Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Archive 1

	Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads Featured Articles with excellent images Interstate 355 New York State Route 174 Kansas Turnpike
	Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads Featured Articles with lacking images Prairie Avenue New York State Route 28 Interstate 70 in Utah Pulaski Skyway Chickasaw Turnpike Notice varying standards of local detail maps. Kansas has shielding and a legend. I-355 has complete shielding including one for the article. NY-174 has all but the shiled for the article's route. Pulaski and I-70 in Utah look like they needs work comparatively. You can see why I object to NY 28 being an FA because a close look shows routes that may be confused with rivers. Chickasaw is partially shielded, which is annoying. N.B.: Prairie Avenue could use a map.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The altering of WikiProject templates

Someday I'd love to do that. But right now it's not possible due to the NC hysteria, the infobox backup, the browse mess, etc. Also we'd have to take it one state at a time. But at one point I'd like to do that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul of page tags

Here is an example of a page tag being used widely:

It seems there are various methods of assessment being attached to these tags at the moment for some WikiProjects; from my limited amount of browsing, the most comprehensive of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, but they also reference WP:1.0, so many more are possible. For examples, see Talk:Winston Tunnel and Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway.

There is an opportunity for bloat there, but the two uses that are a Very Good Idea and should be implemented are:

Assessment - determining the state of an article and its room for improvement
Map classification - using the template to identify which articles are in need for maps.

Here's where it gets interesting; while WikiProject Trains has precisely one level of complexity, U.S. Roads has about three; U.S. Roads, Interstates and U.S. Highways, and 50+ state projects. Theoretically, then, there will be 54 different tags to edit, versus WikiProject Trains' 1.

In other words, when these templates are edited, and the people that need to be notified are notified, we need to keep in mind that we don't want Category:FA-Class Illinois Routes WikiProject Articles; we want Category:FA-Class road transport articles. It's easy to fall into the trap of the former. Even Category:FA-Class U.S. roads articles should be avoided.

Anyways, this is all sort of related to the maps task force, but if we're going to be modifying many templates, we'll want to keep this in mind. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion on assessment-related issues will be located on the subproject site at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment. I would hate to dilute the discussion when the Maps Task Force has just started. :-) —Rob (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Legend

The first thing we need to do is define a legend. Here's some ideas that I gleaned from various maps:

The numbers in parenthesis are the stroke width, which is derived by multiplying the number given and the width of "other numbered highway". The only thing I don't like about this is the double red line, which is close to impossible to do in Inkscape, but would make sense to most people. Ideas? —Scott5114 ↗ 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. All right. I'm a Rand McNally guy myself, so keep that in mind, but here's what I think...

I'd use green (for money) for turnpikes/toll roads.
How would divided highways and expressways be different? I'd consider merging these two, and where a divided highway is an expressway, using interchange markers (squares, circles or otherwise) to show that.
We might want to differentiate between state routes and county routes, where that level of detail is required. Also, U.S. Routes and state routes.
I don't know how I feel about separating Interstate and Other Freeway. At the least, I think it should be a dark, thick color, since I like the idea of having darker, thicker roads being more important than lighter, thinner ones.

So those are some of my thoughts. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding simplicity. Here's a good example:

No legend, and no need for a legend. Here's I-90, and everything else relative to I-90. I don't know if it can be done, but the more maps without legends (or with small legends), the better. At a certain scale, I would even be willing to sacrifice the subclassing of highways in favor of simplicity. I also think all the borders (town line, state line, etc.), if used, would be nice and obvious (with proper labeling where necessary, of course - nothing more annoying than a town line with no town name!). —Rob (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob on this. The amount of detail that a map actually needs will vary by the scope of the map. For example, a map for New York State Route 153 would have much more detail than a map for say, the New York State Thruway (or Interstate 90). With that said, I see the point for a legend - to standardize maps regardless of scale. So here's my $.02 on the legend:

- Interstate is fine.
- Merge turnpike, other freeway and expressway into one road type.
- Divided highway - I use Inkscape myself, so I'm well aware of how difficult it will be to draw double lines. But it's probably the best way to do it, unfortunately.
- Other numbered highway and below - looks fine to me.

May I suggest adding another entry for the highlighting of the route itself? --TMF ^{T - C} 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My input on this, is we need to be careful not to get too specific when it comes to maps. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a road atlas. That work is best left up to Rand McNally, Google Maps, Windows Live, Mapquest and Mapblast. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

as added notes, it's dependant on the GIS data available whether or not one can distinguish between a 3 lane and a 4 lane highway. Double lines, like for the divided highway, tend to look like crap especially when a particular road has tons of segments to it. For example, using the GIS data for the national road network, I-96 is a pretty short highway, but the line is made up of 202 segments. When you apply the double line to the selection it looks bad. For anything other than Interstate, U.S. Route, State Highway, applying the different types of colors/lines indicated by the proposed legend will be difficult to maintain across the country since the information available varies from state to state.

When I designed the maps for the Interstates, U.S. Routes, and Michigan Trunklines, I went through many iterations before I found a map that was both useful and aesthetically pleasing. You can only cram so much information in there before a map becomes useless. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Locator maps don't necessarily need to follow this legend, as they're simple enough that the meaning is obvious no matter what convention is used (blue=system and red=highlighted acts perfectly anyway.)

The reason I have turnpikes in orange is because that's what OK uses on their state maps. (KS uses yellow, so I'm used to yellow/orange = turnpike). It's like saying "avoid this if you don't want to pay up". If we can agree on another color we'll use that, of course.

I originally had expressway and divided highway separate because there are divided highways that are too slow to be considered an "expressway". However, dropping expressway and merging it into divided could work. Do we want to use the purple for that, or double red, or something else?

The best thing about having a unified legend would be that we could just link to the legend SVG on the image description page - no need to actually put it in the image :)—Scott5114 ↗ 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, more stuff:

Does anyone object to merging expy and divided highway, and using the purple 2x line?
Do we want a class for other multilane highways (e.g. 4 lane with turn lane, 4 lane undivided, etc.)?
Interchanges...

Here's some ideas. Thoughts?
We could use light grey and tan for gravel and dirt roads respectively.

Also, I thought I should add the reason I have Interstate and Other Freeway separated is because interstates are part of a national system (thus more important) and other freeways might be built to lower standards. —Scott5114 ↗ 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No objections here.
Probably not. We don't want to make the maps too complicated to make.
Looks sharp! I like it, personally.
We should only do that if the map has a zoom level small enough that would show these roads.
Your point makes perfect sense regarding expressways. Also, I'll create a map for New York State Route 153 in the next hour or so for critiquing. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe it wasn't an hour, but here it is.

