? I don't think an overlap of provincial borders with border disputes are expected on a map that is supposed to demonstrate a typical administrative or birder dispute map--Skyfiler (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is pointless, as it revolves around the idea of "the importance of a trivia". Trivia is regarded as unimportant information, so if information is important, it's not trivia. CMD (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the dispute is about the whether such trivial information should be on a picture that is supposed to demonstrate a typical map. --Skyfiler (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the dispute is about what should be depicted on a map. It is about determining what information is trivial (sort of, much of the dispute which caused this RfC was about NPOV). This will vary per the purpose of the map, which is why I don't think this general RfC will be closed that meaningfully. In the best case, it will provide some ideas which can be more firmly discussed elsewhere, such as EdwardLane's below. CMD (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take it easy - can we stay away from Taiwan/China as there are clearly political emotions involved there. I did note a line "map makers do not have the subtleties in their minds" which might be of interest. I think most wikipedia map makers do have the skills if the article itself explains the subtleties well enough. And where the article itself is not discussing the borders we should be able to work out some templates that can be used as the basis for future rain/butterfly maps, and that should deal with the issue for specialists in butterfly maps who perhaps don't know about the political borders in the area.


Incidentally we don't appear to be discussing trivia, making a map showing rainfall in "just Somaliland" might be contentious (to people from Puntland & Somalia who might disagree about the disputed border(s)), making a map of rainfall in the larger region - the horn of Africa is not going to give wp:undue emphasis to the contested areas, and can hopefully avoid edit wars over whether or not to leave out disputed territory. If we are showing rainfall in the horn of africa, then it would be standard practice to show borders (so that people can orientate themselves with the data). I think the very limited number of comments so far suggest 'consensus' is to use defacto borders (on any maps not specifically discussing the politics/borders in a region) as (assuming the situation is stable over a long enough time for someone to be drawing that map) any claimed/counterclaimed borders are not supported by facts on the ground. EdwardLane (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to show what a typical map is if there is a consensus from reliable sources. Consensus from reliable sources can change over time, such as maps depicting Russia and Sudan. If there are significant disagreement related to the map's topic from reliable sources we can summarize the claims. For example if there are a lot of dfferent measurement of rainfall at A on various version of rainfall maps we can say the majority agree rainfall is between X and Y. But this does not mean, say, a dispute on some other topic such as population density should be represented on a typical rainfall map. Of course there may be maps on different topics like flood evacuation where including both of the topics are the norm in reliable sources, and omitting rainfall or population density are probably not allowed if the map is labeled flood evacuation map. --Skyfiler (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what do propose as “reliable sources” for, say, rainfall maps or maps depicting Sudan? Strebe (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maps that are published by scholars, and to a less degree, governments and news organizations . I don't have a lot of access to offline sources, so when I was doing my research I look at image search results from trusted domains (.edu, .gov and .gov.au etc for English), as well as news, books and scholar search. I exclude search results whose topic does not match the planned map's, for example when a national border map of the whole Africa show up when I search for political maps of a specific country. Sometimes I also go to authoritative sources if I know, like going to the university of Texas who has an extensive map collection, or Texas Water Development Board and Hydrology Department of Henan Province even when those web sites are not on the trusted domains. Agreed this is biased towards online publications, and towards my personal knowledge on authorities of some topics, but I make my beset on reaching out to reliable sources and reflect what I found they say on a particular topic on Wikipedia. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I again need to register my reservation over this idea of maps as “reliable sources”. In general you do not know the sources of the map’s information, the analytic skill or intent of the people assembling the map, the agendas of the mapmakers or their authorities beyond the obvious purpose of the map, or the amount of concern those people had for the specific information you are extracting from the map. The reliable sources for a rainfall map are the raw data, not other maps. Maps plagiarize each other, copying fictions ad nauseam. This has always been true; depictions of California as an island or of Mer de l’Ouest seem obvious to us now in retrospect, but the same thing goes on now, and is the rule rather than the exception.
