Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India maps

Ladakh map request 2[edit]

Could someone please create a map of the Ladakh region based on Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg? Note that Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council has two definitions of Ladakh -- one is the Ladakh under its jurisdiction, which is limited to Leh District and Kargil District, and "Greater Ladakh", which also includes regions historically a part of Ladakh, namely Aksai Chin, Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan. A map showing these two in separate colours will be very nice. deeptrivia (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map of India showing Ladakh would be helpful as a reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the map here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaipayanc (talk • contribs)

and this one too. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I designed a prelim. version. Let me know if any changes are required. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two little blebs at the right below corner - what's that? The international border seems undisputed (not in dots). In fact , the blank map also has those two outpouches. What is that area? Disputed with China?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp should be able to answer that. I followed the dotted border on the blank map. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's disputed territory, unfortunately my latest update had overwritten the border style. (see the older one). I'll try and fix it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Ok. However, somebody may point out this. Can this be undone? I mean peoper border indicator replaced, like the old version. This is a featured picture, that's why. Seems we are over-burdening Nichalp with requests :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are portions under Chinese control. Traditionally, however, these are considered parts of Ladakh. It would be nice to also mark in the map areas of historical Ladakh ("Greater Ladakh"), with a different colour. This will include Aksai Chin and Baltistan. Essentially, the Kargil and Leh districts of the complete state of J&K as claimed by India. Here is a reference map. deeptrivia (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, need your comments on this map that I created?

. - Ganeshk (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my first attempt to make a map. I've used Ganeshk's version of Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg, so the finer issues of NPOV being discussed here might remain unaddressed in this map. Please feel free to make any improvements. deeptrivia (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep, Not sure purple is the right color. Could you use a draker shade of red so that it gels with other colors on the map. - Ganeshk (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I tried before giving up. It works well for Aksai Chin and Baltistan, but for the third region in the map, for some weird reason, it becomes light pink, and no combination of RGB produces the same shade of red for the third region. Even with purple, the third region needs a very different combination of RGB to produce the same color as the other regions. I'm making the areas 100% opaque, and in any case, the background colors of all the three regions are identical, so I don't understand why this is happening. Would be great if someone can fix this up. deeptrivia (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the colours. The small portion was not being coloured properly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! i still don't understand what exactly was going wrong. deeptrivia (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India map - updated[edit]

Based on the map by User:Nichalp, but includes a number of improvements:

Projection changed from mercator to lambert conical (easy to superimpose on existing maps)
Every state is now a seperate layer, now its very simple to highlight a state. just select it and change the fill and stroke.
State borders drawn from maps on Census Site . The maps are very detailed and accurate as they have been generated from a gis database.
Simplified disputed areas. The borders have been depicted in an easy to understand manner.
Added lattitude, longtitude and appropriate scale.

The most useful feature by far will be the state layers. you can even open the svg with a text editor, search for tamil nadu or kerala and change the fill and stroke manually! i still have to name the rest of the layers.
Any suggestions to improve upon this welcome. --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map looks great! ~~It shows up blank right now. But I clicked and checked it. How is it different from Nichalp's map?~~ Ganeshk (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh need to be shaded differently to maintain NPOV. Also, I suggest you have different border styles as I have used instead of colours. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support using different shades, but various style borders are downright confusing. Has there a discussion in this regard before? --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 10:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive updated the map with darker borders and shaded disputed areas with hatches. Now you can see more readily the areas that are diputed with China and Pakistan. Is this good or the other kind where you just use a different colour for the whole region? --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not rendering in my browser. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not correct. Jammu and Kashmir (on the Indian side of Line of Control) has been shown to be of Pakistani claim, which is wrong. Pakistan does not claim J&K. Dispute is over the Pakistani Controlled part of the territory (Pakistan-administered Kashmir) - towards the Pakistani side of line of control, which India claims (so the coloring is ok). Jammu and Kashmir should be of same color as rest of India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pakistan claims the entire state as it's own. [1]. It however, recognises Aksai Chin as a part of China. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ref map you provided also shows that Pakistan does NOT claim the entire state. Pakistan claims the portion above the cesaefire line. Also see this image (a gov site). That also claims the area above cease fire line or LoC, as you call it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan has never recognised India's claim to Kashmir. It marks it as "disputed territory". The pdf file belongs to loc.gov, a US govt domain. [2], [3] and [4] (all 3 are .pk domain images). =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed areas without a doubt are correct. Now, the question is wether this shading and border style is preferred over the one on Nichalp's map. For an uninitiated person which one will be simpler? --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the disputed areas, I would go with the stripes (Planemad version). - Ganeshk (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Ok. Now regarding the maps, the striped image is preferable because all the disputed areas are easily discernible.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims need to be documented, but they need not overwhelm the map. When pointing to say, Chennai on a map, it makes little sense to make the dispute more prominent than the city. IMHO, the (relatively) older map strikes a nice balance, being tastefully simple and functional. Why not stick with it? ImpuMozhi 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the overwhelming part. Although the map is a brilliant work, it will be difficult to use it as a locator map for anything because of confusion over highlighting. The dispute seems to be the highlight of the map. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the map is to be used for. If it is to be used as a locator map, then it's a little too detailed. Borders of neighbouring countries and the usage of different colours for disputed areas makes it too "noisy". =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? i used lighter shades for the stripes and reduced the opacity of the int borders. This is what a Kerala locator will look like, also included districts --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Added districts for TN, Kerala, Karnataka, AP, MH and Gujarat. All districts on seperate layers, so you can give different colors to each district if needed. So hows the overall look? are the disputed areas still distracting or is it ok? --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the state borders be made thicker than district borders? Right now, the borders of the states with districts marked are impossible to figure out. deeptrivia (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend should be moved to the top right corner. The border styles help to give additional information that it is not fixed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]