Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Shuffle order proposal

I was wondering if we could shuffle the order of this infobox. See Aith for example. The OS globe should either be placed above the line underneath the map or down with the code info for starters. I would prefer to see a coordinates underneath the map like in the Edinburgh infobox. Then there should be the Country, State, County etc division. It is backwards. Why does UK and Ireland have to be different to every country in the world on here and display them backwards. The convention on wikipedia is to display United Kingdom, Scotland, Shetland etc rather than the other way round. I storngly recommend the order that we have in the infobox for Edinburgh. This means population and area data goes beneath the country/county listing. Also the post code info is least important and should in my view be placed in the bottom section below politics. Finally I would like to see a time zone standard at the bottom of the infobox again like Edinburgh. I understand many people are accustomed to this order but I wondered if there is at least some scope for alteration.. Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the order from smallest to largest when reading the info which is the natural way to do it. The Edinburgh one looks completely wrong going from Largest to smallest. Keith D (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well when you write a letter you do write it as smallest area first. But that would mean that 95% of place articles on wikipedia look "completely wrong". Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Keith D - I prefer the order of smallest to largest and think it is the most logical for a variety of reasons: familliariy, postal addresses, how one would decribe a place in prose, etc etc. I'd be uncomfortable with the proposal. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And my other suggestions? Dr. Blofeld 12:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The co-ordinates are usually separated from the other fields by a line, I think that it depends on the fields populated whether the line appears or not. Keith D (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the points made by Keith_D and Jza84: The starting point of any reader is the article title, so it makes sense to have a steady expansion from that, via local information, to national information (as with {{Infobox UK place}}, but contrary to {{Infobox settlement}} which is transcluded in the Edinburgh article). The alternative is a sudden dislocation from the placename to the UK and then back again.

As to whether postal information is more or less important than local government information, that will vary according to the reader. Informal and logistical geography can be as useful to those wanting to understand contemporary spatial relationships as more formal but abstract hierarchies. That said, it would be logical to have the electoral areas listed near to the corresponding administrative areas.

We should be wary of introducing national data such as time zones. Though a few sovereign states have multiple time zones, most do not, so it is not necessarily appropriate to include all the options of an international template. I think most readers would find it intuitive to click on the United Kingdom link if they are searching for the time zone. (Similarly, we would not generally include national currency details, nor data about higher areas such as county population in a town article.)

— Richardguk (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a no then. You know, sometimes change is a good thing... Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to the mention of time zones: correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, every city/town/etc. for which {{infobox UK place}} is useful, is in the same time zone: there are no outlying settlements in a different time zone. Thus, if time zone is considered crucial information, it could be hard-coded into the template without the need for a new parameter, in the same way that "List of places: UK" is hard-coded. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, all you'd do is place the GMT 0 summer time +1 into the bototm part of the template. Do I have support at least for that? Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the objections to the proposal related to whether the time zone was hardcoded. What is missing here is any indication of problems arising from the status quo sufficient to justify including information that is only indirectly dependent on the subject of the article. If many users were struggling to find the UK time zone, that would need addressing. But, from what you have said, it still seems to me far more likely that readers wanting this info quickly realise that they can get it via the United Kingdom article to which this infobox always links; and that, conversely, the vast majority of readers are not seeking this information and so, for them, it would only clutter the infobox. — Richardguk (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm Richard. I had thought the same about post code and local police info too actually. "The vast majority of readers are not seeking this information ". Postcodes are extremely unimportant in an encyclopedia, but obviously you disagree and probably think them more important even than population data.. Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Template loop

I'm not sure if is due to updates to Template:Infobox UK place/local, but it would be for this template to use a sensible default for the Location map when no match is found in that template. For example, I had to perform this edit to break a template loop warning. Dozens of UK places have started popping up in Category:Template loop warnings. The usual problem is that the parameters being passed to Template:Infobox UK place/local (e.g., principal area) are not matching anything, which causes the template to return nothing for the map, which causes a template loop. If you want to replicate this bug, just undo the edit I made above, and do a little "preview". This particular case is hard to resolve since the place is on the border between Carmarthenshire and Neath Port Talbot. What would be nice is if "map_type" could be used to specify a particular location map, e.g. {{Location map Wales Carmarthenshire}} in this particular case. Until this is resolved, I imagine more may start popping up in Category:Template loop warnings. On one hand, it's kind of good, since it is exposing articles with bad parameters, but it would be nice if that could fail a bit more gracefully with some sort of a hidden tracking category. Thank you. 98.212.134.144 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue by added a default for Wales. Also, here shows articles with default maps. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving a link in this template