The black lines are county roads. Red lines are state-maintained roads. NY 441 is blue as it is an expressway in the viewpoint above. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, except expressway/divided highway is purple on my legend, not blue. ;) Maybe I should change that; purple and blue could be easily confused. Would yellow work? —Scott5114 ↗ 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I've never associated yellow with expressways personally. Orange could definitely work, if we give green to toll roads. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What would we do for Other Freeway then?—Scott5114 ↗ 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say abolish it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see the difference between an expressway and an "other freeway". --TMF ^{T - C} 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the ambiguity of the word "expressway". By freeway, I mean something resembling an Interstate, full access control, all that good stuff. By expressway, I'm thinking of a fast, divided, four-lane road with at-grade intersections. —Scott5114 ↗ 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the thick blue line = Interstate, thin blue line = other freeway idea. For divided highway/expressways? I'll favor orange for both, with interchange circles where necessary. The detail on the New York Map above is more than I would have expected; it looks nice. Keep in mind we may not know the exact nature of every road in the country, so I'd also include thick and thin red for arterial and minor "undivided or I-don't-know" options. But I like the balance of blue (about 20% of all lines), red (65%), orange (10%) and green (5%) for the maps. —Rob (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I omitted thin black and grey because those are minor and don't really count. That opinion may be change if we start making maps for Michigan Avenue (Chicago). :-p —Rob (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this? (Left off the borders because everyone generally agrees with those it seems.) For interchanges, I prefer using circles for when the map is so far zoomed out you don't have the ramps drawn out. If you have ramps, I'd say omit the circles and just put the green box with the interchange number there. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with the legend, but what's the reasoning behind differentiating between a 4 lane and 2 lane turnpike? I think turnpikes should just be 3x. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the majority of turnpikes are four lane, but in Oklahoma we do have one worthless two lane turnpike. Since they're in the minority, someone might assume that a shown turnpike would be four lane, when in reality it'd turn out to be two lane.

When you say 2-lane, do you mean an undivided highway with one lane in each direction? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Never been on the Chickasaw Turnpike, but judging by the one picture that's available on it via Google Images, yes, he is. The Everglades Turnpike (or whatever that I-95 west of Miami was called) used to be a two-lane (1x1) toll road as well. There's also a 2-lane former turnpike in Kentucky somewhere, also located in a rural, mountainous area. Odds are in terms of actual road construction, each side of road consists of one lane, a right shoulder in each direction, and a concrete 4-foot barrier separating traffic, allowing expansion to a "real" road later on. —Rob (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And people pay to drive on this "road"? ;) Seriously, though, thanks for the clarification. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Should toll Interstate segments be differentiated or is that too much detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.94.174 (talk • contribs)

They should be differentiated. This is the intention of the "turnpike" class above, which allows for differentiation between free segments and toll segments. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe they mean differentiating between Interstate and non-Interstate turnpikes. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed as much; there's no need to get that specific on a map for our purposes. A toll road is a toll road and a "free" road is a free road to me, Interstate or not. Also, if there's a section of an Interstate that features both (like a toll bridge), then we'd show the free portion up to the toll barriers, stop the path, make a toll path, then end the path on the other side and continue with the "free" path.

Remember, we want to make these maps as user-friendly as possible, so the more detail that we can present using less road types (the "more with less" theory), the better it will be, not only for the user, but also for the creator of the map. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What should we do for mainline toll barriers? Just a black line perpendicular to the highway, like ODOT does? Leave them out?

And another proof-of-concept, this time urban:

Notice that the Lake Hefner Parkway and Broadway Extension are non-interstate freeways. Opinions? —Scott5114 ↗ 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, for the toll barriers, I know Rand McNally maps use a perpendicular black line, so I think it's fine if we use one as well. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Integrating into project tags

I've posted some code on the main pages of both the Maps Task Force and Assessment on how to integrate article talk pages into the Maps Task Force and Assessment projects. See Talk:Illinois Route 40 for a working example. Statistics should be on the Assessment page by tomorrow. —Rob (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 1 map

Hi! Wouldn't it be fine to have a California State Route 1 map? It would be great if someone find some time to draw that one... --85.178.30.0 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll move this request to the newly-formed request page. Don't worry, once we get the above proposal finalized (which appears to be very close to happening), we'll get right on this map. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Testing

Hey there all. I just uploaded a test map of a Texas Highway and would like you opinions. LMK. Talk:State Highway 16 (Texas). 25or6to4 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The only issue that I see is the color of the map background, but other than that, it looks pretty good. When comparing the two maps, I personally prefer the inclusion of U.S. Routes. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New subpages

I've added two new subpages to the home (MTF) page: a requests page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests) and a "peer review" page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Review). As always, comments are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposals and voting. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support Proposal 3. --TMF ^{T - C} 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting for proposals concluded at 23:59, Thursday, October 5, 2006 (UTC).

The current time is 11:46, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 (UTC).

Scott5114's proposal

Discussion for Proposal 1

We all seem to generally agree on this. Anyone want to send up objections, or shall we approve it as official? —Scott5114 ↗ 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Real minor thing: should we establish a standard background color for the maps as well? --TMF ^{T - C} 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I approve. All that's left is to define a background color, note that combinbed Interstates and tollways (Interstate 355 comes to mind) are 5x green lines, and consider using a thicker black line for the mainline barrier. And give examples of software that can be used to generate these things, free and non-free. —Rob (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For the background color, I think we should use the one on the NY 153 map; not because I made the map, but because this is the background color used by Stratosphere's Interstate, U.S. Route and state road maps. Also, I support the clairifications expressed by Rob above. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: a standard map size to fit in Infobox road, which would be a 580x344 (px) ratio. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the color scheme, do we have definitions of those colors, or is "close" good enough? I would like to use the background color used on Stratosphere's maps as well, but I have not been able to reproduce it in ArcGIS yet. 25or6to4 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Background RGB is (247, 247, 237) -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll separate this into a discussion and a voting section. I know this isn't really a vote, so I used "Show of opinion" instead as the header. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the intent of this for close up city maps only? Or is it intended to be for state/region/country-wide as well? -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Colors:

Background: #F7F7ED
Interstate/freeway blue: #0080FF
Toll green: #008000
Expy orange: #FF8000
Numbered hwy red: #FF0000
Border blue: #0000FF

