Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

[edit] Additional goals

I offer to extend the expedition with additional goals:

• to translate map to other languages
• to find not copyrighted geo data

-- Sergey kudryavtsev 02:08, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I think your first suggestion (translation) is probably beyond our scope here, since it is an English-version Expedition, and most contributors here have only limited knowledge of other languages. My feeling is that interested users from other language versions should just check Wikitravel Shared, to see if there are regions maps of interest that they could translate.

I definitely agree, though, with your second proposal. Just finding a good base for map traces can be a pain, so if someone sees a good one, they should put a link next to the article name in the lists. I'll add a note on the Expedition page about this. --Peter ^Talk 03:36, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

A map is easy thing to translte. The map makers should always keep a translation ability in their minds. I suggest to publish maps in a easy translatable form (single svg with several language layers). One person draw English-labeled map (a difficult process), others may reupload map with their native language traslation added (a relatively easy process). -- Sergey kudryavtsev 04:49, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Right. So one of the goals, then, is not to translate the map, but rather to "ensure that the maps can be easily translated." I think that's a legitimate goal for a single language project. LtPowers 09:05, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, understood—that should definitely be one of our developing standards for regions maps. The way I like to do things is to create an "en" subsection for all text layers. That makes it really easy to then create additional sublayers for each additional language, as they are translated. --Peter ^Talk 19:01, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikimedia Commons has county locator maps for every U.S. state, in SVG format, and released into the public domain. I've used them to easily create the region maps for Florida, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Takes an hour or two, and most of that is figuring out which counties are in which regions, and locating the cities. LtPowers 09:05, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Standards

Our region maps may never be completely consistent in style. To some extent, that's because different regions have different requirements. Nonetheless, we can establish some basic standards to try to lend a uniform look.

When I was modifying Peter's map for New York (state), my guide for color selection was the maps at Ohio and Texas. I like their look of a clean white map; with the states, I don't think we need the context of the border states so much. They also have a distinctive color scheme, using low-saturation, medium-luminosity colors that come out bold without being garish (as was the case with California's old map).

At the same time, though, the Texas and Ohio maps are almost too spare. I think a balance can be struck between the blankness of Ohio's map and the busy-ness of California's map, and I've tried to hit that with Florida, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (I've currently got Florida without the cities because it looked so darn cool, but I think the cities are needed and will probably be changing it soon.) Each one of those three is slightly different (Rhode Island in particular because its regions are its counties and they're not further subdivided), but I think they all are clearly "Wikitravel".

Thoughts?

-- LtPowers 09:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

1) I think it would be really worthwhile to come up with a standard color palette of some 15 colors that we'll stick to. It might be good to open a separate thread to work on this goal.

2) One clear way (in addition to including cities & linked other destinations) to make the regions maps less spare is to include relevant subregional boundaries (usually counties). They give extra context to help readers/contributors understand where to stick information. And I really like the aesthetic of the maps on New York (state) and Florida, for example, that have faint and thin white borders for subregions and bolder white boundaries for the top-level regions.

3) I agree re: showing border states for US states, and I really like the simplicity of leaving the "background" clear. But I know there are cases when showing bordering countries/regions is useful. The Russia map, for example, looks kind of bad without showing boundaries along Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It makes it hard to tell where major geographical features are (like the Caspian and the Black Sea), and the Kaliningrad exclave looks downright silly. Ditto for country regions that lie along long borders. For example, the Central Russia map really benefits from having border countries shown (even if the map isn't too nice), since visitors to Western Russia are pretty likely to also visit Belarus or Ukraine. --Peter ^Talk 19:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Thoughts:

1) Perhaps, although I like having flexibility when choosing colors. 15 would still give a good amount of flexibility (if we have 15 subregions it's usually time to group them into superregions), but what I did with Rhode Island and Vermont was set a specific saturation and luminosity, then eyeball four or five hues that were sufficiently different from each other. It'd be easier if our eyes saw the colors the same way the computer does (the green hues are relatively hard for our eyes to distinguish from each other, for example).