Hi, I hope this is the right place to bring this up. There was recently an article move of British national grid reference system to Ordnance Survey National Grid. I ran a "What links here" and it appears that the UK Place infobox carries a field "OS grid reference" which links to the old article. The redirector takes care of it, but is there an onus on me as the page mover to go in now and change this template? Another problem right now is I don't know how to do that! Thanks for any help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the template to point to the new location. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick - thank you! How does it take effect? It hasn't done as far as I can tell for example at Fort William - will this be down to variations in templates? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It can take a little while to filter through as things are cached. The "What links here" make take a little bit longer as well but eventually it will all go though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. How does one actually edit one of these templates - is there a learning guide somewhere? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For this particular edit, it was just a case of finding the link and changing it. see change here. However, this particular template is protected, so you would have needed ti make the change in the sandbox version and put a request on the talk page by using the {{editprotected}} template to ask an admin to change it for you. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, very clear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New maps

Interesting timing on this... I'm just starting process of creating a ton of base maps for Wales at present - primary purpose is actually for area maps, but clearly location maps are the next step. Given this thread is ongoing I've created a pair of maps for Newport, see here. This means there will soon be county-level locator maps available for Wales, I've used it in Newport Market as a demonstrator.

I am not sure what information is desired in the maps, so feedback on what is actually wanted in the map is appreciated - as is feedback on the colours etc. Note that standardisation with existing UK maps isn't that important as these maps could replace all existing maps (and become a new standard), but international standards probably are worth bearing in mind.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the small UK map in the corner of each of your maps would be useful to show where in the UK each county is. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view any maps intended to be used with the {{Location map}} template (or one of its variants) need to pay attention to their colour scheme to ensure that that when black text, or a blue hyperlink, is superimposed, it is still legible. The current generation of English county maps unfortunately fail that test: the boundaries are too dark and any text over the top can't always be easily be read. I would hope that this would be taken care of for any new generation of maps being considered. Of course this doesn't matter for other maps that are never intended to be used as location maps. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the UK as a whole should also be displayed, however it may be better to use a second map to show the county location in the UK, instead of an inset the approach used in constituency articles like South Dorset (UK Parliament constituency). I can add insets if that is the preferred option. I'm not sure as the inset becomes less clear in some cases (for example in Template:Location map United Kingdom Berkshire).

The maps I'm creating have more muted colours for the boundary lines (#646464 - 60% grey, as opposed to pure black) and are also somewhat thinner so better handle that problem than the existing maps, however further tweaks to handle that accessibility issue may be appropriate? (I won't alter for the area maps, but can for the location maps - making the lines thinner is an option there).--Nilfanion (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Where the purpose of the map is to show a large area, such as the extent of district council in relation to the encompassing county, I think that less - even minimal - detail is fine. But for a map used for pushpin purposes, such as in this particular infobox template, then a degree of detail - be it lakes, major roads, built-up areas - is a definite aid, but should be subtle, so that the pushpin itself is not drowned. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the right-hand Newport map shown at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps is pretty good for a pushpin location map, except that maybe some of the colours (of boundaries & roads) might need toning down slightly so that any superimposed text remains legible. A bit of trial and error may be needed to find a good compromise. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The base map is difficult to read in the proposed colours without anything superimposed on it. The colours are washed out and need crisping up so that the map can be clearly seen. The much deeper colours used in the existing UK maps are much clearer. Keith D (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally real discussion on the colour issue, been after thoughts for some time(!) The "washed out" colours of these maps are derived from a wider Wikipedia standard, the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps. Problem is the lack of consistency yet, here's an alternate convention.

One significant advantage to fainter colours is it makes for higher contrast for the pushpin (and any labels), which is the primary subject of location maps after all. IMO, when considered as just a blank map the new colours are ok. I'd be very reluctant about making boundary lines much thicker than they are already in these maps, but altering colours is not a big deal to me. Note that as these are all SVGs, editing them to alter colours is trivial and I'll adjust to whatever consensus this discussion leads to.