Background is from Stratosphere's map, everything else is taken direct from the legend SVGs. I tried to keep everything as either 00, 80, or FF for ease of memory. Sticking to colors exactly helps add uniformity and makes things generally look nice. —Scott5114 ↗ 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I support everything above. However, there is one major (to me) item missing from this proposal: a standardization of map sizes. As stated before, maps designed to be placed in the infobox should be made in a 580x344 pixel ratio (as it will ultimately be displayed as a 290x172 pixel image). All other maps should be designed to match the shape of the subject road. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we don't want maps of California roads taking up 580 pixels in height in the infobox just because it's shaped that way. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, with all of this straightened out, I'll now support this proposal. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if 5x is too wide for interstates and 3x is preferred, what do we do for lower classes, especially Other Freeway? —Scott5114 ↗ 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I say keep them as is, personally. IMHO, there's no need to distinguish between an Interstate and an "Other Freeway", provided they are distinguished appropriately on the map (via Interstate shields, expy. name, etc.) . --TMF ^{T - C} 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I know I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but this discussion seems to affect everyone who edits road pages. Personally, I don't like the proposal. I think it provides an overly-complicated categorization of road types; four ought to be enough (Interstate, non-Interstate expressway/freeway, non-expressway state roads, and everything else). The proposal doesn't list any guidance on how to indicate which road is being highlighted, either; in the NY 153 map, it's just bigger, and I'm afraid that isn't going to show when reduced to infobox size. Powers ^T 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I tried to hedge off the complications when this started. I also think it is too many types of roads, and it's especially difficult for those who use GIS software and have data that doesn't differentiate between turnpikes, interstates and divided highways. I think we need to draft a proposal, seperate from this, and invite everyone from the U.S. Road, U.S. Interstate, and individual State Road WikiProjects to discuss the proposal since this does have the potential to affect the appearance of thousands (?) of articles. I agree with LtPowers that this does affect a far greater number than just those of us who are part of the task force. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I don't know how we can form a standard without drawing up a proposal in conjunction with this project. I've proposed a new one below. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have posted a link to this very discussion on the Project U.S. Roads news template, so everyone has been invited technically. But if you want to notify every WP (a la notices to states regarding WP:SRNC), that's fine too. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is basically what I meant. We'd basically discussed and settled on something that was developed out of discussion...I just didn't think it was a very rigid process. What we've started below (the proposals) is more like what I was shooting for. I think, since you've notified the roads WP, that if we give this until the end of the month for discussion we'll have arrived at a more solid consensus than what we had before by involving the other WPs. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that this proposal would not affect locator maps like Stratosphere's for Interstates and U.S. Routes. Those would still use the blue/red convention. It would be more for regional maps (like SPUI's maps of Bristol and Memphis) and strip maps like on Interstate 635 (Kansas-Missouri). —Scott5114 ↗ 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If the right proposal is created, there would be no need to make locator maps an exemption, IMHO. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

TwinsMetsFan's proposal

After reviewing the wise comments of Stratosphere and LtPowers a few sections up, I'm scrapping my support for the legend proposal and proposing a much simpler one. Remember, we are not a mapping company; rather, we are only trying to give readers a visual aid for the route in question.

Colors:

Background: solid color, #F7F7ED (tan used on Stratosphere's maps). Bodies of water should appear as white.
Expressway: (including freeways, expressways, Interstates, Turnpikes, etc.)
- Free: #0080FF (blue)
- Toll: #008000 (green)
Numbered roads: (U.S. and State Roads, specifically) #FFA900 (orange)
Other roads: (close-up maps only) #000000 (black)
Road highlighting: #FF0000 (red)

Strokes:

Expressway: 3x (numbered road width).
Numbered/other roads: for close-up maps: 2x for divided highways, 1x otherwise. Large-scale maps: 1x.
Road highlighting: 3x.

Borders:

As presented in the prior proposal, for close-up maps only. Large-scale: omit all but state borders.

Expressway features:

Interchanges: as presented before, for close-up and medium range maps. Large-scale: omit.
Toll barriers: as presented before, for close-up and medium range maps. Large-scale: omit.

Map size:

Maps for infoboxes: Must be a 290 pixel by 172 pixel image or a larger equivalent, that is an image size that has a 290x172 ratio. For example, a 580x344 is fine.
Other maps: No restriction on size: can be shaped to match the road.

--TMF ^{T - C} 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for Proposal 2

I'm assuming the recommendation of omitting borders on large scale maps means omitting county and municipality borders, but retaining the state borders. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you've indicated Red (#FF0000 is red, right?) for use on US Routes and State Highways, but this is the color we've been using to highlight the route an article is about. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I knew I forgot some things in the proposal. I'll make the necessary changes above. For the numbered route color, I could see using orange in place of red while keeping red as the highlight color. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Stratosphere's proposal

Colors

Background: The uber tan that's in all my maps already, Solid Color. RGB 247,247,237 or #F7F7ED.
Limited Access Highways: #0080FF (blue). Toll road coloring of #008000 (green) is optional.
U.S. Routes and State Highways: #FFA900 (orange).
All other roads shown: #9C9C9C (gray). Black makes them too dominant IMHO.
Road highlighting: #FF0000 (red).
Water: Continental view or regional, water fill should be white. Local view, light blue (#BEE8FF).

Strokes

Limited Access Highways: 3x
U.S. Routes: 2x
State Highways and Other Roads: 1x
Road Highlighted: 3x for Limited Access, 2x otherwise

Borders

The only border I'm including in my proposal is the state border which should be a grey color (#9C9C9C). The width of the stroke should be 1.5x for a localized view, and 1x for a regional/continental view. This is subject to personal opinion, but it's pretty obvious when 1.5x becomes too thick for how far zoomed out you are. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Map Size

Maps for infoboxes should be a proportion of around 290x172. A few pixels off isn't a big deal, but keep the ratio near 1.7:1.
Maps outside the infobox are fair game as far as size would be concerned.

Expressway features

Interchanges and toll barriers. I think this is too much information for a map, but if it's a very small scale map, they are optional per the specifications set in TMF's proposal above.

Prototype

The image to the right is a map created using these constraints. It is of the Bay City/Saginaw area of Michigan. It is a local map, therefore I colored Lake Huron, or more specifically Saginaw Bay. I left out any labels since we're focusing on the colors. I would most likely have labelled the map indicating Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Midland, and Saginaw if I were creating this specifically for an article.

