Module talk:Location map/data/UK Scotland

Scotland location map

I am opening this discussion here because conducting two conversations with two different people over two different talk pages was too difficult. The situation is as follows:

Background

• The original Scotland location map (map A) does not and will not work. It will not work because (from the description given to me) it is unprojected raw geodesic WGS84 data and not an equidistant cylindrical projection, nor a linear distortion of one.
• I have produced four maps that will work. They are map B, map C, map D and map E.
  • map B is map A cut up manually in Microsoft Paint and repositioned to fit an equidistant cylindrical projection.
  • map C is a equidistant cylindrical projection map created by NASA from a mosaic of satellite photos.
  • map D is map B stretched vertically by 150% (the same solution that Russia uses on its location maps).
  • map E is map C stretched vertically by 150%.
• Those maps will work: see here for an analysis.
• Yesterday, I put map D into production via this diff. I tested it against Aberdeen, Inverness, Stornoway, Lockerbie, Lerwick, Glasgow, Brodick and Kirkwall and it worked perfectly. Job done.
• Unfortunately, yesterday the Great Commons Cache problem happened (see here for the discussion under "Image problems"), and many images and location maps were affected, including UK, Germany, Russia and Scotland. In the confusion, many temporary fixes were attempted and my change to Template:Location map Scotland was backed out.
• I have been asked for suggestions on how to take this further forward.

My response

• I agree with and understand your reasons for backing out my changes. But I need to point out that a) there is a limit to how much time I can spend on this, b) after backing out my changes, you are now back to where you were months ago with a map that just doesn't work, c) at the end of this week I will be living in temporary accommodation under straitened circumstances and extremely limited internet access, d) you are asking for a high-quality map to a specific projection derived from a high-quality map with a different (non)projection, and that requires more technical ability that I or most people have. So my recommendations are as follows:

My recommendations

• 1) I recommend that you reinstate my changes as of this. If you think it's too pixilated, then maybe you would like map E as of this diff. Either of these options will act as a temporary solution to stop Aberdeen, Lerwick and Brodick being located in the sea, and give you time to find a permanent solution as per below.
• 2) I recommend that you contact the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers, tell them your problem, and ask them to build you a better map as a permanent solution.

These recommendations are my best recommendations to move this project forward. Accept or reject them as you feel appropriate. But for the reasons described above, I cannot devote more time to this project. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem getting into a major dazzle about this - hopefully we should have it sorted soon enough! WRT your response section I can easily deal with them in turn. a) I am happy to do the work, you don't need to invest any more time as you have already put in a lot. b) only for a couple of days, I am sure the good denizens of aberdeen and lerwick can hold for that long! c) That is ok, this doesn't really require a large amount of correspondence or net connectivity. d) I have access to the original Nasa data files and hence can derive 10,000 x 10,000 images out if they are needed at that resolution, and along with that I have advanced image editing abilities - so this is not a technical issue.

To move it forward, I will take care of the problem at the weekend. If all that is required is 150% vertical stretching of the original then that is straight and simple to do - I was fearing it was going to be some complex convolution matrix involved in the transformation. I will simply render a high res original (higher than will be used), stretch vertically , and then scale down to around 500 x 1000 for use in the template. Job done! (as a post script comment the STRM tiles are in geodetic latitude-longitude projection, as I originally transform them to UTM WGS84 to make them look sensible - hence this modification I presume, simply requires export and stretching rather than UTM transforming) SFC9394 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased that you have undertaken to do the work involved, since I would like to see the job done. Your statement "...If all that is required is 150% vertical stretching of the original..." makes me concerned that you have misunderstood what I wrote above, since that is not what I said. I have rewritten the above to make my meaning plainer. As for the rest of your statement, I don't know what STRM tiles are, so I cannot comment meaningfully. As a guide, I would suggest that you try to produce a equidistant cylindrical projection map - i.e. one that closely matches the outline of map B or map C. If you can produce a equidistant cylindrical projection map, then that will work, and any linearly transformed (ie stretched) version of your equidistant cylindrical projection map will also work. If you can't produce a equidistant cylindrical projection map, then I would guess that your maps will not work. In the latter event, and if my recommendations above are not implemented, then I suggest you leave the existing map (map A) in place: the inaccuracies are annoying but not wildly out. Good luck, and I hope your labors of the weekend bear fruit. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes Made