I've added the colours I've been using to the page on Commons [1], but don't really have strong opinions about this (the highlighted colour is one that troubles me most). I fear this is going to be a BIKESHED situation but some discussion is needed...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly bold up the colours for the sea and the selected area (the blue and the cream). I've always thought the British maps look a hell of a lot better than the washed out version used elsewhere on Wikipedia. I personally like the inset version: the idea of using two maps is not a particularly good one as it considerably lengthens the Infobox. We already have problems with short articles for places that the Infobox is about three times longer than the article, especially when an image to illustrate the area is added. We also have the problems that the Infobox causes with bunching of images and text being sandwiched. The pushpin label can always be superimposed on a white background (would work better with the bolder colours). This is an idea that has been discussed previously: with hindsight, we probably took the wrong decision. Could we try an experiment on the Newport detailed map, using the bolder colours for sea and selected area, the United Kingdom Inset, and the white pushpin name background, for, say Caerleon, and see how it looks? Perhaps we could also see an example of a similar map for a district within a ceremonial county, again using the detailed map, but with the district highlighted in an alternative colour to the rest of the county? Eventually, such a format might even be appropriate for civil parishes and communities within districts. Incidentally, practically anything would be an improvement on the dreadful maps we currently use for Scotland! Skinsmoke (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I actually think the "washed out" maps are much clearer looking for the purpose of displaying pins. The boundaries of the British maps, particularly those used for english counties are way too dark. The svg maps are used for most countries on wikipedia and are of considerably higher quality. The current english county maps look amateurish as if a child has draw aorund the boundaries in a permanent marker like Aldershot. Nilfanion's maps as of much higher quality; I think his maps should replace all of the current being used in fact if he could add a UK window locator in the corner. I think the lighter sea looks better than the darker sea. The original svg though didn't have the UK Wales marker in the corner. If you want to look at detailed roads and lakes look either on wiki min atlas or google maps. Pin maps are not supposed to have a lot of details. They are supposed to be light and clear. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nilfanion's maps are the best, quality county locators. I'd like to see all ENglish counties with maps in this style but with a UK county locator window. I'll see if these can be added to this infobox. If he could produce them like the Newport example but with a locator in the corner this would be perfect and I would propose that his maps replace the current. He could probably make a locator map of Wales in the same style addressing all of the requirements here. I've restored the darker Wales map as it also looks OK I think but the boundaries are a little dark in my view. If Nilfanion could come up with another alternative this would be good. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a second version of the Newport test map (and put in template), see {{Location map Wales Newport 2}}, which approximates the existing colours. Thicker boundary lines are a bad idea, and there's a couple alterations in eg the Urban area colour (why a colour close to the "water" colour?). However, there is no inset as yet. I'm not that sure which colour scheme is superior (strong colours or weak colours) as each does have benefits, but facilitating an informed discussion is good.

Adding insets will take a while, but I'll get to work on it(the biggest issue is that the OS data is for GB only and Ireland matters on a UK wide map). I may also need to redo some if I haven't left enough room for it. Obviously that needs to be done before it is truly "ready".

With respect to highlighted area maps, I'd much prefer a minimal background map (see for example - File:Lewes East Sussex UK district map.svg). Again, the precise colours don't matter of course, but I think adding additional detail to those maps just introduces potential for confusion when the point is to show the location of districts within the county. And Scotland will get the same treatment to Council Area level, I could also produce maps specific to each island, or set of islands.

One additional thing to point out, when comparing to the existing maps: These maps are directly derived from Ordnance Survey data, which I've carefully manipulated to preserve the information accurately. This means the problem with the Llŷn Peninsula in the existing maps really shouldn't be an issue with these.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For the purpose of pin it is better to have minimal background interference and clearer but subtle boundaries I think. I fully support your locator maps and would hope others see they are better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! To clarify, I have no problem with the boundary lines not being bold. Wanted to see what the map looked like with bolder colours, which seems to be most people's objection to the new maps. The latest version (with the bolder colours) loses the highlight effect of the selected area: I think I would be inclined to revert the selected area to the pale cream colour, revert the non-selected area to the browny shade, but retain the darker blue for the sea, which should prevent the "washed out" look that people seem to object to. Can we manage to get them together on this page, so people can make a direct comparison? Any chance we can get the pushpin and label variations—trying the label on a white background—included as well, as this will be how they will appear on the article pages.

For the highlighted area maps, I would certainly use a paler colour than the deep red/burgandy for the selected area. I am not so certain about keeping them minimalist though. The indication of urban areas (the grey bits) does provide a good indication of the nature of the selected area, while the major roads/motorways do give a good "at a glance" indication of the area's communications. Any chance we could see two examples side by side?