3) Absolutely, most region maps should have context to them. That Russia map makes it look like an island, especially because it uses the "ocean" background all around. Perhaps this is my own national bias, but the U.S. states (and probably Canadian provinces, too) have such distinctive and well-known shapes that they don't need the context. I can understand, though, if consistency demands we include bordering areas for all region maps.

-- LtPowers 10:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Font

Oh, and can we agree we should be using Blue Highway as the font for all maps? LtPowers 10:50, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

We're sort of in the middle of mapping turmoil at the moment, with new developments like Open Street Map that will change how we create maps, and Wikitravel Press which is changing a few ways in which we do things... unfortunately the map guideline pages that are currently around need serious updating and syncing, so apologize that you're arriving in mapland in the midst of that... but glad that you're here to help us sort it out! Re: font, we used to recommend Blue Highway, but recently have shifted to Bitstream Vera Sans... it prints much clearer when small, and is a native font to most operating systems. – cacahuate ^talk 16:46, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

In the midst? The discussion was almost a year ago, and buried in a section ostensibly about map colors. Are the color recommendations on that page wrong, too? Not to mention the fact that I find Bitstream Vera Sans rather unsightly and generic. Blue Highway at least has the advantage of being distinctive. LtPowers 20:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, as I said, a bit of turmoil. We once had a pretty clear map guide, with about 3 total users who knew how or were interested in drawing maps. Over the last year or so we've gained several new mapmakers, and a few things have happened that have started changing how people are doing things, and at the moment there's not one clear way; we're forging a bit of a new one right now... and Wikitravel:How to draw a map is getting pretty outdated in some ways. Soo... Jpatokal suggested we use Bitstream which works better for print. Peter and I, maybe more, seem to have adopted it ok, and there haven't been any complaints until now, but if you feel strongly about it, then well, keep using blue highway. As for colors, you should read that whole section here... at least some of it is likely to be worked into the how-to, and a new official map template that is still-to-be-created – cacahuate ^talk 21:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The Blue Highway is a prettier font than Bitstream Vera Sans, but Bitstream Vera Sans (especially when bolded) is much clearer at small resolutions. But there's another problem—Bitstream Vera Sans doesn't have any additional alphabet support. That adds an extra step to linguistic translation that can eat up a lot of time when a map has any significant amount of text. So I'd recommend we use an identical derivative font that does: DejaVu Sans Bold. I don't know of a better font for our purposes, and would recommend we start using it for all our maps.

And yes, the color recommendations are kind of wrong too—we've sort of been moving towards Jani's recommendations (at least I've been using those colors, since I work for him ;) ). But that relates to city maps, which are beyond the scope of this Expedition (and are unresolved, since we'll probably move towards using auto-generated maps from OSM data, which will likely have a different color scheme by necessity). --Peter ^Talk 22:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I figured out why Vera Sans looks too generic to me -- it's very similar to the Windows typeface Verdana, which has been one of the default Windows fonts for about ten years now. In addition to their (or at least Verdana's) ubiquitousness, they also both have another, more significant, problem in my book: they are too wide. Words take up far too much space, especially so when used on a map, where space is precious. I just installed and tried DejaVu; DejaVu Sans Condensed is better, but I worry that it might still be too wide.

I did test Blue Highway and I agree it's hard to read below 7 points or so. Minimally, then, I'd recommend use of DejaVu Sans Condensed, though I personally would love to find a free-use typeface that's a little more distinctive.

--LtPowers 13:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Totally agree – cacahuate ^talk 13:49, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Why bold? I like it for some things like region names, but city names I think look better unbolded – cacahuate ^talk 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Because the bolded fonts are much more readable at small resolutions. I suppose it would be fine to use unbolded text when it is very large on the map (like for bordering country names?), but I've gotten used to just switching between bold & bold/italic. --Peter ^Talk 01:23, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I've gotta say, my dislike of bolded city names is growing... I really think it's overbearing and unecessary... if dejavu sans isn't printing clear enough at smaller resolutions then perhaps we haven't yet found the right font? – cacahuate ^talk 02:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I think you have a point. On a crowded city map, the bolded names are just necessary to make it readable--to get the street names to stand out from all the various details around them. But on the regions maps, since they're the only real text around, they do look too overbearing. Time for some experimentation. --Peter ^Talk 03:03, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

