| Revision as of 22:05, 13 August 2010 editTwinsMetsFan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users122,110 edits →My opinion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:32, 6 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,300,007 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (97 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Shortcut|WT:USRD/MTF}} |
|
{{talkheader|WT:USRD/MTF}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
{{U.S. Roads WikiProject|class=Project}} |
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Roads|class=Project}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
⚫ |
{{tmbox|image=]|text=The maps task force asks that '''all''' map requests be left on the ''']''' and not on this page. Your cooperation is appreciated.}} |
|
|] |
|
| ⚫ |
|The maps task force asks that '''all''' map requests be left on the ''']''' and not on this page. Your cooperation is appreciated. |
|
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Help! == |
|
== Request for map of ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I created KML data for this draft, ], in the References section, and converted it to GeoJSON, but upon loading, it just throws an error. How can I fix this? <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">]</span>: ] <span style="">$</span></span> 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hello. Creating maps, like keeping scores in sports, is not my forte. I don't know if I am in teh right place. If not, someone please point me in the right direction. I seek a map of ] to add to the article's infobox. Thank you! I am ] (]) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As stated above, the request pages is ]. Thank you, <span style="background:green; padding:2px">'''] ] ]'''</span> 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
:Never mind, I figured it out. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">]</span>: ] <span style="">$</span></span> 21:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Uploading GeoJSON to Misplaced Pages in raw form has been dying a slow death for years now- the preferred method these days is uploading to Commons under a Data:_____.map page and calling it using a ‘from’ parameter in the template <span style="background:#613314; padding:2px; font-family: 'Courier New'">''']]'''</span> 21:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The upside to putting the map data on Commons is that it's reusable on other editions of Misplaced Pages, or even the AARoads Wiki. ] and use the same map file on Commons, for instance. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
My bad; I failed to read all the way to the bottom. I have followed your directions. Thank you, ] (]) 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps == |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] or ]. I think having township lines, plus labels for each township, clutters up the map way too much. I also think having each hamlet, village, city, etc. in different shades of color is unnecessary. At the end of the day, we're making maps so that readers can quickly identify where the route is. Showing what levels of jurisdiction it goes through doesn't really add to a reader's understanding of that, and could be a bit distracting or confusing. I've commented as much to the creator of the maps; he disagrees. Thoughts? – <span style="background:lightblue; border:1px green solid; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 00:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:After giving it some thought, I agree that perhaps the different colored shades are a bit too much information for the individual route maps. However, I still think the inclusion of the town lines are important for shorter routes. Especially for routes that do not cross county lines. Obviously, a road that crosses the whole state, such as NY 5, would suffer much clutter by showing individual town and city lines. But a road like NY 178, which is in a single county, could benefit by showing these town, and maybe even a few hamlet or city boundaries to help clarify where the route is, because it would help people locate the order of the communities it passes through in a graphical sense. Maybe it would look less cluttered if they used light gray (like the color standard for counties, but with thinner stoke) instead of the black lines I mistakenly used? ] (]) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I really like these maps, and they look great when following the links at the top of TMF's paragraph. However, these maps are too busy to be used in an infobox. When these maps are being used in the infobox, consideration needs to be applied to how they look in the infobox from the moment they are created. The text is not going to be readable at the standard infobox image size. Without labels, township borders are not that useful unless a very small number of borders are shown on the map. While knowing through which townships or incorporated communuties the route goes is useful information, an infobox map is not a good place to try to provide that information. — ] (]) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Alright, I changed the color of the borders in ] to the correct type to follow MTF guidelines, with a lighter border color for the town lines. ... I know the dotted lines still appear to overlap making them look solid (seems to be a problem in Inkscape that I'll fix). Do you think it looks a bit less cluttered in the infobox like that? ] (]) 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And yes, I realize that it is a bit vertically stretched in the article infobox. But if you think the clutter is reduced, I'll fix the ratio to better fit the box. ] (]) 02:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It looks less cluttered, but that's because all of the useful information was stripped out. All the map tells me and our readers now is