Ok, I have uploaded a new version - original equi. cynd. (which is what the SRTM are in) stretched by 150% vertically. I have modified the plot bounding co-ords to match what the map gives. 3 of them tally with secondary sources, but the westing (7.66) doesn't agree with what the topo tiles says ([1] - imageshack screenshot for convenience). I have gone with the 7.600 west as that is what the core data says, the discrepancy is an unknown. It seems to work with -7.60 and we no longer have floating cities in the sea! If there are any modifications required I have everything here. SFC9394 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeen, Inverness, Stornoway, Lockerbie, Lerwick, Glasgow, Brodick, Edinburgh and Kirkwall all check out. Excellent! Well done young Jedi! Bill will be dead pleased when he comes back. Time for cake, I think...Anameofmyveryown 07:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland map image used in this template

Maybe it is just me but this template seem to have a really a dull picture. Could we not use one of the NASA satellite images? There is really only one NASA scotland image which is probably useable but I think the current image could be improved on. Jayhoolihan (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use File:Scotland location map.svg like in other wikipedias. --Obersachse (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you say what you think the advantages are? Ben MacDui 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Scotland is not an island (as shown on file:Scottish infobox template map.png), but has neighbors. The file:Scotland location map.svg shows inner borders and the situation of Scotland relative to England and Ireland. That`s why that file is used in all other Wikipedias. Another plus: The file is in the same color scheme as most of the available location maps. --Obersachse (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Obersachse. This map is poor and to me the depiction of Scotland as an island looks patriotic. Also the green map and red pin don't work. The svg is not perfect I agree, if a relief map in the way of the svg in made I'd support that. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have previously supported, and would continue to support, the idea of switching to the File:Scotland location map.svg, mainly for the reasons given by Obersachse above, ie Scotland is geographically part of Britain and Ireland. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's change the map. --Obersachse (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to be too hasty - this has been discussed before. I don't have very strong views on the subject, and:

The green and red pin work fine for me. Would the svg have a red pin?

The alternative offered to the allegedly patriotic nature of the existing version is to have a map which includes chunks of three other countries, which (to me) seem to give them undue emphasis.

The svg also lacks relief as mentioned above and instead offers a bunch of random lochs - although its treatment of islands is better in my view.

Is an svg with relief an option? Ben MacDui 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The red dot is not part of the code of this template. It can be switched by the parameter "mark=" of the Template:Location map.

I made a request for a relief map at de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Kartenwünsche#Positionskarte_Schottland_als_topografische_Version. --Obersachse (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Like this? Uwe Dedering (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be perfect. I full support Uwe's wonderful map. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine by me too - but I can't figure out why it is not appearing in the template. Yrs in haste. Ben MacDui 06:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we briefly revisit this please - from the above I see three people supporting the jpg relief map at right, and no-one stating opposition to it, but as you can see, Obersachse keeps switching back to the svg image, which I certainly don't support. Ben MacDui 09:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia has a corporate design. All other Wikipedias use maps like File:Scotland location map.svg per default. English Wikipedia uses such maps (if they exist) for all countries per default. Why should we make an exception only for the Scotland map? I can't see a reason for that. The parameter AlternativeMap allows to use alternative maps. Look here. --Obersachse (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not very interested in "corporate design" - or rather I might be if there was any serious attempt to create it at en:Wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC, which is still ongoing but it seems clear that "deviation from site-wide style guidelines" are the norm. In particular I am not aware of any reason why we should choose to use a map (that I consider inferior) because other parts of the Meta-Wiki world do so. I will have a look at the using alternative map method, but what would be the point if the templates that use the map all use the alternative version? Ben MacDui 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the relief map is much better, and should be the default, with the "plain" map as the alternative. As to "Why should we make an exception only for the Scotland map?", well, why should we reject a better more popular map in favour of a poorer less popular one? Where exactly is Wikipedia's "corporate design" set out? I see nothing in WP:MOS which says that only certain types of map should be used. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The maps aren't better or poorer. They are for different purposes. --Obersachse (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question ;) Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Obersache you need to learn to either respect that the consensus is that WP:Scotland prefers to use a relief map. We all agree here that the relief map is far better, now go away. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I myself like the new relief map, pictured right. IMO it's more interesting because of the colours, and it has a bit more educational value because it shows the height (like the hills and the gullys etc.). I'm kinda interested in that kind of thing, as are (I think) other people who like maps. IMO it's an improvement over the 'island' map we had before.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the relief map as default. In de:WP its default only for lakes, islands, mountains etc. For cities and villages the political map is used. But if there is consensus to use the relief map for everything, fell free to do so. Sorry, Obersachse ;-) Uwe Dedering (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I realise this discussion stopped a long time ago but isn't it possible to create both the relief map and political map into separate location maps? I agree with what Obersasche said, that both would be used for different purposes rather than whether one is preferable over the other. Cal Umbra (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to create seperate location map templates. But I think, there's no need in it because we have the AlternativeMap parameter. It can be used in that way, that e.g. the Template:Infobox military structure uses the relief map, and the Template:Infobox UK place uses the political map or vice versa. --Obersachse (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to make use of the political map. Any idea how I go about doing that? Cal Umbra (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Using alternative maps...