Colors are fine, although I confess my first thought was, "Why in the world does M-47 split twice?" —Rob (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for Proposal 3

I like this proposal the best (even over my own). The way I see it, this proposal is a happy medium combining elements of the two above proposals as well as some elements from the large scale (Interstate/U.S. route) locator maps. Quick question though: I assume the gray mentioned for state borders is the same gray color that would be used for local roads. I have no problems using the same color for both (since if state borders are present, then local roads are highly unlikely to be on the map) but I was just wondering what color state borders would be. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually that 0.5 was a typo, I had been using 1.5px for the border when I was zoomed in locally, and 1px when I was zoomed out regionally/continentally. I'm not sure if that affects your support, but I'll get a new map prototype up here in a minute or two and edit the border specs for your perusal. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made the change to the border specification and uploaded a new prototype. I purged it at the commons, so you may or may not need to refresh to see it. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the orange color I specified in action, it might be too light for some users. Maybe #FF8000 would be better for orange? I'm not sure how that orange would look in comparison to the red highlighted road, though. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried using other colors, but the orange worked best. Dark colors are too bold so it has to be light. Aside from orange, all that leaves is yellow, green and blue. Blue's used. Green is for tolls, and yellow you really can't see. The orange lines are very visible on my CRT and both of my LCD panels. If they are nearly invisible on someone's screen, I vote they calibrate it. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this yellow will work fine. Also, I redid my NY 153 map to meet the new proposed standards. Scroll a few sections up to see the result. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this setup, but I need some technical help getting the maps into the requested sizes. When I export the map, I can change the dpi resolution, but it won't let me choose the width and length in pixels. Does anyone have any input on what I'm missing or how I can accomplish this? Thanks. 25or6to4 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in ArcMap, the only way to change the output size is to modify the dimensions of your map workspace. It's stupid, I know. The only other way is to crop it after you make it. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unbelievable what a difficult time I'm having settling on this. After creating a few maps using the proposal I suggested, I'm still finding the colors a bit akward. I'm definitely going to be tinkering a bit more...I think the colors for both Interstate and U.S. Route/SR are too bold when talking about a single route highlighted in red. I'm thinking about lightening the colors for when there's a red line present. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound rude or offensive, but I wish that we could take one standard and stick with it. There are a number of maps that I want to create, and the uncertainty regarding this proposal is the only thing preventing me from doing so. Sure, I could always alter the maps later, but I'm a "do it right the first time" type of person. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It's really the brightness of the orange and blue that is throwing the perception of the maps out of whack. Two of my GIS professors agree. I don't have a problem with forging ahead. If it becomes an issue for myself I can remove myself from the task force, since I didn't add myself in the first place. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that I can speak on behalf of the MTF when I say that you're a valuable member of the MTF and that your presence, as well as your work, is greatly appreciated. With that said, my comments earlier were a bit too harsh (now that I look at them in retrospect), so take your time while figuring out a color combo that works. It'll be better in the long run. --TMF ^{T - C} 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, keep it as it is for now. The only suggestion I have at this point is to make the blue and orange less saturated. For the blue #77AAFF and for the orange #FFDD88. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Support for Proposal 1

Support both the final legend proposal and all additional terms proposed in the above discussion. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Oppose per Stratosphere and LtPowers above. It's time for a simpler proposal. Less is more. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Support all as well. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I've recently tried the new guidelines for a map around Bay City, MI and I say it looks hideous in ArcMap. 5x is just too large for any line, period. I suggest starting at 3x and modifying. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- A 3x width sounds reasonable to me. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. 25or6to4 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Thanks for the discussion and work on this! —Rob (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. (Sorry I've been away from the task force; I've been primarily focused on Pennsylvania State and Harrisburg Area roads as of late.) ~~I'm in favor of the final legend proposal. I also agree with Stratosphere that 5x is a bit large, so I support going with 3x.~~ --myselfalso 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, I'm wishy-washy on this subject, but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to go about this differently. The last thing I want to do is stall this process and cause controversy (we all love controversy in the roads dept, dont we? :P), but I'd like to bring attention to LtPowers comment above and my response. I believe this is a good first step, but I think we need to take it another step further before we set anything in writing. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for Proposal 2

Support for Proposal 3

Support. I like this combination of proposals. I say this is the one to go with. --myselfalso 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support per my reasoning in the "Discussion" section. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, though I am not a member of the WikiProject, so discount if desired. Powers ^T 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. —Scott5114 ↗ 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Three days late for "arrrr." :-( —Rob (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Suppose I should support my own proposal ;) -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. 25or6to4 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical routes on same map?

One other thing I've forgotten 'til now (doh!); if I want to show the old routing on the same map, to demonstrate the change in alignment over the years (lets say, U.S. Route 66 in Illinois), how can we (or just, can we) integrate that into the scheme? Obviously there will be labels for each of the different segments. Perhaps a dashed line? —Rob (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would probably employ a similar method to what I've done for maps at I-73 and I-390 (NY), basically a lighter shade of red showing an alternate/past/future route. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Map review

A map has been posted over at the map peer review page. Comments are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Route shields

While including shields for every route might seem like a good idea, I believe there to be a problem with this. If any route is decommissioned, renumbered, added, or otherwise modified, every map that includes that route has to be redrawn. --NE2 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. We'll keep this in mind when we create the proposals for part two of the design process; that is the use of fonts and shields on maps. Part two discussion will probably begin once we wrap up part one (the legend and map design) above in a week or so. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Legend/map design proposal voting

Since the proposals now seem to be stable for the most part, I'll update the notice on the U.S. Roads news template to say that voting/showing of support has begun. Hopefully, this will attract editors from across the U.S. to this page so that we can truly gain a consensus regarding the selection of a proposal. Does an October 5th (at 11:59 PM UTC) closing time for proposal voting sound reasonable? --TMF ^{T - C} 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of these proposals are too rigid. In many cases, it is beneficial to use different colors for different kinds of numbered routes. Specifically, some states have primary and secondary systems. On the other hand, when making a map simply showing one route, that route should be the focus of the map, with everything else in the background. Also, as above for route shields, any time a road was modified from one type to another (wdening, paving, etc.), any map showing that road would have to be updated. --NE2 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The proposals are rigid for a reason. As I've said before, we are not a mapping company nor should we emulate one. Our maps should be as simple as possible. For states with primary and secondary systems, my interpretation of every proposal is that only primary routes should be in red; the others can be in gray (they are secondary for a reason). As for the last comment, other than if the road is upgraded to a limited access highway, there is no case that I can think of where the road would change types (under the preferred proposal 3). --TMF ^{T - C} 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Our maps should be as simple as possible - in other words, on a map showing the location of a route, use two colors: red for that route and black or gray for everything else. Then we don't have to update it if any of the roads in its area are transferred between primary and secondary systems, decommissioned, newly commissioned, upgraded to freeways, or anything else.

By the way, Tennessee has a system of state highways like most states in that most roads are locally maintained. But some of these are primary and some are secondary; many numbered routes have both primary and secondary sections. It would be very useful to show the difference on a map of the route. State Route 1 (Tennessee) illustrates that well, both in the list and in the maps.

In other states, it might be useful to show locally-maintained parts of the route in a different color.