that it goes through two towns and intersects three roads of some kind and Interstate 81. There's no mention of what county it's in, no mention of what communities are in the area, nothing that really helps a reader unfamiliar with New York identify where the route is. I never said remove the communities; my suggestion was more along the lines of wiping out the different colors and using the "urban area" color for all of them. Lastly, I still think that there's little benefit to including townships on maps, unless the map is showing a route that's contained within a single township. Otherwise, the county is the more important and useful jurisdiction. (And to think, at one time people considered having county lines on maps excessive...) – <span style="background:lightblue; border:1px green solid; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'll see what I can do about mellowing the colors of the communities to the "urban area" color so they don't stand out as a huge distraction. But I still feel that in the case of NY 178, and other rural roads like it, the town borders are important. Especially since many of these rural roads may only pass through one or two incorporated communities. I mean, perhaps a reader is semi-familiar with a town, but has never heard of the only community through which the route passes. (Say, for the case of NY 178, the reader has never heard of Adams, but they are familiar with the unincorporated community of Henderson. However, since it is unincorporated, they wouldn't see 'Henderson' if I left out the 'towns' layer, and thus, would not be able to accurately pinpoint where the route was. As far as I understand, your feeling on the purpose of these maps is to help a reader unfamiliar with the area pinpoint the road's location). |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Secondly, I guess my idea of color-coding each type of community was, in part, to help distinguish the type of area the road passes through. If you've ever driven a road through a city, the environment through which you travel might be different than the environment through, say, a small village. Getting a bit off-topic, I looked at one of your maps so I could get a feel for your styles. In the map, ], I noticed that you have the cities Syracuse, Fulton, and Oswego in all capital letters, but the smaller villages Baldwinsville, and Central Square in normal case. I'm assuming you tried to distinguish the cities from the villages in this map, perhaps for the same reason I am? I simply took a small extra step, and just used color to help the "visual learners" identify them easier. ] (]) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Regarding the last point, I don't necessarily use caps for just cities and mixed-case for everything else. What I do use is caps for major locations on the map and mixed elsewhere. Depending on the map, cities could be in caps and villages could be mixed, or villages could be in caps and hamlets could be mixed, or so on. I'm not trying to create political maps here, I'm trying to make road maps. I've only seen two road maps IRL that show town boundaries, and both were super-detailed maps of the Greater Rochester area. Actual road maps produced by Rand McNally et al use counties and individual locations, not towns, to provide context to the location of roads, and I believe we should do the same. – <span style="background:lightblue; border:1px green solid; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll add a couple examples of what I did in Texas. ] shows a Texas highway about a county length. I added the towns for local reference, but also added an inset state map showing its location in the state. I set a voluntary road length limit of 50 miles before making the map an entire state map and excluding everything but a state shape and limited access roads ], for size issues. ] (]) 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Section break=== |
|
|
Opening up a separate section for the NY 458 map (]) since the discussion above is focusing more on NY 178. Here, it looks like the location labels have been traded for townships and town names, resulting in a ton of clutter. – <span style="background:lightblue; border:1px green solid; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===My opinion=== |
|
|
I've been following what's been said here, but didn't feel I had something to contribute until now. These are meant to be roadmaps that are meant to be legible at 290 px of width in the infobox. It's great that someone can click the map to get a larger view of it, but the ''primary'' purpose of the map is the 290-pixel view in the infobox. If it can't be understood at that size, the map is worthless. As for other maps, please understand something, that unless a size is specified, the default thumbnail view is around 200 pixels. Editors with accounts can specify a personal default in their preferences (mine is 300 px) but any additional maps should be created with this in mind. If a map for the body of an article isn't designed to be shrunk to 220 px with clairity, then that map needs another size specified. If extraneous labels or if the boundary lines for smaller geographic subdivisions clutters the map, they should not be included. MDOT doesn't include township lines on the statewide map, so the only boundaries they used are county lines, and city outlines for the larger cities. There's a reason for that, and that's to reduce unnecessary clutter. Keep that concept in mind when creating your maps, or when the article gets to higher assessment levels, the map will need to be redone to pass those reviews. <span style="background:green; padding:2px">'''] ] ]'''</span> 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed entirely. Unfortunately, NY 458 is already a GA, so that's at least one map that I have to redo. – <span style="background:lightblue; border:1px green solid; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