There are limited font options available that are supported by Mediawiki, unfortunately. LtPowers 11:31, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of the bolded city names either. I've been experimenting with bold-italicized city names and larger non-bolded region names on the current map I'm working on. It doesn't look as overpowering, although the map isn't finished yet, so that may change. Shaund 23:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Bold-italics are an idea, they do look less harsh than straight bold, but for me, they raise the question, "why italicized." That could just be unfamiliarity. The happy medium between bold and normal (where text is thick enough to be readable even over complex background, but doesn't look garish) is attainable, but only in a goofy way: select normal, then add a stroke fill and adjust the stroke wideness as desired. That's an ad hoc way to get it just right, but I'm not sure I want to recommend it in our standards sections—I'd like to keep things simpler than that. Maybe a request to the DejaVu font maintainer to create a middle-of-the road option for DejaVu Sans Compact? --Peter ^Talk 23:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I think a request to the font maintainer is definitely in order! But I agree on italicizing -- I wouldn't be doing it in the first place if I wasn't trying to avoid the bold lettering. I might try the stroke fill/wideness method you mentioned to see how it works. It's a shame we can't specify boldness on 1-9 scale like you can in HTML/CSS. It would come in handy. Shaund 00:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Adding a stroke outline should probably be avoided; it messes with the shapes and spacing of the characters in perhaps undesirable ways. LtPowers 09:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't noticed any problems yet with using strokes on dejavu sans compact, but perhaps I haven't experimented enough to know. Anyway, I've put up an example of using stroke outlines on the normal font to achieve a balance of readability and aesthetics—the latest Russia map. We can send a request to the font maintainers here, although I myself will not, since I'm not sure how to frame the request (my tech literacy doesn't extend too far beyond wiki). --Peter ^Talk 19:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Using normal, unbolded fonts isn't out of the norm at all in cartography, I find them readable... Central America or SE Asia, for instance? – cacahuate ^talk 20:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Right, but those maps have way less going on than the Russia map to the right (and I still intend to put major highways on that one!). Since the city/other destination labels remain the most important feature on the map, I think it's important that they be instantly readable. To get the same result with the Russia map, I'd have to increase the font size significantly if I were to remove bold & the stroke outline. --Peter ^Talk 23:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

How about [1] and [2]? And my revised California... I have faith in you Peter! Squeeze the region names in there too! ;) – cacahuate ^talk 00:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Those maps absolutely would not be readable in article on Wikitravel. And there's no way I can fit the region names on that map (try Kaliningrad Oblast!) Anyway, I put up two example maps showing what it looks like with normal font and with bold font (from normal to stroked to bold).

Seeing them together, I actually like the bolded better than the stroked version. But I'm torn—the city names are way easier to read when bolded, but they do overwhelm the other features. Perhaps the normal font would be workable, although that would probably require increasing map resolution in articles. --Peter ^Talk 19:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the top one with unbolded looks way more harmonious and map-like... that's a beautiful map by the way... I'm still not convinced that maps have to be fully readable in article, If I were traveling across Russia I would definitely print that map as a full page regardless, but maybe that's just me. I really feel though that our top priority should be making awesome maps that rival any other guidebooks, and if turns out that they're also readable at 350-400px or whatever within an article, then it's a bonus, but I don't think we should form our guidelines around (at least what I see as) a secondary goal – cacahuate ^talk 20:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

A beautiful illustration of why using a stroke on the text is less than ideal. =) You can see how much it muddies the text compared to the bold. As for the other two options: I think it depends on the goal. If the goal is to show where the nine highlighted cities are, then the bolded version works best. If the goal is to show a map of the country/region, then the unbolded works best. LtPowers 21:22, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, what's holding up this discussion is that we haven't yet seriously discussed the goals of our maps! --Peter ^Talk 00:31, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm finally coming around on this one. That Russia map is still readable, and a good deal more nice looking, with the normal font. I'll try to keep using it on maps and see how it works for me. --Peter ^Talk 00:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I'm also coming around to the normal font. Purely on looks, I like the second, but I agree that if the goal is to show a map of the country/region (I guess that's the point after all :-; ), the unbolded works best.