Possibly not the correct place to ask this, but anyway...

I'm wanting to display multiple locations in Angus. I can show them using the Scotland location map:

Carnoustie

Monifieth

Arbroath

class=notpageimage|

Locations:

– Places

But I see the AlternativeMap field is not much use for zooming in using the Angus map seen in Infobox place... Any suggestions?

Carnoustie

Monifieth

Arbroath

class=notpageimage|

Locations:

– Places

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorted...

[[File:Steel pog.svgCarnoustie|5x5px|Carnoustie|link=|class=notpageimage]]

Carnoustie

Monifieth

Arbroath

class=notpageimage|

Locations:

– Places

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a near-duplicate of a thread that you raised at Template talk:Location map#Alternative map. It would have been better to start just one discussion thread, although a short message could have been placed here directing readers to that discussion. See WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

image1 should be relief map

This template should be changed so that the relief map is specified by image1 and not by image. This would make it consistent with other location map templates. If one sets relief=1 for the location map, it ends up showing the non-relief map. RedWolf (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply but this was discussed at length above and the "consistency" argument was rejected. Ben MacDui 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I posted on this page and on the WikiProject talk page but no one responded. Rejecting consistency is not usually a good thing and doing so here is just wrong. Now we will have to use {{Location map Scotland relief}} just to get around this issue and have to update ALL the Scotland mountain articles to use it to get the relief map displayed. Setting relief=0 in the infobox template to get the relief map to display is just wrong. RedWolf (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the same point of view. Rejecting consistency is a very bad thing. --Obersachse (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my recent experience the encylopedia has become so bloated that few people are bothering to participate in such discussion at all. I would be more impressed by arguments in favour of consistency if we had it for genuinely useful things such as referencing styles. I think by "wrong" you may mean "inappropriate in my view" - I can't see any objective standard to set right and wrong by here. Scotland is a country dominated by relief, which is why I think it is appropriate.

You will need to explain why not setting relief = image1 here means that mountains do not get the relief map. The opposite is true for island articles. When relief = image1 they all default to the non-relief map, (which is "wrong") and I could not find a way to fix that. Ben MacDui 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the output of this template should correspond to other {{location map}} templates on en.wp: That is the default is the plain map, and setting relief = image1 provides the relief map as a secondary option. This has no bearing on actual usage, but does means that the back-end is consistent - so you can go from Scottish to Welsh articles and copy/paste the syntax or from a mountain in the Rockies to one in the Cairngorms and keep the syntax.

Bear in mind, only some articles call this template directly - this is why the Scottish islands do not behave as expected. For instance Bass Rock uses {{Infobox Scottish island}}, which in turn references here. Changing "{{Location map|Scotland|..." to "{{Location map|Scotland|relief=1|... (along with the switch here) would have no effect on article appearance, and provide greater consistency. I'm going to analyse current usage of this template, to see how much effort it would take to align it with other {{location map}}s. I'm also likely to just make those edits, which should not result in any articles changing map but getting rid of this inconsistency.