I really don't think, unlike Dr. Blofeld apparently does, that this is a case of the old version versus the new. I personally think it's better to take the best aspects of each, and see if we can agree on what provides the best option to be rolled out across the United Kingdom (there has also been interest expressed among Irish editors about bringing the Republic of Ireland maps up to the current—and presumably future—United Kingdom standard). Skinsmoke (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A blue somewhere in between would be ideal, if anything the svg blue sea is a little too light, the other is a little too dark in my view. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re plain versus detailed maps: I would suggest that the key factor is whether the map is small enough scale to be mostly defined by the coastal outline, in which case a plain map is appropriate; whereas for larger scale maps the coast is inadequate and so landmarks such as urban areas, rivers and major roads are appropriate to provide an alternative source of context. For example, it seems clear that the inset maps will be in the plain form, and that the county maps are better with more detail.

Re pushpin label overlays: Note the section above, #Placenames on the maps, from 17 February 2010, when four editors agreed that overlaid labels were actually not needed at all for this template, because the maps are always shown with a key (pushpin and text) underneath. Though no one opposed the suggestion at the time, it may not have been widely noticed, so perhaps it is as well to consider it now.

— Richardguk (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is certainly a discussion not a straight "old or new?" !vote. I've provided examples below using the 2 Newport test images with and without labels... Whether this template uses the labels or not is important, but even if it doesn't its still worth bearing in mind that those labels may be desired in other contexts. I've also split out discussions of the finer details of each map.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as an old versus new either. Nilfanion is offering the chance to make maps which cater for all requirements. Personally I have no problem with motorways and urban shading if it doesn't look too cluttered, its a good thing providing it is rendered properly (which it is). The difference is the current maps are not rendered when and have excessively thick boundaries. Have you notified WP:England and WP:Scotland about this too and the wor you are doing to replace the existing maps eventually? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples

OK, these are examples using the two Newport base maps with Caerleon highlighted

"Old" style	"New" style
Caerleon	Caerleon
Caerleon	Caerleon

Details of maps

I'm splitting this out like this so I can follow the discussion of each component section of the map. This will better enable me to put together "the" scheme that best meets consensus requirements. Bear in mind that blindly following the consensus on each individual point may well make for a poor map, if completely inconsistent options are preferred for each part I'll just work out best compromise... :)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Land colours:

I think the "new" scheme probably works better here, as it provides a greater contrast between the selected area and other areas. The "old" scheme relies on the thick lines to make the edge clear.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Water colour:

SVGs use #C6ECFF and existing PNGs use #9BC3ED. (Halfway between is #B2DAF7).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Boundary lines:

I think the thickness on the maps I've uploaded is about right now.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserts:

Need to be done, note this is the only time consuming thing on the list everything else can be quickly done.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Highlighted colour:

#F07568 is suggested colour here for areas of interest, its probably better than the deep burgundy I used in the initial test uploads.-Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional overlays:

The Newport maps have motorways, A-roads, urban areas, woodlands, lakes and rivers marked. In addition to there data is available for all roads, railways, national parks and certain road junctions.

I think amount of extra info in the Newport maps is fine for county-level maps, but additionally marking the motorway junctions (with a circle in style of road maps) would be beneficial. District or city-level maps (as well as national maps) probably need different levels of detail - not sure what's wanted there.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Railways:

Unlike minor roads etc, I think railway lines are an important indicator of strategic links and should be considered for inclusion. — Richardguk (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the map on the left with lighter road marking. I think though the water could be shaded a little lighter. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just corrected the right-hand map for the roads to match the other, that was an oversight when I took on feedback earlier.. I think the egs are really about if the land and water colours are correct or not (an intermediate for the sea looks sensible).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Motorways:

