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

Archive 1

Cartographers

Who are the current map creators? —Rob (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here, but atm SVGs aren't happenin from me. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am too, but I'm currently cleaning up my Texas GIS database. I noticed that ArcGIS 9.2 comes out in the next month. Maybe it's SVG creator will be cleaned up. Here's hoping. 25or6to4 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

fingers crossed on that one :P Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Process streamlined

To test this out, just click on "Request a map" on the right. --V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

SVGs

Has anyone heard anything additional on SVGs and Firefox? They still crash my browser :/ Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing still. I'm curious as to how the new Firefox 3 beta handles them, though. 25or6to4 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian maps?

Should these requests be permitted here? I mean, this is the U.S. Roads maps task force. If the mapmakers want to do them, be my guest, but I just don't want to see a situation where this page becomes flooded with foreign requests when thousands of US road articles don't have maps. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

C-class

Now that we have C-class, should that be the minimum threshold now or should we keep it at B-class? CL — 04:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Another advantage to using SVGs

On Talk:U.S. Route 89 in Utah/GA1 the reviewer said it was a little unclear which line was US-89. So I downloaded the SVG, opened it in Notepad, searched for ff0000 (hex code for red), and doubled the width. --NE2 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I always wanted to use them before but loading the SVG in Firefox crashed the browser. Since that's fixed in 3.0, everyone should probably use SVGs now, as I will should I fire up the machine again :P Strato|sphere 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I don't use SVGs is that I've yet to figure out how to get QuantumGIS to output decent-looking SVG images. I always get weird things like the huge text in Image:I-215 (UT) map.svg. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a font issue; try using Bitstream Vera Sans. If that's not it, you can always do without the text, or do that part in Inkscape. (It's not in the right place anyway, or, if it's referring to the county, it doesn't seem useful.) --NE2 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably unnecessary in this case; it's referring to the county. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case I guess the county label would be unnecessary. CL — 04:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And now it's gone, via the text editor. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good! I'll use the svg image on the I-215 article if that's okay :) CL — 05:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating maps

What do you need to use to create these maps? I'd help out if I knew what to do. Do you use ArcGIS or what? Deigo (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't presume to speak completely for the MTF members, as I haven't submitted a map before. But there are at least two things you need: (1) ArcGIS or comparable GIS mapping software; and (2) sufficient GIS data to import into the program and manipulate to create the map. The data can be the tricky part, though. Not all public agencies make their street & highway shapefile data readily available for download, and those that do may not always update their data regularly. In the case of old highway routes that no longer exist, it may be necessary to digitize data from historic maps, which would take more effort.

I've also been interested in creating maps, especially since there are virtually no NV SR articles with maps. I took an Intro to GIS course last semester for just that reason. While I learned a lot about the process, I don't think I learned everything necessary to create maps for use here. Maybe someone with more experience creating maps specifically for USRD articles could write a short essay outlining the basic steps? Others might be willing to contribute if they knew how to go about it. --Ljthefro (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Limit on requests?

Right now, the request page is flooded with New Jersey requests - I count 10 in each section of the page. I believe that we should set a limit on the number of requests that one state can have at one time, maybe like five. We don't have very many cartographers at all at the moment (I could probably help out if I didn't have so much other stuff to do) and just continuing to pile onto the backlog doesn't help things any. – TMF 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I've been holding everything off.Mitch/HC32 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Limit has been enacted. – TMF 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When to archive

I think we should set up a new archive every 50 entries or so. Kind of a random comment, but I feel it's one that needs to be voiced after seeing how all over the place the archives were. – TMF 21:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity

Is there anyone working here? The last map request was filled about 25 days ago. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still watch this page, though I've been busy, so I haven't made any maps in a while. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm considering learning how to make maps so that if everyone's busy and we need a map ASAP it can be done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a tedious path to embark upon ;) Strato|sphere 05:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry all. I've been having trouble with arcGIS at work, so I'm out of action for the moment myself. Hopefully we can figure out what's wrong here, and I can get back up and running again sometime soon. 25or6to4 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we tag this as {{historical}}? Some requests have been sitting there for over four months. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't tag this page historical, as the page is still used and some of these requests do get filled in a timely manner. 25or6to4 seems to be the only person regularly fulfilling map requests, but he has a pretty quick response time and goes above and beyond the original requests at times. I think the problem with some of these outstanding map requests are either (1) map makers on this page don't always have access to reliable GIS data for the route in order to make the map; or (2) the request would be a complex map (i.e. the EZ Pass request) such that creating it might take considerable time and effort. --Ljthefro (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should see about taking up mapmaking again... *groan* --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an issue again. 25or6to4 is having issues with the text on his maps, which is slowing him down, and Algorerhythms haven't been around in over a week. Meanwhile, we have requests that have been open for about a year and a half, mostly due to the fact that they lie outside the areas of interest of the cartographers. Perhaps we should go on a recruiting mission of sorts in an attempt to get more cartographers. – TMF 09:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Making maps and copyrights

Hey all,

Have begun to look through Rhode Island data for recent map requests, and have a question. The state of Rhode Island has a very good GIS dataabase for roads, but it is under their copyright. They allow usage with an attribution line, but the fine print has multiple restrictions. By my interpretation, I cannot use this data for making maps here. Any thoughts? Here's the link to the license agareement, if interested [1]. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania and Vermont are much the same way in that they have excellent, detailed shapefiles for the state but they're fully copyrighted. I'd say your intrepretation is spot-on. – TMF 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the PennDOT data appears to have no use restrictions; however, it'd probably be best to check with them to see. I'd do it myself but I'm not keen on having to fill out a form with all my personal information just to ask. – TMF 08:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate section for map corrections?