Scholarly sources, yes, by all means, but in order to be considered “reliable”, it must be evident that the scholar intended to exert scholarly authority with regard to the specific information you extract from the map. You almost never know that. Many map elements are incidental. The reliable data is in the sources the mapmaker (who may not have been the researcher or scholar) used to draft the map, not in the map itself. The map is another step—or five!—removed from the sources.
The reason maps are more suspect than other scholarly digests of information is that the map is rarely the intended outcome of the research: It is merely a convenient aid to digesting the information. Unless the map itself was the subject of peer review (and they rarely are) then you can assume it was incidental, and, paradoxically, the more scholarly the work, usually the more incidental the map.
Your process for selecting map sources sounds better than random to me, but often not useful for resolving conflicts in the face of all the unknowns maps present. Ideal source maps have been critiqued in a scholarly way; that’s what would coincide with Wikipedia’s favored “secondary sources”. Good luck finding those. Strebe (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it would be lucky to find secondary sources that compare different maps. I don't know if there is a consensus on dealing with lacking of secondary sources on maps. The best match I can find is "the best material available" from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone but it is for popular culture and dated all the way back to 2005, consensus may change over time. --Skyfiler (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think EdwardLane's idea is quite reasonable. In maps, both de jure and de facto territory can be clearly depicted, with regions that are not de facto be greyed/striped/shaded differently/whatever. This way, there is no lack of information, and it is clear to the reader. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, But I do note that I had not mentioned rainfall maps or butterfly habitat or similar maps that don't generally depict politics. So, if you are showing rainfall in the horn of africa, then which set of borders you use under the rainfall overlay might potentially offend people. Using de facto borders seems like the only way to avoid bickering over what defines an 'internationally' agreed border. If a region is currently in flux and the de facto border is moving or otherwise ill defined then it looks like we will need to agree a new template, which type of lines (dotted?) for blurred borders and disputed inter/intra national boundaries. EdwardLane (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree butterfly habitat maps should show de facto borders (although I suspect they often won't need to show borders at all). I don't think in-flux regions are going to be much of an issue. They usually aren't in flux for very long, and when they are, it really won't matter what border we use. CMD (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also other neighbouring areas (including any disputed territory) do not need to be trimmed out of the map - that 'white space' does not exist, those regions can just be one step over an "imaginary" line in the dirt, a rain butterfly map can (and probably should) show the whole area and 'avoid deliberately leaving out' disputed areas if it is easy for the area encompassed by the borders of the map to show enough of the surrounding regions. EdwardLane (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dear all : This talk become endless and unproductive. We can't explain to each new user BEFORE why we WILL use grey not red, why we keep neigbourg countries, talk about butterfly, etc: that's time consuming and not productive. Mapmakers' job is to work constantly with borders, borders changes, borders disputes. Edward (cartographer) and myself (cartographer) volunteered to propose a guideline (draft). Edward and myself already gather a long experience, and have the understanding and skills to make a good proposal. Successfull conventions were produce that way, by a single or duo of users, proposing a convention, sharing it, then the proposal was improved with feedbacks. This last way have proven efficient, elegant, and consensual. Accordingly, please simply let us some weeks to propose a guideline draft, then we will have something to comment on. Cheers, Yug (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yug, can you specify how much time it would take for you to come up with a guideline on this? I am in no hurry, but specifying a date would be very helpful. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say 2 months. Maybe more. It needs maturation. I'm currently watching maps with this problematic in mind, thus gathering ideas of current practices and possible conventions. To tell more, the German team actually provided a nice start, light and nice, the bad points are 1. nothing for waterbody, 2. conflicting with the wikipedia (NGO) will to use doted lines (— - — - —) for international border. That's conflicting. My opinion of it will come according to what practices I see within this 2 months, then I will write down a comprehensive proposal within an afternoon. Yug (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will remind you after 2 months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two month window has now elapsed, and I hope there will be some resolution to this dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request a map