Just realised that I was mistaking the motorway for a river! Maybe the motorway blue-and-white blends to be too similar to the sea/lake shade of blue. If the motorway shades are from a standard palette which we are reluctant to depart, the antialiased shade at low resolutions could instead be altered by changing the relative widths of the component blue and white lines. — Richardguk (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to motorways, the existing palette is based on standard UK mapping conventions (blue = motorway, green = primary (absent at present, but could be split out) and red = non-primary A-roads etc. However the UK doesn't follow the more typical international pattern, the WP exchange map convention approximate the international convention, those colours would not conflict with anything else. The precise nature of the motorway lines can be adapted, but the more fundamental issue is do we follow international conventions or the UK road mapping convention? Making the motorways closer to cyan instead of blue may be good enough?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bet thare's a few gigabytes of archived roads project talk pages devoted to such things! The international-style exchange maps example is not very appealing. GB, NI and ROI have established blue/green/other national standards and no direct road links to Europe. Also, note predominance of blue at M1 motorway, M1 motorway (Northern Ireland) and M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland). So stick with some distinctive shade of blue for motorway edging. Good to show the primary routes in green if this is practicable, as this will further demonstrate the route tiers. Width may need varying to indicate hierarchy when viewed without colour. (See also earlier suggestion to add railway lines.) — Richardguk (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agree on that, it would truly be bizarre to ignore the overwhelming UK convention (not just on WP, but nationally) in the context of UK maps! That said the precise appearance of mways could be adjusted somewhat. Primary routes are slightly harder to do, but not that hard; I'll work on them later.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility:

Does anyone know whether the maps are reasonably comprehensible to readers with typical forms of colour-blindness? — Richardguk (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick check using this. Both palettes work ok in the 3 conditions that website simulates, except that the urban and woodland areas end up almost identical in all cases -which probably means drop the woods (they don't add that much).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Impressive. It is a bit inconsistent to show woods when we don't distinguish between other types of rural land, and the green patches are in danger of being confused with open park land. So, now that you mention it, it does seem sound to delete the woods. — Richardguk (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well they have their place, but seems less so in this context (prime purpose here is to locate human activity). I think the OS data reflects the 1:50,000 scale series, showing things like trees but not fields.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the blue motorway is not a good idea as it strongly looks like a river. Maybe a tan orange colour or something instead. Blue for motorway is alsways going to confuse the reader with waterways. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In drawing attention to the possibility of confusing motorways with rivers, I wasn't suggesting that we should change motorways to a completely different colour. Orange might be a standard international colour for major roads, but would not be readily identifiable as motorways (rather major roads in general) to UK readers. With a different shade of blue and a wider central white line, I think it likely that motorways could be made to look distinctive at typical smaller image sizes. — Richardguk (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that one thing definitely I won't be doing for foreseeable future, irrespective of utility or desirability, is relief detail. This is because the released OS contour data is extremely difficult to work with. If relief maps are created there should be an equivalent non-relief map in any case, and if someone wants/needs a relief version they will be able build on my output.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To summarise, am I right in thinking that we appear to be heading for example 4 (bottom right above), with the sea darkened, railways added, motorway clarified, and green areas removed? If so, can we see what it looks like? Unusually, for Wikipedia, so far this has been a very productive discussion! Hope I haven't spoken too soon! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd revision

OK, image to right has the following changes: Water colour -> #B2DAF7 (intermediate between the original two colours), woodland removed, primary routes marked (in green, per usual standards) and railways added.

Rail has been done with a thin line barely visible at thumbnail, as the colour will clash with the admin borders otherwise. Not a big deal on this map maybe, but certainly would be for counties in central England with lots of rail lines and district borders. One con to making the water an intermediate shade is that it makes it all the harder to get the motorway colour right.. I've left that roughly as-is for now; only viable option I can see at present is to make the motorway blue closer to cyan (as is done on for example the 1:50 000 scale OS maps).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest for motorways trying a darker blue, but with a wider white line along the centre. Maybe the contrast would make the line look less like a natural feature. The water is already a pale blue so a paler blue for the road might not help. — Richardguk (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Richard, a mignight blue colour would work for roads, as long as it isn't too dark. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Yeah.. motorways are a pain at a low scale like the thumbnails and I'll think about how to handle them (by the way, you can experiment here yourself: if you look at the SVG in a text editor, you could tweak the inner and outer lines and have a play too.

However leaving that aside, is everything else OK now? (Or will be once the inset is added)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great to me.

Experimenting with the motorways, rendered at 220px (standard thumbnail size), I have uploaded an alternative suggestion at File:Newport UK map roads and areas 3m1.svg:

Latest version by User:Nilfanion

Alternative by User:Richardguk

I tried a thin dark blue border but this antialiased with the white into river blue, so the above version uses a very wide border of pale blue (  #ccccff) that is just about distinguishable from the central line at thumbnail size and I think is noticeably less saturated than the water-feature blue. The central line remains the same width as a primary route but is white. Each of the blue edges is the same width as the central line.