Just to throw my thoughts in on whether or not a map should be readable within the article, I feel it depends on what we're trying to do... If it's to show how the regions, major cities and destinations relate to each other, I think making the map readable within the article is good. If it's to provide a lot of detail about the region, its cities, how to get around (like a city map), then we shouldn't worry about making it readable in the article. Personally, at the region/country level I like the first approach, and since we're only listing nine cities, nine other destinations and major roads, I think we can squeeze that on and still be readable (I'd like to try anyway!). Shaund 01:34, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Amount of info on maps

I'm all for trying to get more info onto maps while making them look good in the process. I'm not at all a fan of having 4 or 5 different maps on an article. I'd like to see at most two... one with regions, major cities, and the "other destinations" noted on it (and maybe even major freeways), and a second with much more detailed highways and towns. I'd love if we could make this all happen in just one map, but I think the one thing that is adding to much to the puzzle is the region sections / labels.

Nick was on a roll with region map experimentation for a while for South Africa, and I think came up with some good elements. He did a good job of getting lots of info on maps, but I think it largely works because he kept it grey-scale... but what gets lost in this mix is the subregions boundaries, which are barely noticeable. See South Africa Northern Cape, Western Cape. I still like multi-colored maps, I've been muting my colors more than I used to, but maybe we need to get even softer to if we want to find a way to fit everything into 1 map. – cacahuate ^talk 16:46, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Roads / trains

LtPowers has a good point about the color of highways/roads... my one attempt at adding all the info that I wanted to see to Pakistan wasn't a resounding success :) Our current (outdated) how-to recommends white... which is a very confusing on this example. On India I wouldn't even attempt major roads, there's just too much and it wouldn't look right. We're very much in experimentation mode I think right now with region maps, so let's all keep doing just that and see if we can come up with some good combinable ideas. But it's definitely going to be hard to establish a set criteria that works for all regions – cacahuate ^talk 16:46, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think we necessarily have to have one set of standards for all regions. Different types regions have different requirements. Even within a type of region (say, U.S. states), some may need slightly different information showing than others do. LtPowers 20:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

My general feeling is that roads are best done in McDonalds colors—mustard & ketchup. I'm not joking, those actually work really well IMO.

Railroads are a pain, and I don't have a good solution to them. Since we're leaning white for region boundaries, that makes it easier to distinguish black lines as railroads, but without cross lines (tracks), they still aren't obviously railroads. The way I've done these is to set stroke style to contain StopM midpoints, and then fill up the railroad path with extraneous nodes. But that's not an ideal way of doing things, and I'd be very happy if someone came up with a better way. --Peter ^Talk 22:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Agree, I used yellow in the CA maps on the right and I think it works well, red sounds good too. For railroads, the only time I've attempted it was on Pakistan, and I did exactly as you describe above... it wasn't too much of a pain, especially since it's a very curvy route to begin with – cacahuate ^talk 23:50, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Other regions

I think it's important on all regions to show context... someone traveling around Southern California may well be heading to Las Vegas next, and they should be able to see that it's just over the CA border and what highway to take there on the California map... we should be aiming to make our maps at least as useful as LP etc, and they always do this... I rely on it personally. Agree with Peter, it's very helpful to show neighboring countries/regions and not just have a "floating" region... it makes no sense to me to turn each region into an

At the very least, for countries anyway, I propose showing neighboring countries, capitals (that fall within the map borders), and cities that are going to be encountered when crossing land borders, similar to what I did on Afghanistan, or took a step further on Pakistan where I added a few international roads. – cacahuate ^talk 17:11, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I tend to agree with LtPowers on this one. It seems clear to me that it's fine to leave out bordering states for U.S. states. If things work as they should, the region map one level above the state should show the major cities & routes in between them, so a reader can just refer to that map when curious about how to move in/out of the state. But I'm having trouble identifying what exactly it is that makes this ok for U.S. states, and not for, say, Mexico (which I'm now revising to include bordering countries). I dunno, I'll have to think about this one some more. --Peter ^Talk 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Having thought about this more, I've identified that there is, in fact, no reason why this is ok for US States and not for other regions. It's always useful to show a bare minimum of context around the mapped region, and this can be as easy as drawing a couple white lines on a background and then labeling the external regions. --Peter ^Talk 12:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] Color palette

