Stale

Resolved

Second French Empire

Resolved

Second French Empire
Perhaps using this map as a base for redrawing borders.

Article(s): N/A

Request: Some island territories maybe missing & borders need to be redrawn to match 1860s borders. Mackay 86 (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done by (talk) Mackay 86 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayabeque

Resolved

Kmusser (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Mayabeque

Request: Remove top caption per WPMOS... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done I went ahead and cropped it, though I think that file is likely to get deleted as a copyvio. Kmusser (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it jump out as copyvio?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The given source being an online magazine, the public domain note on there would only be valid if it's over 50 years old and that doesn't seem likely.Kmusser (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is that. I knew I should have learned how to read!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a numbered image of Cuba generated from GADM data, just in case the other one can't be used. I guess it'd need to be modified to account for the new province. gringer (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GADM license is not compatible with Wikipedia either, GADM is for non-commercial use only, unless you got permission. The only completely free GIS data for admin boundaries that I know of is VMAP0. Kmusser (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much do I need to modify the GADM vector data by to make this not an issue? I'm currently doing a simplification of vector data by removing points that are closer than some resolution limit (so GADM is higher resolution than the generated maps), but I could do other things (e.g. jitter the points a bit, use a non-linear projection like WT or orthographic). gringer (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can, they've copyrighted the database, so no matter what you do to it you'd still be using it for a commercial use, it's not the same as a copyrighted map where you just need to change the symbology. That said copyrighting databases is a gray area - it hasn't been clearly established whether that protection extends to individual items of the database or only applies to the database as a whole. You might be fine, it just isn't clear without getting lawyers (or asking permission). Kmusser (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vmap0 is copyright-burdened by ESRI on some of its admin-boundaries layer, unlike the rest of the datasets. Natural Earth Data was created by journalists & web cartographers as a modern, explicitly public domain dataset, and it has admin0 and almost all admin1 boundaries. I'm unresolving this in order to use it to make a new map that will withstand copyright claims today or tomorrow.

Request taken by lesqual. -Lesqual (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for pointing this out. I'll have a go at making a general script for NED, because it seems to fit a license that is compatible with wikimedia commons [1].

All versions of Natural Earth raster + vector map data found on this website are in the public domain. You may use the maps in any manner, including modifying the content and design, electronic dissemination, and offset printing. The primary authors, Tom Patterson and Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, and all other contributors renounce all financial claim to the maps and invites you to use them for personal, educational, and commercial purposes.

gringer (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into some problems selecting and modifying the data in QGIS, evidently someone did some counter-clockwise digitizing or something verboten along those lines. Graphically everything showed up right, but selection and geoprocessing operations refused to work. 'Repair Geometry' is generally easy with ArcGIS, but was taking seconds per province in QGIS. I found a fixed-up file which worked just fine on their forums. Note that they only added the Bahamas in version 1.2, so they're missing that in the fixed download. Lesqual (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I made the locator maps to convention (I think... are those borders right?) and tacked on a diagram of the changes as a bonus. Lesqual (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Division de La Habana es.svg

Evidently I did something wrong to Image:Mayabeque_Locator_Map.svg but since it's nearly identical to the Artemisa locator map, I'm at a loss as to what that is. Lesqual (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Chalk it up to a temporary WP rendering problem, seems to be working fine now.~~ Lesqual (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was a struggle. Apparently, RSVG does not like to render text behind a clipping mask deeper in a hierarchy, or with fractional font sizes. Rendering at all bitmap sizes is now functional.

Done Lesqual (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seaboard Air Line Railroad passenger routes map

Resolved

SAL passenger routes, ca. 1950

Article(s): A tentative idea for the Seaboard Air Line Railroad article.

Request: Hey guys, this is my first attempt at making a map for Wikipedia, so it may look a little amateurish, but I was thinking of making a map for this article (which I've written/edited extensively in the past) which would be easier to understand than the old, muddy maps already available there.

It's not truly essential for the article, so I'm not necessarily asking for someone to make a better map for me here. But as you can see, the map I used as the basis of this one (US Locator Blank2.svg) has very thick state and ocean borders, which screw up the readability of the text on the map. Any suggestions on where to find a map background with cleaner borders?

Or any other helpful ideas; I don't have fancy software (Microsoft PhotoDraw . . . yeah, way old but works for me) and have no clue about creating svg or png files. If you have anything to show me, you can post it on my sandbox page also. Thanks.Textorus (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Some comments...

You should (in fact have to) specify the sources (US Locator Blank2.svg) in the image description. If you upload the file via derivativefx this information will be added automatically. You probably also used a book or other source which should be mentioned here instead of "created this work entirely by myself".

