Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 12 September 2006

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:

Template:U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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 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 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 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I may have some info for you on this. 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 03:13, 2 September 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...

1. I'd use green (for money) for turnpikes/toll roads.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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:

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

1. No objections here.
2. Probably not. We don't want to make the maps too complicated to make.
3. Looks sharp! I like it, personally.
4. We should only do that if the map has a zoom level small enough that would show these roads.
5. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Final proposal

Discussion

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 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)

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 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Show of opinion

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)