I've been thinking the same thing, and I agree we should, but this will be difficult for a couple reasons... firstly, getting everyone to agree on a palette, and secondly, finding one that translates into multiple scenarios. I found some that I like, and have been using on multiple maps,... but it's amazing how the same colors can work differently depending on the map – cacahuate ^talk 17:11, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, now that I think of it some more, I'd recommend coming up with a set of palettes, each with 15 colors that go well with each other. Because yes, it would be too hard to get everyone to agree on a single palette. Also, it's sometimes worth doing to have a "single color" palette, like the shades of green I used for Ireland. --Peter ^Talk 23:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Inclusion/Exclusion

In the past, we've tended towards multiple maps of regions to show different things. In particular, we've separated transport maps from "regional breakdown" maps (e.g., Ireland). We also sometimes have maps separate from regional breakdown maps to show linked cities/destinations (e.g., USA). I think, particularly with the aid of external keys like the regionlist template, we can include all these things on one map, without it looking overly crowded. The only example I can think of offhand is the one on Finger Lakes (er, actually it doesn't identify the regions, but it's still a nice example). --Peter ^Talk 19:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Finger Lakes doesn't have any defined sub-regions yet, so I left it all one color (the same color used on the New York region map, by the way). I'm not sure the level of information currently present requires subdivision yet, anyway. The one map I can think of that has both region breakdowns and some transport information is on California. The old map already had all that; I just fixed up the colors and the highway shields, not wanting to futz with the status quo too much. I'd like to see some more examples of a combined map before endorsing it, though; it can be hard to find a color for the road lines that is visible on all of the different region colors. LtPowers 10:21, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I think he's confused by the multiple shades of each color that are in use on finger lakes, what do they denote? @ Peter, I like when a map works as a total standalone if it were printed, meaning the region names should be written on each region, not just in the article's regionlist template – cacahuate ^talk 17:15, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The only multiple shades I used there were to fade the surrounding colors to gray. Is there something else you mean?

On many maps, the sub-region names can be hard to fit into the map aesthetically. I think the map at California is a little crowded, for example. Perhaps only use them when the subregions are defined political areas (as in, for example, Mid-Atlantic) rather than Wikitravel-defined regions? I'm not sure (for example) that the map at New York (state) would benefit from having region names crammed in. LtPowers 20:19, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, I seem to be confusing something else I read, clearly tired :) I was thinking of the Florida map, ignore above. Re: regions, I don't think California has too much info on it, rather it just needs more tweaking. I'm all for our maps looking pretty, but the #1 goal should be function, for a traveler, and at the moment our maps our giving travelers about 1/4 of what a LP map would offer – cacahuate ^talk 21:24, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the value of "standalone" maps, I'm still hesitant to show regions with names, simply because they take up a lot of space we could be using for other purposes (while letting colors do the work for the regions). Also, this adds another step to translation.

Ideally, regions maps should display in article at a resolution high enough so that you can print the article, rather than the map, and still have the map be legible. The only big downside to leaving the region names off the map, though, is that you can't understand them when printed black & white. I might have to mull this one over a bit more too... --Peter ^Talk 23:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Map size

Continued from 23:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT), in this section.