By the way, in the example given for M-47, I-75 and its spurs look to me like the road being shown, not the thinner red M-47.

With respect to standards changing, this is not a problem if we make SVG maps, as those are relatively easy to modify (in small ways, like changing colors and widths). --NE2 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree regarding different road coloring, but this is obviously an issue we're not going to see eye-to-eye on, and I will accept that. Also, the stated goal of this project is to have all maps in SVG format - with the exception of maps created in ArcGIS, for the reasons stated by Stratosphere at the top of the page. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Is there a flaw in my argument? --NE2 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered those questions. If you feel so strongly about your ideas, you're more than welcome to formulate your own proposal. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: use common sense and make an SVG so the colors can be changed. --NE2 11:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't fly when it comes to standardizing road maps across Wikipedia (that was the purpose of the task force, right?). If we elected to use "common sense", we'd be no better off than we are right now: maps that use no standards, look nothing alike, etc. Plus, what you said doesn't count as a proposal - I mean make one above and see if anyone votes for it. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I specifically don't use SVG (for maps) because of the technical issues I've outlined somewhere above. Plus it's not difficult to change colors on any other image format. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they're anti-aliased, it's hard for others to change the colors. The author could, of course, regenerate the map. —Scott5114 ↗ 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In 9 cases out of 10, the map colors will never need to be changed (at least, not within a year anyway), so the color-change thing is a moot point to me, personally. It's not as if the maps will change on a monthly basis. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Map source...

Does anyone have an up-to-date GIS highways database? I'm specifically looking for a U.S. Routes, since the one I have has US routes that have been decommissioned. Thanks. 25or6to4 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be best to edit the database to remove the decommissioned ones. --NE2 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Design standards continued

With the basic design standards in place, it's time to hammer out some of the more trivial issues concerning the maps. Four in particular come to my mind:

Shields on maps: Locator maps, that is a map showing a single road in relation to other roads, need not have any shields. All other maps where the context is not clear must use shields for all or most roads that are shown. Compare Image:New York State Route 481 map.png (locator map) to Image:Bristol.svg (context not clear). The question is what size should the shields be?
Map naming convention: For consistency's sake, the Principle 1 naming convention (ex. Image:New York State Route 481 map.png) should be used.
Historical routes: Stroke width should be the same as the highlighted route, but #ffbebe should be used as the color instead of pure red.
Category names: I've proposed some names for the map categories (on Commons) on the project page. These can be changed if desired.

All comments regarding the above points are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all 4 of the above points. I have an extra one. What if there is an expected/under construction extension of a highway. Can this be added to the map? 25or6to4 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's useful to the reader, why not? --NE2 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. Like NE2 said above, if it can be of use to the reader, then I'd include it. For the stroke it should be...probably the same as what a completed highway would be, except the line would be dashed instead of solid. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

NY 481 map

I looked at New York State Route 481, and it's not obvious to me that the red line, as opposed to one of the blue lines (rivers or Interstates), is the major route. The red really needs to be thicker. --NE2 01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me, and I see no need to make the red line thicker, at least, not on my monitor. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

it's 2px because it's a SR not an Interstate. Red doesn't necessarily mean it's major relative to the other routes displayed, red means it's the route the map/article is about and it's the method thats been used forever, well for the past year anyway. See Image:Interstate10_map_1050.png for the old map highlight style which I replaced with the standard projection for the U.S.[1] as well as less bold colors for the secondary subjects Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 2px because you decided the shown route should be 2px. I'm saying it should be thicker, and, if I make any maps for Virginia, I will use thicker lines. --NE2 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's 2px because it's a state route which is what the proposal recommended, which no one opposed, btw. This is still Wikipedia, so you can do whatever the hell you want, even if it flies in the face of the consensus reached here. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But, if I make it an SVG, will one of you edit it to make the lines thinner? --NE2 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can change it, just as anyone can replace my maps, just as I did someone elses. It's an ongoing cycle and in the end none of it matters. What you create today might be the OMFGWTFPWN!!11!~~ of Virginia Maps, but someone, inevitably, will come along sometime down the line and say, "wtf is this?" and replace it with theirs. Wikipedia is constantly evolving, especially in the roads department that, arguably, has the most insanely obsessed picky damn people ever...but that's the beauty of it. Don't expect me to stick a lo-jack on you and follow you around replacing your maps though :P Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Datasets

I've been playing around with GIS data, and none of the datasets I've found so far have enough detail to include all primary state highways in Virginia. Where might I find such a dataset? --NE2 07:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it. --NE2 03:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Now is there a good water layer? --NE2 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This might have what you need. It does seem to have water body data in both line and polygon form. --Polaron | Talk 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; that worked perfectly: Image:Virginia SR 296 298.svg --NE2 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG route shields...

Is there any way to import the SVG shields into ArcGIS? The closest I can get currently is saving the svg's as png's, but then when I resize them, they look all blocky. BTW, should I be asking these questions here, or is there a better place for technical questions? Thanks for bearing with me. 25or6to4 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be best off taking the SVG generated by ArcGIS and adding the shields in an SVG editor. --NE2 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Elevation profiles

I would assume this fits under the scope of this project. For mountainous roads, it might be useful in include an elevation profile. Are there any thoughts on the best way to create one? The only method I can think of is to use USGS topos to find elevations and DOT information to find distances; I tried that and it went pretty slowly. --NE2 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically one could use DEMs to generate an altitude profile along a particular path. I haven't explored this, but I'd suspect it would be possible to accomplish. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When maps make an article too big

Should I dismiss any advice against adding a map to an infobox if I get some warning saying the article is too big? I almost swiped somebody else's map for Interstate 95 in Florida, and put it in the infobox there. DanTD 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a message that says "This article is 30 kilobytes long" or similar upon editing a page? If so, don't worry about it - that message has no impact on an editor's ability to add content in the article. The only purpose the message serves is to warn dial-up users that the article may take a while to load. My advice: put the map in the infobox, regardless of what the article size will be. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. But I'd like to be able to make the map small enough to prevent dial-up users from having trouble with it, but still big enough to see. DanTD 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The article is 30 KB, not the map. The size of the map is not included in the size of the article, minus the markup that's used to actually show the map. In short, whether or not the map is 20px or 2000px, the article size will still be 30 KB, so there's no benefit to resizing the map. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright/fair use question