I wonder if there is a free equivalent of this map. It has to be old (before 18 March 2011), because the structure (Pearl Square) was demolished by authorities. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simpliest way is Sharemap.org. I'm creating the Barhain part to show you the way. May you draw the Cairo part and combine the both ? (I'm in exam period). Yug (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See: http://sharemap.org/public/Bahrain_protest . The Apps is quite simple, easy ti edit, so enjoy yourself ! Yug (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It looks nice. Thanks and good luck in exams! Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to download the map WITH the background. Do a screenshot if need. Cheer. Yug (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an Infobox map

I am having a difficult time with the Infobox map on Blob's Park. I followed the guidelines on Template:Infobox map but that did not seem to work. Any help would be appreciated. LarryGrim (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got it for you, switched to a different template and it worked. Kmusser (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That got it. So simple when it is done. So difficult to do alone. LarryGrim (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking critique & advice

Please let me know if there's a more appropriate venue in which to ask this. I'm looking for constructive critiques of a series of maps I'm creating. These are maps of reservoirs that were never built, which will illustrate an expanded article I plan to write on the defunct Meramec Basin Project.

  • Meramec Park Lake
    Meramec Park Lake
  • Pine Ford Lake
    Pine Ford Lake
  • Union Lake
    Union Lake
  • Irondale Lake
    Irondale Lake
  • Virginia Mines Lake
    Virginia Mines Lake
  • Salem Lake
    Salem Lake

I'm planning on another couple of maps for major reservoirs that were proposed for a second phase of the project, plus one of the full basin showing them all in relation to each other and the basin. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Awesome... the best topographic maps created on the English Graphic lab. Yug (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is not true. Overall these aren't bad, IMHO, but I'm looking for real expert guidance on what details need more attention and tweaking in some manner. --Kbh3rdtalk 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those look great, I think they'd be fine as is. If you have it, it would be cool to show the existing river course going through the reservoirs (but keep it subtle, a light blue dashed line perhaps). I'd probably also use regular case for the water feature labels and reserve the all caps for just the counties, but that's a personal preference. Kmusser (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For deeper comments...
1. You map a small area, so you have neither the misleading north-arrow issue, nor the misleading scale issue. I suspect however that the grey lines indicate the real north (see File:Meramec Park Lake propose v4.svg).
2. Background is SVG, which is great (how did you make that ? which soft / script ?)
3. Colors are smooth thanks to the conventions.
4. I didn't remembered that rivers should have darker borders, but I guess you considered the big zoom justifies to look at rivers are water area rather than water lines.
Suggestions: I may suggest you to enlarge a bit the frames. More interesting : to create an overall locator map to localize each frame. See File:Metacomet_Ridge_map-fr.svg. Yug (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Response per each:
1. Most of these were done in UTM 15N, and the area is towards the eastern limit of that zone, which causes north to tilt to the left. The last one (Virginia Mines) was done in the Missouri East state plane which has that problem to a much lesser degree for this area. I may recast all the maps in that projection. The north arrow, particularly the one from the template, doesn't do much good when the deviation from vertical is slight. I included and oriented it in the Meramec Park Lake map, and it's also in the Union Lake map, though I think that was by accident.
2. I use Quantum GIS to render the topographic background and export it as a bitmap. I use Inkscape's bitmap tracer to translate that into SVG. That function is available in a standalone utility, too, though I don't remember the name. The lakes, roads, streams, and towns are from shapefile data, after I've derived the lakes' shapefile from the elevation data, and are rendered to SVG with shptosvg, which I wrote. I've gotten my techniques pretty well nailed down while working on this series and have been considering posting a step-by-step tutorial, both to help others learn and to garner suggestions for better methods.
3. Using all 19 colors of the convention creates too unwieldy an SVG file, given how they're rendered by the bitmap tracer, and that number isn't necessary for the range of elevations here, so I cut it down to those shown. In most I chose the first n colors, but in the Meramec Park Lake map I used every other color. I think I may adjust that to be the same as the other maps.
4. Yes, I realize it goes against the convention, but I believe that the streams as shown look better in these maps. That's how they're shown on USGS topo maps, and the scale here is similar or even smaller.
I love a map full of details into which I can dive. But topographic details are more easily gleaned from a shaded relief map, I think, than the flat color used here. I don't have a technique for an effective shaded relief map in pure SVG, though. I may make shaded bitmap versions of each of these, as I did for the Pine Ford map. The Metacomet Ridge map you reference is very interesting and well done. I am going to make a map of the whole basin with all these maps shown in context, but I don't think I'll include each of these as insets because it ossifies the presentation -- all these maps as well as the area map can be included and arranged individually in the article I have in mind.
Thanks for the useful feedback, and more welcomed. --Kbh3rdtalk 20:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback regarding the descriptions, not the content: It would be useful to have more metadata noted, such as the projection used, co-ordinates displayed, scale and so on. Also the source - the map is your own work, but the data its based on isn't.
Regarding the content, I'm not sure about the display of the roads. If the dams had been built the roads would have been interrupted. Given that the lakes are shown as if they had been completed, I think it would be better to show it covering those roads. I wish SVG relief shading was viable too...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new map for a reservoir that was proposed for near Salem. Changes in the presentation, based on suggestions here, include: "underwater" roads, added existing lakes and minor streams (presented as simple lines), and projection information and world file on the image description page. Unfortunately, this is near the western edge of the state plane, which causes North to dip to the right; that county line runs east-west. The North arrow is accurate for what it's worth. BTW, Crooked Creek, on the far right, is the namesake of the Crooked Creek crater. --Kbh3rdtalk 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urals blank map.png

File:Urals blank map.png has been suggested that it isn't free and should be deleted -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new pushpin map

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Pushpin maps

Are there any instructions on creating a pushpin map?

JASpencer (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you something in mind ? (some radom pushpin maps images). I guess we have nothing, but you can suggest us a convention on the same principle that our other Map Conventions. Yug (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
class=notpageimage|
Case 2. Location of some of the several dozen attacks and protests.
case 1
I found the 3 cases for wikipedia pinpoint maps.
Case 1: You can draw it completely in SVG, like the Mali map.
Case 2: ({location maps+}
Case 3: make an external google maps. Yug (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers. JASpencer (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US place location maps

Greetings all,

Some years ago I generated a large number of SVG maps that are used on numerous US place articles (see [2] for an example). They were a step up from the generic pushpin maps that had been used for some years and for the most part people were happy with them, however these maps are deficient in a number of ways - not the least of which being the fact that they are outdated by 12 years now.