Is it even possible to have a map that is legible at 250px when printed with an article but detailed enough to be useful when printed standalone at 800px? Maybe we need different maps for different purposes; in the context of this discussion, we could, for example, have one map without region names (and with bigger text for legibility) for use when printing an article, and another map with region names (and smaller text to make room for them) for use when printing a standalone map. LtPowers 10:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

This is the first I've heard of that being a goal, I've always thought of maps as stand-alones. I think aiming for anything other is just adding one more difficult hurdle to mapmaking – cacahuate ^talk 13:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, take, for instance, Wikitravel Press. On page nine of the Chicago book (which is only 4.25" wide) the top of the page reprints Image:Chicago districts map.png, with the text of the article starting beneath. LtPowers 15:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

IMO that's something WTP has to sort out with their special bookmaking contraption, our aim should be to make the best maps for use on the site and individuals who print them... hopefully those maps translate well for WTP too, but if not, then I would leave it up to the editor of each WTP edition to modify the respective map for their purposes, no? – cacahuate ^talk 17:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Well you would know better than I whether people print the articles without maps, but I don't see the purpose of printing the maps without the articles. LtPowers 19:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Honestly I've never printed either one, but had always thought that if I did, I would print them separately... but now that I just tried that, it seems I can't... printing is rediculously non-customizable, or am I missing something? We should at least be able to print without images, or control their size – cacahuate ^talk 20:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To print the image alone as I want it, I have to download the image & then use an app to do it right. But I think it's actually pretty doable to make most maps readable as print out in-article. If you check a WTP book (or some lesser guidebook), maps use small text. The WTP maps print in the book at a mere 3.95"x6.875", which isn't so bad on a 8.5"x11" sheet of paper. This one is perfectly readable at that size, and is jam-packed with text and graphics. But moreover, regions maps need not take up nearly as much space as a city map, since they convey less information (and have way less text).

I think it's a worthy goal to have the maps be readable within the article, at least insofar as it's possible. The fact that it's otherwise hard to print makes this an even more important goal.

For Y-axis-heavy maps, I think we can go as high as 400-450px without destroying the article's appearance; for X-axis heavy maps, we can abandon the right-aligned format and run the map across the top of an article section. (Although this is something I don't think I've seen done before, I can't see a good reason not to.) Square maps are the hardest, but can still be pushed to 450px—this one is eminently readable at 450px even on a 1200x800 screen, and has room for transport graphics (and would still be readable even at a lower res). --Peter ^Talk 22:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Map template

Here's a very bare-bones svg file with (I think) all objects that belong on a regions map. I've put up a thumb of what it looks like. I left out layers, since I generally like to have control over exactly which layers make it on to a map (too many extraneous layers makes future editing more difficult). Is this missing anything, or otherwise wrong, or should I move it into the article proper? --Peter ^Talk 14:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Note: the scale is convertable into a km only version, for translation into virtually any language other than English. --Peter ^Talk 14:15, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

1) What's the thin green rectangle outline for? 2) The "1" and "10" boxes should have rounded corners like the blank one does. 3) The digit "1" in the "1" box appears different than the digit "1" in the "10" box, but they should probably be the same. LtPowers 19:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

The green rectangle is just what I use as a frame, to clip maps that need clipping. I'll just get rid of the numbered boxes, since we anyway want people to label right on the map, not in a separate key-box. --Peter ^Talk 22:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

OK, I've fixed this up now—look good? --Peter ^Talk 21:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Hate to nitpick so much, but... the city dot isn't circular (needs to be taller). I'm also wondering if we could get a gray outline on the capital star like there is on the dot, so that they kind of "match". LtPowers 22:24, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

How about a darker grey box for the "other regions". Also we should probably discuss a standard title design... Peter's been using straight black underlined which is a hand-me-down from the old template when the title was within the "key". Personally I think it's a bit harsh (and often a bit big)... I've been trying to use blues to tie it in with the scale and the arrow which I think is nice, but I'm open to ideas that improve upon it... unless everyone just prefers the chunky black – cacahuate ^talk 00:58, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Nitpicking is very welcome—I'd like to really nail this down well, and I'd be happy to work on it for some time. I fixed the city dot, and here are two additional possible capital icons that incorporate the gray city outline. For "other regions" do you mean the background color? I'd worry that darkening that color further might decrease the visibility of black text. (We should also work out what shades of grey are best for text outside the foreground regions.) I agree regarding the title box; I've now redone it to include a more Cacahuatesque title box. That color scheme definitely looks great for maps with a water background—I'm not sure if it does as much for a land background map, but I like the idea of matching the text color to the key & compass rose.