— Richardguk (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are going to be able to find a solution that truly works, its going to be finding the best compromise :/ A dark colour motorway is far too prominent and would cause problems for the push pin. Middle blue clashes with the rivers. A dark blue/white combination ends up as middle blue. A pale blue is hard to see. Non-blue breaks UK traditions... That said, your version is best yet I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We may not have reached the point yet, but at some stage I think we'll need to see an example of a large county and/or a county containing a large city, to see just how much intricate detail it's appropriate to include. It might be that all A roads are too much and just primary routes would be enough. But we'll have to try it and see. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well its more than just size, its the density of the road network - certainly agree only having motorways and primary routes for large counties is sensible. On the other hand, with some areas (eg the Isle of Lewis) it may be appropriate to include B roads too! Not sure on colour for those, possibly yellow on black.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Inserts

I've uploaded all 22 of the basic (and blank) maps of each of the Welsh county boroughs now. As there were no existing location map templates for 16 of these I've created those and put the new maps into them (even though they will soon be replaced with the richer location maps being discussed above). However, I'm not really happy about the quality of the inserts. As a full image, the inset is usable and shows the location within the UK. However in eg File:Merthyr Tydfil UK map.svg the highlighted area is invisible as a thumbnail. One thought I had to fixing that is to use a pushpin in the map to indicate the location of the county ({{Location map many}} could handle it), it would be more elegant that way than adding a similar dot to the image itself (as that would reduce the quality of the full image). But, I'm not sure how to do that...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How about making the inset show the location within Wales, not within the UK? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep that should help at least for Wales. England and Scotland may still be slightly problematic, so any thoughts on how to make the subject area more prominent would be good. Another problem will occur with things like location maps for London boroughs: The inset has to show borough within London, but London within UK/England in addition would still be helpful... For consistency, should we just show subject within the next larger area - so constituent country within the UK, county with constituent country, district in county (and if we get really carried away - parish / ward in district?)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A darker, purer red for the highlighted region on the inset map should help to contrast with the pale yellow backround. How about changing from   #f07568 to   #c00000? — Richardguk (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for what to show in the inset, districts can be too close in size to counties for this to provide much context. I suggest we either show whole country or (in England) a European parliament region. To generalise, it might help to consider the hierarchy of places likely to be mapped:

(1) parish (E), community (W), townland (NI)

(2) district/unitary ward (E, NI, S)

(3) county/unitary division (E, W)

(4) Scottish parliament constituency

(5) Welsh assembly constituency

(6) UK parliament constituency

(7) shire district (E)

(8) unitary authority

(9) shire/metropolitan county (E)

(10) ceremonial county (E), county (NI)

(11) Welsh preserved county

(12) London assembly region

(13) Scottish parliament region

(14) Welsh assembly region

(15) English region, Greater London = European parliament region (excluding Gibraltar)

(16) NI, S or W = European parliament region or country

(17) England = country

(18) Great Britian

(19) United Kingdom

(20) British Isles

How about using the district/unitary for 1 to 3; the European parliament region (ie English region or NI/S/W) for 4 to 14; the British Isles for 15 to 17; and no inset for 18 to 20? I think ceremonial counties are the only item which would not then fit neatly, as they straddle regions, but the inset map need not be tightly cropped as the coastline provides most context.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note this doesn't include all possible subjects for maps, additional possibilities are things like towns and larger urban areas, that may cross district, county, EU region and possibly even country boundaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's the only proble,. The maps are great but when they appear in the infobox you can't see the insert locators. The english ones don't have that problem do they? Perhaps you could use the current inserts for england on your maps and for Wales and Scotland use Wales and Scotland locators rather than UK and also use the bolder red highlighter as suggested? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the English ones do have that problem (to a lesser extent). Reducing inset to within country (I really don't think the English county maps should use the EU regions, England is preferable) would help; also reproducing the approach used in the existing png maps, showing not just the highlighted county but plotting a box showing the displayed area will also help. Colour goes without saying of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess Bristol or Rutland would be good tests of whether smaller counties are visible on an all-England inset. But it struck me that your example of Greater London as an inset for London boroughs made a case for something smaller than all-England (but larger than an ordinary county because coastline is usually needed for easy recognition).