For a first map it looks very good. I am impressed. I am not familiar with MS PhotoDraw, but you could install the free inkscape to edit svg files. It is not that hard to operate. BTW, did you edit the svg file or the wiki-generated png? Some map related suggestions follow:

The map is (over)full of information. You should clean up a bit: remove the description box ("Schematic map...") which just doubles the image description. When used in wikipedia articles, images/map get a caption anyway, so it is not necessary to have a caption in the map itself.
If I understand correctly, the orange text could be shortened to: "Pennsylvania R.R." or "operated by Pennsylvania R.R.". Similarly for the light blue text. Possibly combine these two texts and a third red text (for the main network) in a legend.
Not sure, but the logo might be copyrighted and not usable in this context.
It is not clear to me what the meaning of the red line (as opposed to light blue and orange) and the grey broken lines is.
Since Memphis and New Orleans are in the map, why not draw the grey lines all the way?
Not sure how important it is; if you just want to show the railroad network, you could remove the bottom left box ("Major named trains") to unclutter the map even more.
If you don't want to edit svg (with which you could decrease the border thicknesses), you could try another background such as File:Blank US Map with borders.svg or any other in commons:Category:SVG maps of the United States.
To increase readability of text that crosses over lines (such as "Columbus"), I do the following: add a rectangle below the text ("Columbus") and above the background. Change the fill color of that rectangle to the background color (here light yellow?, the color of the states), change the transparency (opacity) of that rectangle to something like 70% (need to try what looks best). This way you can still see the state borders. See for instance this map for what it looks like.
For many of the city labels, you can improve readability by just moving them around a bit: move "Wilmington" a bit south; Savannah, West Palm Beach,... a bit east; Birmingham a bit west;...
If you are running out of space you could introduce numbered labels "1", "2",... and a legend for the cities. Or have a thin black (or grey) line point to a city dot from a label that is a bit further away. It is however preferable to have labels next to the dots as you did.

Lots of criticism, hope you are not discouraged. Just nit-picking, the map is really pretty good. bamse (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, bamse, these are great suggestions and links. You're right, the first version was much too cluttered. I found a better map background and reworked the map to be more complete (without showing every single little branch off the main lines), and using thick/thin lines to suggest the difference between heavily travelled routes and those less travelled or freight-only (again, without getting too precise, which would require a complicated legend to explain). Mainly I want to give someone who is unfamiliar with the SAL a quick, easily-understood glimpse of what the main lines were, and let them look up further details on their own if they want to.

I did add more source information when I uploaded this version; but I see the way I did that, it displays the new map but the old info. Grr. When I get done tweaking it, I'll upload a new file as a separate image with all the right info and license stuff, etc. Too bad there's not a way to upload an image temporarily into an "image sandbox," like there is for text, without it becoming a permanent part of the Commons.

I've posted the revised version to my sandbox, take a look and let me know what you think on my talk page. Appreciate your help very much, buddy. Textorus (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment at this time is, that is not where Charlotte is. I understand that, as a schematic, it doesn't have to be accurate, but in this case you have Monroe (a much smaller city) taking up Charlotte's location. The larger city should go in the correct location, and Monroe should be moved to accommodate. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You hit on the one major city whose location I'm a bit foggy on. I'll research and correct its location when I do my final tweaks. Thanks for the tip. Textorus (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! City names are much more readable now. Congratulations. I'd still move some of the coastal city names out to the sea so that they are not partially above the blue coastal line. Baltimore and Washington might be more readable to the left of the dot. You could explain what "M. D. & S." means, for instance in the left bottom corner of the map: "M. D. & S. = ...". What happened to the route to Memphis? As for adding source information, just edit the file description page. You might want to decide on using either "and" or "&" ("Louisvilla AND Nashville" but "Richmond, F. & Potomac"). bamse (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked on the Memphis connection and discovered that my memory was faulty: it was the Southern, not the Seaboard, that forwarded through sleepers from B'ham to Memphis via the Frisco.

I debated what to do with the Macon, Dublin, and Savannah; it was owned or at least controlled by the Seaboard but not actually merged till 1958, a bit late for the time period the map is intended to display. I'll see how it works to put a note at the bottom corner; or I may simply eliminate that line to Macon and avoid all confusion.

You're right about the ampersand inconsistency, I'll fix that. And I will see if the file description page edit is workable, though I think I already tried that. But the whole image upload process is a bit cumbersome and tricky to get just right.

Thanks much for your help, I'll let you know when I get a final version ready. Textorus (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of warning to reiterate what bamse said, this will probably get tagged with {{SVG|map}}, because it looks like a vector diagram, but isn't. The benefit of vector maps is that if colour conventions change, it is much easier to change map colours to match (anti-aliasing gets in the way of that). They're also more easy to edit in general by people other than the ones who created the map (who presumably have a vector-based source image). If you're just getting into this area, have a go with Inkscape. It's been recently updated with a whole heap of swish features, but a core principle of the design of the application is its user-friendliness, so it's quite easy to learn how to use. gringer (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up to date with all the terms you are using there, but thanks for the tip; I'll look into Inkscape. Textorus (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my final version, after a week of work and re-work and search and re-search. Now I'm ready to let go of it; I'll try using Inkscape another time, this is the best I can do for now. See what you think.

BTW, I did find evidence in the Official Guide and another authoritative source that there was some SAL through service - probably a Pullman or two - to Memphis from Birmingham, so I re-included that line. Also checked and rechecked a lot of little details of geography and rail connections that nobody but a railfan would know or care about. Grin.

FYI, my admittedly arbitrary criterion for "major passenger route" is at least two or more trains in each direction per day; but I didn't think that worth stating on the map. If anybody disagrees, they can make their own map, I'm done. Thanks for all the great tips and help, guys. Textorus (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - I wouldn't put your major criteria route on the map itself, but it probably is worth mentioning on the image description page. Kmusser (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]