Sorry if this has been covered someplace, but what is the rule about using sections of official DOT maps? MN/DOT has a highway map for each county available online. Would using a section of such a map to illustrate a shorter route be permissible? --Sable232 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No; those are copyrighted to the state. --NE2 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some states release everything to the public domain; check Mn/DOT's website for details or write to them. —Scott5114 ↗ 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be ignorant... I'm interested in helping out with the Roads WikiProject, and I see that the maps section could use some help. Is there any tutorial of any kind that I can be pointed to get started creating maps, or is this not something I might easily be able to learn and I am getting in over my head? Thanks. Oughgh 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about everyone else...but some of us use ArcGIS and get the highway shapefiles from specific states or from the fed gov't, then export to a graphics program and tweak, add signs, etc. The main limit to this is some states only provide limited access to their files, while some have free access. The gov't files are ok, but are fairly old nowadays. 25or6to4 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maps in SVG format

This is just for everyone's information. I'd prefer to upload maps in SVG, but ArcMap's SVG export sucks and the output tends to crash Firefox and hang Internet Explorer. That's the sole reason all my maps are uploaded in PNG. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

case in point, Commons:Image:Interstate_19_map.svg, the image page loads fine but when you click to view full size it explodes and Firefox cries and IE usually hangs. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- You could probably just run it through Inkscape and it would correct the code. —Scott5114↗ 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Yeah, I haven't had any success with that as of yet. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Tried saving as "plain SVG" instead of "Inkscape SVG" yet? —Scott5114↗ 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      - yep Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        I may have some info for you on this. [2] This link is to the Firefox bugzilla website. This error has been noted as a browser error, not an image error. If I'm reading the notes right, it is fixed with version 1.5.0.7 (due in Sept.). 25or6to4 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        Thanks, I was aware that it was a bug with Firefox and I'm glad to see they're finally going to address it. However, I still think ArcMap's SVG export is not optimal, even on the highest settings I don't really like it's output. But, since SVGs are preferred for maps and diagrams, when the bugs in Firefox and IE (?) are fixed, I'll do my best to redo my maps in SVG...but I might wait until there's some hard map attributes hammered out for the task force. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As a heads-up, this issue is still present in Firefox 1.5.0.7, as I just downloaded it today and the map shown up above still does not load when viewing it full-size (as it crashes Firefox almost instantly). --TMF ^{T - C} 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad news. I just downloaded Firefox 2.0, and the image above still won't open properly. 25or6to4 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

lame Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've tried with the new ArcGIS 9.2 and it still crashes Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note in the SVG section regarding the SVG troubles, and they suggested that I reduce the number of points being used in the images. I was able to find a different road source, and remade the Texas highway 151 image. Doing so reduced the size of the image by a factor of 10, and it seems to be opening properly in Firefox at full size. Here's hoping! 25or6to4 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad you guys are working on this. I'd love to see the maps in SVG format. Firefox's SVG support is not that great, currently, but is that really a major concern? Mediawiki does the SVG rendering for the articles, so it only matters if someone tries to look at it "full-size". (Other SVGs tend to look wrong when viewed that way, too.) Perhaps a tag like {{Complex SVG}} is in order that warns users they may not be able to view the image in-browser? — brighterorange (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

File conversion help needed

Would anyone be willing to help me get some GIS data for Missouri? I've found data, even separated by highway class (better than I could get for Oklahoma) but it's all in an .e00 file format. I've done some Googling and found [3], but it sounds like the procedure would be nasty to do on Linux (which I run). Could someone convert these and e-mail them to me or upload them somewhere? I'll need the county boundaries (for the background), Interstate, U.S., and numbered state routes. Don't need the lettered. —Scott5114 ↗ 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Should clarify: I'm needing to convert these to shapefiles that will work in QGIS. Alternatively if someone happens to know where to get Missouri data already in proper format that would work too :) —Scott5114 ↗ 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried any of these matches? --NE2 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've since found a better data set. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

US Roads complete

Maps (and infoboxes) for current US Routes have been completed. If you find one I missed or needs cleaning up, let me know. 25or6to4 09:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

QGIS question

I'm trying to learn how to use QGIS to make maps (the map I made of Maryland Route 36 was made in a demo version of Global Mapper that only allows four layers to be loaded at a time). I am able to get QGIS to color all the routes correctly, except I haven't been able to figure out how to get QGIS to color one specific route a different color (i.e. to color the route that the map is highlighting red.) Could anyone with experience with QGIS tell me how to do that? - Algorerhythms 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can go to Project Properties and set the selected color to red. Unfortunately, that won't make the route 2x like MTF requires, so what you need to do is go into edit mode and copy the selected route, then create a new layer that's red and 2x wide and paste that into it. Then turn off edit mode for both layers and make your map. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This may seem like a dumb question, but how do you copy and paste in QGIS? I tried using ctrl-C and ctrl-V and that didn't work. (If it helps, I have version 0.7.4.) - Algorerhythms 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On QGIS v0.8.1, there are cut and paste feature buttons on the main toolbar. Not sure what the equivalent is in the earlier versions, though. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I may have to upgrade, then. The problem is that 0.7.4 is the newest version that is in Ubuntu's repositories, and I don't particularly feel like compiling it (I switched from Slackware because I was tired of compiling.) I seem to remember seeing an alternate repository listed on the QGIS site that had 0.8.1, though. - Algorerhythms 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Segmented Routes

I'm currently making a map for U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Maryland), and there are two ~30 mile segments, separated by about 50 miles, making creating one map that contains both segments but still adequately shows the routes somewhat difficult. Would it be more appropriate to make two maps, one of each segment, or to squeeze both segments onto the same map? - Algorerhythms 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In Oklahoma, where segmented routes are quite common, I've always squeezed both into one map. See Oklahoma State Highway 2, Oklahoma State Highway 74 (which needs to be redone) and probably others. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought it should be, but I just wanted to make sure. I've placed the Alt US 40 map with both segments on the infobox in that article. - Algorerhythms 19:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are two completely different routes, like the multiple I-76es. --NE2 13:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to split the articles, then? Perhaps a disambiguation page at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Maryland), an article at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Allegany and Garrett Counties, Maryland), and the other article at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Washington and Frederick Counties, Maryland), although those titles are starting to become very long. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Interstate 355 map.png

After making this map, it looks like it doesn't agree with the infobox format. I've put it in the body of the article for now, but are there any other options? See Interstate 355. —Rob (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

California

Do these look good?