In addition to darkening the red, possible alternatives include:

• to pad the edge of the highlighted area, for example with a 0.5px stroke the same colour as the fill (but this of course distorts the map slightly); or
• to use the inset to highlight the entire area covered by the main map (i.e. a rectangle) instead of just the subject area, which would make the highlight a little larger

— Richardguk (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Box

No box

OK, I've updated the Welsh maps to reflect the feedback here (the highlighted Merthyr is now visible at thumbnail size). I've also updated the Bristol and Rutland blank maps, using an England base map for the inset. I've also added a small box within the Bristol map showing the limits of the map. The highlighted Rutland is visible in the thumb ok, but Bristol required the box.

Obviously a inset based on the regions will give a larger highlight, but IMO these are tolerable. There is additional value of using all England as opposed to the regions, readers will care where Rutland is in England more than where it is in the East Midlands (and because the regions are also plotted that info is there on the full image). Sub-county level maps will need further thought of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like you've got the balance right.

Maps from commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps:
Gwynedd UK map.svg	Pembrokeshire UK map.svg

Possibly Gwynedd would look better if the inset were over the mainland instead of hiding Anglesey. Similarly, maybe Pembrokeshire would look better with the inset over the mainland instead of over the sea, to reveal more of the coastal context to the east.

But those are minor speculative subjective points, so not suggesting that the maps need amending, only mentioning it in case you wanted feedback in general.

— Richardguk (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on Gwynedd, not so sure about Pembrokeshire - the map (and Pembrokeshire) stretches right out to the Smalls Lighthouse, which fixes the western edge. That means including more in the east would reduce the size of the subject area. But yeah not a big deal - I think this provides a working solution now I can move forward with. May have to redo some of the English counties if there is no room for the inset.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Look great to me, thanks. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've completed basic maps for all of England, Scotland and Wales now (see Category:Ordnance Survey Boundary Line maps). I've also produced (but not yet finalised or uploaded) county-level maps showing Westminster constituencies (for all 3 countries), wards (for all 3), civil parishes and electoral divisions (in England) and communities (in Wales). I'm also going to look into finding data for Northern Ireland (and the Republic), so Ireland has equivalent maps.

All the base maps have insets on (which may need tweaking in some cases), and I'll work on adding the additional data such as urban areas and roads as discussed above soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This infobox has now been updated to use the new Scottish maps as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Maps_of_counties. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This infobox has now been updated to use the new Welsh maps as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From the old to the new

Bedfordshire

Devon

Very much in favour of the new maps, even if I was the editor who's 12 month's work has or is being replaced! The SVG format is far far better. However, a lot of detail is lost and really needs adding in. I'm thinking motorways, large rivers and urban areas as an absolute must. Take Neilston as an example, I don't get a sense of it's toponymyy and relation to other areas.

I've skim-read the above, but have two questions:

1) Do we plan to include the extra "layers" of rivers, motorways and urban areas to all the maps as in the Caerleon version(s) above? 2) Do we plan to "overwrite" the England county maps, and if so, will they follow the "Caerleon" format (once agreed)?

--Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that detail has been lost relative to the original png files. The blank SVG maps that I have created to date are a necessary first step to more detailed maps (as well as having utility in their own right). In the case of Scotland and Wales, as there were only a few pre-existing county-level maps, I've put them into the location map templates: on the grounds that something is better than nothing.

In answer to the specific questions, I will be uploading new files (not overwriting anything else) with those additional "layers" once we have agreed on the details of the formatting - the Location map templates can then be updated to point to those maps once they are produced.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Once you've made the maps like Newport they can replace the current ones. Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded two "final" version of location maps - for Bedfordshire and Devon (to right). The Beds one includes non-primary A-roads, whilst the Devon map excludes them. Any thoughts before I do the bulk upload of these?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial thoughts:

• The motorways don't look right. I think they need to be a darker shade of blue with a narrower white strip (or maybe no white strip at all).
• I think the county and district boundaries need to be on top of everything else. It looks odd where they vanish underneath (paler) roads or water features.
• The black boundaries and green primary routes look rather similar at a casual glance. Maybe the primary routes need to be a little paler but more saturated (i.e. at the moment they are a bit greyish). (Or maybe, instead, the boundaries might look better in some other colour that differs from all other colours in use?)

Apart from that, great stuff! -- Dr Greg  talk  22:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The motorways need to be worked on as you cannot really tell what they are and they tend to blend in with the background. Also you cannot tell what is boundary and what is a feature, the district boundaries needs to be much blacker or thicker. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on motorways, I haven't figured out one that "works" yet myself (the current choice is to prevent a clash with the rivers). The admin boundary thing is a straightforward bugfix that I'll work on later too. Primary needs tweaking too (the urban area colour is too washed out as well on review). However, I do feel making the boundary lines more prominent than they are is a bad idea, they are clear enough as it is on the plainer maps and making them thick causes potential for accessibility issues. If there is a clash between road and boundary data, my natural inclination is to make the roads less prominent (or drop entirely) as that is less important data.