To clarify what everything is here, the brown square is the color I use for buildings on city maps. Not too many buildings will show up on regions maps, but I can imagine the Great Wall, or maybe Area 51 showing up in that color. I used a darker version to show exposed rock in Antarctica. The green forest pattern is good for parklands and the sea pattern for water. I don't have a good solution, though, for main waterways like rivers, which don't show up well against foreground color regions if they're done in the same color as the sea pattern. Also, regarding the patterns: to avoid the line breaks between pattern squares, you can just duplicate the object, fill it with the basic sea pattern color, move it below the patterned object, and group the two. The light gray is for non-colored foreground (I usually use it beneath translucent foreground colors). The yellowish-beige is what I've used for sand, be it desert or beach.

Also, I could include non-Latin alphabet compass roses, but do other languages actually use them? I've been using a Cyrillic С for north on my Russian maps, and Sergey hasn't told me I'm wrong, so I figure I'm right to do so. Would it be useful to create a host of non-Latin Compass Roses? The obvious ones beyond Cyrillic would I think be Japanese/Chinese. We could link them in a file from this page. --Peter ^Talk 06:26, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Translucent foreground colors over a gray background make it difficult to match the colors in the map with the colors in the {{Regionlist}} template; I would suggest using opaque fills for that reason. The dot is circular now, but the gray outline is now thinner than what I've been using; would you consider thickening it back up to about 15% of the circle's diameter? LtPowers 13:28, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and I do like the star with the circle behind it. Can't qualify why, but I do. =) LtPowers 13:30, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh yeah, sorry, I meant the background color, it's already represented there as well, the background... my bad. No need to darken. Though I've been using light grey text against it, which I think breaks it up nicely from the foreground regions. I like the new title, I think it looks sharp. Also like the circle behind the star, looks nice. could also live with the upper right option too – cacahuate ^talk 14:47, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I've been using light text on other regions too--maybe it would make sense to have a couple regions map templates, one for countries, one for continental sections, one for sub-countries, and then one for small areas. The translucent colors over gray backgrounds aren't as hard as you think to convert to html codes—just hover the eyedrop tool over the region, and the color code will appear at the bottom of the screen (way easier than copy/pasting from the color tool). Lets go forward with the circle backdrop to the star; I like it best too. If anyone has a better suggestion later, we can switch. --Peter ^Talk 18:00, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

That sounds complicated, it would be ideal to be consistent no matter what kind of region, but admittedly I'm mostly working on the country level and higher right now, so if there's reasons that the same things can't apply to lower levels you're more clued into that than I – cacahuate ^talk 18:07, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Text color

I like straight black for most map labels; it shows up very clearly always.

[edit] Rivers

This one is causing problems for me. The color of the water pattern Jani made doesn't always show up well against light region colors (or even the light grey foreground color).

[edit] Beach/Desert

I like the one on the above proposed template—it shows up nicely against the other standard colors even in black&white. --Peter ^Talk 00:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Parks, lakes, oceans

I like Jani's high contrast patterns for these, but we may want to adjust the water colors—when used for rivers, the existing pattern seems too light to show up against some region colors. Then again, maybe the solution is to adjust the region colors palettes, so that the water pattern shows up well even for rivers. --Peter ^Talk 00:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Palettes

This section will placehold for palette ideas. --Peter ^Talk 14:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Master palettes

It will probably be easier to have some master palettes, from which to draw colors for the actual region map palette suggestions we'll develop. Here's one. The very light colors might be most useful, since they tend less to interfere with colors of roads, rivers, etc. --Peter ^Talk 00:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Proposal discussions

The following palette was used by Nick for his maps of the U.S. regions (such as South (United States of America)), slightly tweaked by me for readability:

                                                      

The following palette was used by User:Fastestdogever for the map of Ohio:

                        

Note (if you view the code for this section) that the color values are all 66, 99, or (more rarely) 33 or CC, which contributes to the consistent feel of the colors. Other colors in the same pattern could include:

              

The following palette was used by User:Troy34 for the map of Texas:

                                  

I used the following palette for the map of New York (state), basing it primarily on Fastestdogever's Ohio patterns:

                                            

(I used similar colors (keeping very close to the same saturation and luminosity while varying the hue) for my other state maps.)