I followed the recommended standards except for dashing the county lines (I couldn't make that work with the data I had, which was areas rather than lines) and making U.S. Highways wider (given what's happened to them in California, it's probably not useful to give more prominence to US 101 and US 395 over SR 99 or SR 299). I also needed several more symbols for recently relinquished and unconstructed sections. My plan is to use this zoom level for all routes that are entirely contained with it, for easy comparison of routes in the LA area. --NE2 07:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal for Map Requests

Fellow USRDers, I am proposing a criteria by which we should accept map requests. In an effort to improve the overall quality of articles across the WP:USRD project I propose that map requests may only be made for articles which have reached a B-Level assessment. This will not only trim down on the workload on the Map Task Force as a whole, but will encourage editors to improve an article prior to requesting and receiving a map. I encourage discussion on this proposal. Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. A good rule of thumb is that the article should at least be long enough to support an infobox with a map, which usually requires the article to be at B-Class. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all behind this - defintely would like to have the text drive the bottom of the article, not the infobox. — master son^{T - C} 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, also another idea is a cap on the number of requests per day. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the B-class method... it's my wont to almost wait until A-class, even. For a while I didn't even think there were that many map requests, but I suppose that's changed.—Rob (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I would, however, like to continue making the Texas SH maps (in my spare time). 25or6to4 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd imagine that that would not be a problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Map request

I need a map for I-80 (UT) and I-84 (UT), just like the ones on I-70 (UT) and I-15 (UT). Thanks 71.35.237.195 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests are handled at WP:USRD/MTF/R. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I will file my request there. Thank you - 71.35.237.195 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Map requests

Borman Expressway, Rush Street (Chicago), Historic Michigan Boulevard District and Prairie Avenue for WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment two sections above; requests are handled at WP:USRD/MTF/R, not here. – T M F 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections on request page to help prioritize requests?

What does everyone think about organizing the request page into sections based on article quality. Even though it states at the top that a article should be "B-class" or above, we still get requests for stub and start articles. I think arranging the requests this way will help map makers know which maps to create first and it will also encourage those requesting a map to improve the article so their map will get completed faster. --Holderca1^talk 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the above discussion regarding "B-class" articles, I am going to go ahead and implement this change. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. --Holderca1^talk 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Main image inconsistency

I am commenting on a current WP:FAC for New York State Route 28 and I have run into a maps issue. Standards are wide ranging for a coordinated project like this. I think one of the first three should be the main image standard for Road images. Here it is in pictures:

I don't think a bare map merits sending an article to FAR - a quick glance shows the only things odd about that article in the 2–4 years that it's been an FA is the fact that galleries (and other gallery-like structures) are discouraged in articles now. The only thing that needs to be done IMO is that some Interstate Highway shields need to be attached to the proper highways. —Rob (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the scale isn't really something we can standardize, seeing as how some very short highways would only appear as a tiny red dot on the map. A localized view needs some context, so either an inset map showing the area of detail (which should be used more often than they are, IMO) or shields need to be added to the map. Whenever possible, I believe a whole-state view (preferably with county lines) should be utilized, because that gives the greatest amount of context possible.

As to the Kansas Turnpike map, that map was made before MTF existed, I think, and I merely changed the colors afterward to match the MTF standards. So it's really sort of "grandfathered-in" so to speak. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not commenting on scale. I am saying they should be consistently shielded and there should be consistency with legends. Insetting would probably help as well, but htat is not a big issue with me right now. I think shielding consistently is issue one and deciding whether to use a legend is issue two. You guys should set policy within your task force and make sure all FAs represent your finest work with respect to your own poicies and standards. Maps without shields are clearly not your finest work.

You are probably right it would be a bit extreme to GAR an article to get the attention of the maps team, but I think your FAs should be your highest priority and both Pulaski Skyway and Prairie Avenue need your help. In addition you have a current WP:FAC that has a substandard map at New York State Route 28.

I know a lot of the maps were specifically requested without shields. My personal preference has always been to include them for other major routes that appear on the map. A problem the task force currently has is our two biggest contributors are currently not active, one retired and the other is on vacation. As a result, there is a backlog on the requests page. --Holderca1^talk 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the default should have major intersections shielded. Also, the default for WP:FAC going forward should be to include a main image with a shielded map, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's impractical (due to the difficulty in sufficiently bribing QGIS into putting the shields where you want them) and unnecessary for most articles; doesn't the map on Oklahoma State Highway 74 do the job needed just as well without shields? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and NY-28's map meets all MTF standards as far as I can see. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't import the map as a png to Inkscape and put the shields on there? - or as all pngs in Photohop or GIMP? That's what I did for I-894, and WIS 29 — master son^{T - C} 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I personally would never go so far to "oppose" a FAC based on the quality of a map – although I rarely if ever participate in FAC discussions anyway – I really think it's essential to have some sort of minimal labeling on a map so that we can tell what the heck it's a map of. A map doesn't really add anything to the article if it can't tell the reader where the route is. -- Kéiryn ^talk 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's essentially what I was saying above about scale and context. If you have significant portions of the state outline visible in the map, it's easy to see where the route is. (I mean, look at the map on Oklahoma State Highway 325, does that really need shields? You can tell what part of Oklahoma that is.) Whereas, on more zoomed in maps, it's not readily apparent what you're looking at, so more clues to context are needed. Shields do the trick, but so do insets (like on Oklahoma State Highway 110), and it should really be left to the cartographer to determine when adding extra context is appropriate and when it's not. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that reasoning is that the map isn't just used to determine where the route is, it is also used to determine where it is in relation to other routes. --Holderca1^talk 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean you have to necessarily know what the other routes are. Having them there for context helps you gauge relative positions, but plastering the map with shields makes extra work for the cartographers (which it's already a huge pain in the ass to make maps already, why make it worse) and detracts from the quality of the map by adding too many things cluttering it. Shields should only be added when absolutely necessary to show where a highway is. I note that The Weather Channel's local forecast radar maps show roads but more often than not leave them unlabeled (though some do have shields; I'm not sure why they feel US 71 needs a shield and I-44 doesn't, though) and trust the viewer to recognize the road based on its path and use it as context to judge the area that's getting weather. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that User:25or6to4 can pretty much put a shield anywhere you want it, he uses the shields we have created here for them so not sure how he adds them to the maps. --Holderca1^talk 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not a cartographer, nor do I claim to be one. I don't know what all this fuss is over though. I think someone is advocating for perfect consistency in an inconsistent world. Not all maps will ever be created equally. It's just not possible. To oppose an FAC over something as simple as a map, which is arguably a minor portion of the total article, even if a picture is supposed to say a thousand words, well that strikes me as petty. I have to wonder if certain editors are taking issue over a lack of resources at the task force at getting maps created are now using USRD's recent string of FACs as a a soapbox to protest unrelated issues at MTF. Not everyone on WP will be gifted in the knowledge, the software or the artistry to make a good map. The same can be said for copyediting prose in an article. Our talents vary and instead of griping over the backlog at MTF, we should be happy to have MTF to make the many maps we as a project need. Yes, it would be great if all the maps could look the same, but they won't. Some can't. Just as my writing style differs from others' styles on here, one cartographer's style will vary from another's. Oh, and each will make individual editorial decisions over what to include in the maps they make. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not describe this as a soapbox. I have a really good article that needs a map. In fact, I have an FA and a few GAs that need maps and I am getting no responses. Thus, I am saying that we should get the maps right before promoting articles if we can't get anyone to work on even the best articles. You would think an FA in need of a map would be the highest priority for the project. Then GAs would also be pretty high priorities. It may be wrong for me to oppose for maps in general. NY 28 really looked like a bunch of rivers to me. Chickasaw is not as confusing so I can not justify opposing just for the map although the map is incomplete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody likes making maps. As I said before, it's a pain in the ass. That's why nobody's making the requested maps. And as has been said above, the two people who were willing to make the maps for states that they aren't familiar with are on vacation. Also, nobody else really seems to agree that lacking shields makes the maps 'wrong', as you assert. I certainly feel that maps without shields do the job quite well in showing you what region of the state that the road lies in. Also, the "bunch of rivers" are freeways marked exactly the same on all the maps we have; even the shade of blue is more or less standardized. To address any possible confusion, I added a legend template to the map that confused you, so now you can just click the map and it tells you what the lines mean. I think your objections are really off-base here. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a legend template. Also, did you say nobody is available to do Illinois maps at this time?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe at this time there's no one available to make any maps. A few other users have made a few here and there, but the two main editors at the task force aren't available right now, IIRC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The legend's on the image description page. If you can't see it, there's something messed up on your end. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the WP:USRD/MTF convention to put legends on description pages? Also, there is nothing in New York State that anyone calls a turnpike, althought I think you are describing the New York State Thruway as a turnpike because it is a toll road. There are two other legend items not used in the particular map. The average reader is not going to know to click on the map for a legend. It is not up to me to set the task force standard however. If you feel description page legends are useful so be it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scott 100% on this; I think a mountain range is being made out of a molehill here. FWIW, I really don't see any difference between the maps for NY 174 and Chickasaw Turnpike - contrary to what is posted in that box up above, not every route is marked on the map for NY 174 nor should it be. I find no issues, really, with any of the maps posted in the box - different zoom levels are going to result in different levels of detail, and attempting to mark every route, especially on statewide (or greater scale) maps, is going to clutter the map. The only map where a valid case may be made is the Pulaski Skyway map, which is probably local enough to get at least a couple shields for context purposes.