Bear in mind SVGs are "easy" to tweak, anyone with a text editor can experiment with them (altering the stroke-fill and stroke-width of the paths of concern). One thing I have noticed is that these images work very well as a larger map (say at 800px), but what matters is usability at 240px. If you have opinions on this please edit one of the SVGs to provide one that's ideal to yourself - its easier to discuss choices when we have images to see!--Nilfanion (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I prefer the Devon (no red roads) version to the Beds (with red roads). Few (if any) counties will lack both motorways and green A-roads. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

These maps are a huge improvement - just the motorways that prompt me to give feedback though. Can they not be made a much deeper blue; closer to violet? This seems in keeping with most modern British colour cartography out there (OS, AA etc). I'm pretty indifferent about the A-roads (but could get messy for the metropolitan areas such as London and Glasgow etc). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Redrose64) Not every county (or county equivalent) has primary routes - eg the 3 Scottish island councils and the Isle of Wight. If smaller areas are plotted, even more will have no motorways or primary routes. In case of London and Manchester and possibly a few others, primary routes will be overkill too. I think the level of the roads depends on the area depicted, but for shire counties down to primary is probably best.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Both the two maps look fine to me, either way, but I agree that a dark blue would be best for motorway. The land is too small for the Cornwall map though. Can you remake it like the Devon one so the land is larger in relation to the sea and zoomed in more? Maybe you should make a seperate map for the Scillys I dunno, as they make the map a lot wider thatn it would otherwise need to be. Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You could make the Scilly Is into an inset, like on OS Landranger map 203. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that keen on using an inset there (and I'm not sure if its possible to work insets in location maps). On the other hand, splitting the Isles of Scilly from Cornwall into two separate maps is "easy" enough. I'll create those two in addition to a combined one so editorial choice can choose the best :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's definately the best thing. That way you can have a better scale for the mainland and the Scillys. Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK take 2 is up :) Dropped the non-primary A-roads from Beds (easy to work out yes/no on that now). Tweaked the urban areas to be slightly darker and put the boundary lines to the top layer. Most important is the change to primary routes and motorways: Primaries are a purer green which is much more distinct from the boundary lines, whilst motorways are close to the colours used in road maps. The motorways still aren't there yet though: Maybe a thin dark edge and solid blue interior would be better than thin central white in blue.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it not possible to use something like Ultramarine for the motorways (and if it's too bold, run a white line through it)? That seemed to work a treat for the 'old' maps I worked on and it was instantly recognisable as a motorway without any criticism or complaint. I had a look at my "A to Z" of Manchester just now and that also uses a dark blue. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And done

OK the bulk upload is now completed! See this table for the details, the maps are all at the standard name structure File:<area> UK location map.svg. Most counties have Motorways, Primary routes and railways shown, however some (eg the Isle of Wight) additionally have non-primary A-roads shown and some (eg Greater London) have only Motorways shown, this is trying to get balance right between clarity and information. I've also provided separate maps for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

If there are any technical errors (such as incorrectly classified roads) please let me know here. If a map is too crowded try removing some road info (probably the primary routes) and reupload, which is easy enough to do in any text editor. More fundamental issues such as issues with the colouration please experiment and upload/discuss here.

Though not strictly relevant here, I've also uploaded maps for Crawley and Dartmoor as tests comments on these would be helpful before I move on to their equivalents...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic work Nilfanion. These are of world class standard and should really improve this template and coverage of the UK. Thank you so much.

My only observation is that Greater Manchester and Greater London don't have the green primary routes, whereas all the others do. I imagine this is due to crowding. However, I'd be tempted, for purposes of consistency, to include them, but with a thin (a pixel or two) or slightly transluscent green line still. In the other major metro areas (West Yorks, West Midlands, Glasgow), I think they look good and add depth. Same goes for the train lines too - I think they could be added in with the right combination of pixel size and opacity. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks is appreciated :) As for the Manchester and London issue, when done with identical parameters to rest of country they got hopelessly crowded at thumbnail resolution (which is why I removed the primary routes). However, tweaks could allow them to be included - haven't really experimented as yet. I'll have a look into it later today.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)