Seeing the NJ 50 map correction request gave me an idea: we could make a separate section to request changes or corrections to maps that have already been made. What does everyone else think? – TMF 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, because I just found another File:US 191 map.png - US 191 heads to the Canadian border. This ends in Montana.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, fixes to errors in existing maps should be separate from requests of new maps. Dough4872 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Section has been created. – TMF 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A further restriction on requests

The first restriction on the number of requests that was implemented in August has helped to lessen the backlog here at MTF and lessen the burden on cartographers, but IMO it hasn't done enough to do so. Instead, it's created a bit of system gaming where editors come, post a request for five maps, wait for them to be completed, then come back and request four or five more. Here's what I'm proposing now:

• Limit of five requests per state with no exceptions (unchanged)
• Limit of one request per editor, with one exception:
  • If a GAN, ACR, or FAC reviewer holds or opposes over the lack of a map, a request for a map for that article may be posted here even if the editor requesting that has already requested one

I'm open to discussion on this. Even if we don't see eye-to-eye on the proposal above, I hope we can agree that what's in place right now really isn't optimal. – TMF 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, when I say "request", I mean one map. Thus, five requests = five maps, one request = one map. – TMF 06:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This sounds fairly reasonable to me. I might suggest that maybe the one-request-per-editor clause might either be raised to two or allow some kind of time limit between requests in case the requests go unfulfilled by the mapmakers. But I'm not the one fulfilling requests...I'm simply monitoring the page...so whatever is decided is fine with me. --LJ (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, with LJ's concerns noted. --Rschen7754 06:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's not a bad idea at all. I kind of like the idea of a one-month time limit between requests. Even if they stack up, they're not coming all at once and they'll still be capped at five maps. – TMF 06:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another restriction/guideline to consider might be a clause stating that a map requests for lower-half articles (say C-class or below) should be accompanied by some sign of recent article improvement activity. There have been requests for maps on stub/start articles that remain low quality articles long after the map request has been made. Another example would be the Beartooth Highway map request that just got filled--the editor requesting the map never made any significant contributions to the article in the ~16 months since making the request, the article is start-class and in bad shape (I added the map as a thumbnail image because the article lacks a road infobox). I would think map makers would want to see their work shown on at least halfway decent articles, and that they wouldn't want to waste their time making maps for stubs. Who knows, it might help prevent backlogs from forming. --LJ (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea either. I don't know how enforceable it is, but I do like the concept. Perhaps if a request is made for a C-Class or lower and the article doesn't change, let alone improve, in the three months that follow, the request can be tossed? – TMF 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As in thrown out entirely? --Rschen7754 07:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. It's a bit cruel and over the top, but as LJ posted above, making maps for bottom-tier articles where no one is actively improving them seems like a fruitless effort. I'm picturing a scenario where an editor makes a stubby two-sentence state highway article, comes here looking for a map, and never edits the article again. Should we keep around that request, compelling a cartographer to make it? It's an interesting question, and personally I say no. – TMF 07:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the point. --Rschen7754 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is compelled to make any map. Chances are that if someone requests a map for a stub and then never improves that stub, the request will simply sit there instead of actually being completed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it makes sense to me to toss out "inactive" requests after a certain period of time. – TMF 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

*tosses two thumbs up for all the suggestions in this section* Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a frequent requestor of maps, we cannot make too many restrictions on requests or else nothing will get done. The five-article-per-state request is fair and should remain. However, we should not limit editors to only one request at a time. A larger limit, such as five, should be set for requests by one editor. I also agree that GAN, ACR, or FAC objections to a lack of a map should be excepted from the restriction rules. We should look into getting more editors in joining the MTF so we can reduce the backlog instead of putting severe limits on requestors. ---Dough4872 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing the latter is much easier than accomplishing the former. I should note that your tendency (and some others as well) to post large batches of requests is what led me to suggest more restrictions. – TMF 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could always learn to use Quantum GIS and make your own maps. – TMF 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For now, put whatever restrictions are needed. I can hold off on requesting maps. ---Dough4872 01:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said you can't request any maps ever. It's when you, or any one else, request ten maps every time that it becomes an issue. --Fredddie™ 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I can just do it one at a time. ---Dough4872 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New restrictions implemented as part of an overhaul of the page. I tried to take all of the ideas presented here and work them in where possible. Feel free to comment. – TMF 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Necessity of the page?

So we have the tracking category from {{USRD}}... is there a reason that this page has to exist? Really we should be working from the tracking categories, which will sort out the upper tier articles and mark them seperately... I guess I can see the need for comments, but there's duplication between this and the |needs-map=yes function of the template... Thoughts? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the request page or this talk page? I see the request page as a coordination point, so it should definitely stay. Plus, a few months back, Dave requested a map for a non-roads article. It would have been improper for him to slap {{USRD}} on the article, so he came to the request page. –Fredddie™ 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to teh request page. And yes, defiantly one offs like Dave's request will happen, but I think the bulk of the requests should be simply handled through the parameter and not duplicated here unless clarification is required. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequently there are urgent requests for maps for GA / FAC / ACR requests, so I do see the utility of this page. --Rschen7754 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus, it helps to get corrected maps made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am wrong. I get it. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Backlog elimination drive

So WP is doing a backlog reduction drive, any way we might be able to help our own backlog (Category:Road backlog) by making maps for Category:U.S. Roads project upper tier articles without a map? --AdmrBoltz 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)