The Chickasaw map is decent, but it could use a shield on the green road and the other major highways on the outer portions of the image, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shields convey information. This is an encyclopedia. The intent of an encyclopedia is to inform.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT a indiscriminate collection of information. Each map is tailored to the article it appears in. Say we have a map for SH-39. The shields for other routes that appear on the map, like SH-59 and US-77 aren't only tangentially relevant to SH-39 — the meager improvement (if it is conceded that such an improvement exists at all) that including the shields provides is outweighed by the extra work that must be invested in the map to add the shields. Adding the shields isn't worth it, and can even be considered as indiscriminate information. Why doesn't the map on Platte National Park have the counties labeled, or highways included? Because that information is not relevant to the purpose of the map, which is to show the location of the point of interest. Similarly, the purpose of our including these maps is to show the location of the road, our point of interest, and adding other highways' shields on the map does not help except in the circumstance that the map must be so zoomed in that the inclusion of shields is the only way give context to allow the viewer to determine where a road is. If the viewer wants to see a general view of the entire region, the many state Departments of Transportation provide excellent maps for free, in both paper and PDF form. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a cartographer, making maps is indeed a pain in the ass. It takes, in many cases, an hour of work to produce a map - and that's if I work non-stop. And that hour includes the QGIS end of it only, so that's not even considering urban area labeling, water body labeling, shields, etc., which has to be done in Paint Shop Pro after the effect. So when all is said and done, a map typically takes 2-3 hours to make - a time frame where I would much rather be doing something else. – T M F 07:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, if you put shields on every road that has a shield, you end of with something like this map for Atascosa County, Texas which was made to show all the highways in that county and not to show one particular route. --Holderca1^talk 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit more details than I am asking for. I am saying that the three at the top are sufficient detail and the five at the bottom need more shielding, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying about clutter. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Urban area light yellow

Many maps show urban areas in a light yellow color. Shall we make this part of the standard? What exact values of yellow? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always used a background of 255,255,230 and given the area a 0.5x solid border colored 110,110,110 (the 0.5x border was achieved by experimenting with some values in QGIS' print exporter). My inspiration for it was either some maps by Strato or 25or6to4, which used those/similar specs. I say it should be part of the standard, since virtually every map produced by the two (good thing BTW) and several of mine have these areas. – T M F 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and out of curiosity, where are those layers coming from? I went to the ESRI TIGER download site, but the only zip files it'll give me have 77 zips inside, each with a set of shapeline files. Can I get one that has all urban areas in a state? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a nationwide shapefile on the Census Bureau site [4] but they don't have ones by state. The ones on the ESRI site appear to be separated by county. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly, this is from 2006. Strato|sphere 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just recently started using the updated TIGER shapefiles here for 2007, which are separated by state. Select your state, then download the "Current Place". I have used the lightest yellow option in arcGIS (255,255,190). 25or6to4 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Map projections

On a couple of the maps I posted on the requests page, I noticed that there were comments that there were problems with the projection (the maps were of New York state and were stretched horizontally. What is the correct projection to use, and how do I change the projection in QGIS 0.8.1? Thanks. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Lambert Conformal Conic when I make maps for New York. To change the projection, go to "Settings - Project Properties" and click the "Projection" tab. First, click the "Enable on the fly projection" toggle box to place an "X" in the box. Then move down to the large box containing several projections. By default, WGS 84 is the project projection - one that results in horizontal stretching. The Lambert Conformal Conics are in the "Projected Coordinate Systems" category; after clicking the Lambert Conformal Conic category below it, click the NAD 83 projection that best matches the map location and click OK (for the NY conic, simply click the "QGIS SRSID" radio button in the search and type in 1936). The project should then re-render and zoom very far into the map, at which point it will be necessary to zoom to extents and rework the zoom level from there.

All of this makes me wonder why we don't have something like a tutorial page that would have the information above plus other helpful hints. – T M F 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. A tutorial page would be very useful, seeing as the QGIS developers seem to have made some strange design decisions for their program. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially in every version after 0.8.1 (I personally consider 0.8.1 to be the best version available - every one since is really lacking).

I'll draw up a draft tutorial page sometime this weekend, since I believe it'd be beneficial to both experienced cartographers and ones looking to traverse the learning curve (which can be steep with maps, no doubt). – T M F 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)