Consistency merely for the sake of it is pointless, but if there's no good reason for retaining the oddity and there is benefit to removing it it should be done. An example of a benefit: If and when I get around to more relief maps, these can be used in article. If the "polarity" of this template matches the norm, switching to more detailed areas is simple. If it is opposite to the norm, each article would need to be checked that it calls the right map.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I respectfully suggest that you don't try to amend things until it is clear what is actually needed. For example, if some change is needed, the it should be made to Infobox Scottish island rather than individual articles. On a related but different tack, I have been thinking of upgrading Template:Infobox Scottish island so that it defaults to a local map. The main ones needed would be:

• File:Orkney Islands UK location map.svg
• File:Shetland UK location map.svg
• File:Outer Hebrides UK location map.svg
• File:Isle of Skye UK location map.svg
• File:Argyll and Bute UK location map.svg

However I can't figure out how Infobox UK place organises this. Template:Infobox Scottish island is the only such infobox I am really familiar with and whilst I am quite happy to ferret about fixing something I need a few hints as to how to start. Any input gratefully received - and I am watching Template talk:Infobox Scottish island if you prefer to reply there. Ben MacDui 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on that its a bit too drastic to "just do". Some usage figures here: There are ~500 articles that use this template. ~300 of those are via template:Infobox Scottish island, ~100 via other infobox templates and ~100 from direct transclusions. Of the transclusions, many of those are articles about lochs, which do not do so via the infobox as {{infobox lake}} bizarrely doesn't provide for it.

With regards to the Scottish islands template, upgrading to local maps is probably a good idea. I'll post thoughts there.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

UK Scotland

This particular location map template (Template:Location map Scotland) seems to be the only one that uses a relief map as a default map (image=) and the default administrative map as a relief map (image1=). Yes, I realize it has been debated in the past, but still, it is inconsistent and confusing with respect to all of those hundreds of other location map templates.

A correct version is located at Template:Location map UK Scotland, which has the administrative map as a default map and the relief map as a relief map.

Ideally, this template (Template:Location map Scotland) should be changed in a mere redirect to the other version (replace everything with #REDIRECT [[Template:Location map UK Scotland]]). However, it'll be a lot of work to fix all pages that use or transclude this template, as has been pointed out before.

(For comparison: Template:Location map Queensland is a mere redirect to Template:Location map Australia Queensland, Template:Location map Newfoundland redirects to Template:Location map Canada Newfoundland, Template:Location map Bavaria to Template:Location map Germany Bavaria, Template:Location map Wales to Template:Location map UK Wales, and Template:Location map Massachusetts to Template:Location map USA Massachusetts. There are dozens of other examples.)

Anyway, please use the correct Template:Location map UK Scotland (instead of the incorrect Template:Location map Scotland).

Michael! (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A side issue - UK location maps should use "United Kingdom" not "UK" - see Special:Prefixindex/Template:Location map United Kingdom.

I personally think the Scottish template should be switched to have the relief as the alternate map for consistency. That doesn't mean actual transclusions should be altered from relief to admin base map - and a simple bot run could implement that change. This template is less used now than last time this issue was highlighted - there are c 150 transclusions instead of c 600 - as most Scottish articles use more precise location maps now.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply!

Agree. However, most of the pages that still transclude Template:Location map Scotland use either Template:Infobox military structure, Template:Infobox UK feature, or Template:Infobox UK place. Those infobox templates should be modified first to support the relief map before this Scottish template is modified for consistency, don't you think? Michael! (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your "side issue": Well, I don't have any objections to moving Template:Location map UK Scotland to Template:Location map United Kingdom Scotland, but then these templates should be moved as well:

• Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map UK (5 maps + 3 docs)
• Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map England (2 maps)
• Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map Scotland (several dozens)
• Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map Wales (several dozens)

Anyway, feel free to go ahead and move those templates to the correct name. Michael! (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)