I have been asked from time to time if I planned to do an update on these maps, so I've finally begun looking in to it. I've identified a number of potential upgrades to bring the maps more up to convention as well as adding additional context, based partly on a subset of maps that have been created by User:Ixnayonthetimmay. A test run of the script and some of the potential improvements can be seen at [3], it is obviously lacking the inset window.

Before I move any further with this 'project' I have a few points I'd like to bring up as well as get any potential feedback on how I might be doing thse things better.

  • Roads and water features have been added for context. I am slightly concerned that on this scale the size of the roads might in fact be a distraction, so I would love some feedback as to whether or not they should be included. Water features should remain either way, they are particularly useful in coastal regions where the old style map could produce confusing results.
  • The maps no longer exist as isolated islands; features that extend out beyond the county lines are displayed.
  • I've done my best to conform to convention but there is still some gray area. The previous convention was to show incorporated places as grey and unincorporated places as transparent (no fill). So far I am still going with this old convention but if there is any other suggestions I'm open to hearing them.
  • Some derivative versions of these maps show Native American reservation boundaries, but I've left them off. It is my opinion that since the purpose of these maps is to show boundaries for incorporated and unincorporated places (cities and towns, essentially), adding additional jurisdictional boundaries only confuses things. Open to any feedback on these lines.
  • Previous discussions regarding minor civil divisions in some states (Michigan, New England Area, etc) indicated that the old maps were deficient for these states. The newer files available from the Census allows the script to treat these as equal to incorporated places so this should not be an issue any longer.

The scripts I have written do most of the hard work but there is still a lot of 'manual labor' involved; inset maps have to be added by hand, for example, as well as some minor fixes to coastal water features. As there are 3000 county and county equivalents in the US, I'd like to get started on the process sooner rather than later if I am to go forward with this, so again, any input or suggestions are quite welcome. Thanks! Shereth 19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you made a post here, and glad to see you went into more detail with resolving the issues with the old maps than I did.
Overall, I think it's essential to have all the maps conform to the same standards and a project like this one will address, once and for all, the inconsistent and sometimes obsolete locator maps for the various Wikipedia U.S. city articles. Regarding the specific points you mentioned:
1.) Roads should be included for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I am not sure the size would be an issue unless the roads will appear 'thinner' on large county maps and 'thicker' on small county maps. I am wondering if there is some way to compensate for that; bump up the thickness of the road paths for larger maps and vice versa, though this is just an aesthetic point.
2.) This will be fine, though I am wondering the effect this will have on cities with significant chunks of incorporated land in adjacent counties. Maybe just take it on a case-by-case basis for the New York Cities out there.
3.) This convention regarding unincorporated areas seems to be working. Just a value judgement on my part, but anything we can do to get away from those terrible red dot locator maps will be quite welcome.
4.) I must confess this norm for showing rez boundaries shows my Arizona bias, and it seemed to just fit for the Maricopa county maps I made lo these many years ago. I must agree that it doesn't make sense to shoe-horn them into the locator maps anymore.
5.) I can't provide any input on the northeastern states issues raised up, but I would like to ask this. Will Midwestern townships and New England "towns" be equivalent to unincorporated places in your map standard?
If you would like someone to volunteer to help with post-production, I will, though there are some other aesthetic considerations I would like to discuss. But as you mentioned, there are 3000 maps, so it isn't something I could do on my own in any reasonable amount of time. Help would be greatly appreciated!
Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpin points moved south

I am not sure where to address this, but today I find all the pushpin points placed on File:Uruguay location map.svg moved to the south. I checked with other location maps, like File:Greece location map.svg and I think I see in all of them a deviation of pushpins. Is this visible to all? Was there some change lately that could have this effect? One example as seen at the time I write this is that the coordinates of kilometre 0 of Montevideo Department dispay in the water, though when I placed them 3 days ago, the pushpin was exactly where it should be. Hoverfish Talk 10:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Hoverfish Talk 23:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gradient maps best practices: copy edit need

Dears, I made a push to gather interesting concepts, resources, and tools to generate gradient maps winthin a 'convention page' (best practice is more correct). The page and text is 90% done, but I'am not an English speaker. May some English native speaker come checkspell and copyedit my writing (there:Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Gradient maps) before its full inclusion / publication within our list of best practices (Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions). This copyedit will be appreciate ! Yug (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone to help ? Yug (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:Titles - All about Maps and Article Names

There is this discussion on-going at If Maps Agree? at WT:AT that would benefit from some input from those editors who understand the role of cartographers in naming places. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps&oldid=517687543"