-- LtPowers 13:29, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh and here are California's palettes. First, the original version by Ryan:

                                                 

Second, my revised palette. I tried to keep close to Ryan's colors but had to make big changes in a couple of cases in order to make each one distinct:

                                                 

-- LtPowers 13:41, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I quite like #s 1, 5, & 7. I'll add some more suggestions in a short while --Peter ^Talk 22:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Here's the simple color palette I used for West Africa. For whatever reason, I liked the way this regional color scheme looked. --Peter ^Talk 00:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Help!

Anyone understand why template:regionlist is breaking here? --Peter ^Talk 00:53, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Unclosed link brackets. Fixed. (Colors are way off though.) LtPowers 08:42, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Aim

We should establish what our priorities are in our maps, and rank them, to help us focus on what's most important. The only one set a priori is "tourist-style map showing all the linked destinations... and routes between them." (from Wikitravel:Region guide status). That's for a star article, though—I don't mean to discourage contributors from making simpler regions maps for more immediate purposes. Any way, here goes a first draft:

1. Demonstrate and define regional boundaries
2. Identify & locate all linked cities & destinations
3. Show routes between said cities & destinations
4. Show major routes in/out of the country
5. Keep map readable in-article
6. Ensure ease of translation
7. Show major geographic features
8. Enable further use for subregional maps

#1–4 are the basic bread and butter of our maps, and fulfill the star article requirements (note that we don't actually have a single star region guide yet).

I know Cacahuate isn't a huge fan of #5, but I think it's really a very important goal. It takes time & multiple programs to print out the article and then also maps, whereas two clicks can do it with a well constructed map. Also, in comparing our maps to other guides' maps, remember that they are constrained by print page sizes, and therefore also must figure out how to cram info onto small spaces. Moreover, I don't think it's been a problem to achieve this goal—I've done it easily with countries as small as Costa Rica to frikkin' Russia.

The number 8 is a bigger question though--it's ideal when you can do this, but it's not always going to work, I think. I'll sure try to make it work for Russia, but the curvature along the projection makes this hard. It also requires a high level of detail (and therefore patience in tracing it) to be able to use the existing map to create subregion maps.

7 isn't always necessary, just when geographic features are really relevant for travel. So in Russia, those rivers are often major ways of getting from point A to point B and should be included, while in the US probably only the Mississippi would be important enough to get on the map, IMO. --Peter ^Talk 00:31, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

So, then, you'd like to move away from simple maps like (say) Image:Map of Vermont Regions.png and Image:Map-USA-Cities01.png, toward maps like Image:Map of Pakistan.png? LtPowers 09:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Ideally, I'd like the regions maps to have all this information. But a simple map showing the regions breakdown is much better than no regions map at all. It also provides a base to work with in creating a more detailed map. --Peter ^Talk 09:49, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it's ideal to have all that on a map too, if it can be made to work... Vermont just needs roads added, USA would be ideal if we could combine the 2 maps that are currently in the article instead of having a regions and a cities/other destinations map (and if possible the major interstates should be added), and Pakistan actually does have pretty much everything of relevance to a traveler - all the major roads, trains and destinations are there, it shows which borders are open to foreigners and which are closed, and shows the route to all four of the possible cities that you could be heading for once you leave.

Regarding readability in-article, I'm not against it, I just don't want to define our style around it... no other guidebook would give a major country or region map just a 1/3 page and wrap text around it, it would take up at least a page if not a double page spread... which is why I don't think it's weird if the map needs to be printed separately – cacahuate ^talk 00:38, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with those aims, particularly 1-7, although I worry that someone new to maps might find it overwhelming and decide not to start one. If someone can do all eight, that's fantastic, but even if we can get a bunch of maps with just 1 and 2 (as a start) I think it would improve our country, and particularly, region pages a lot.

With #4, should we be placing airport and ferry terminals and border crossings on country maps? I see the border crossings on the Pakistan map, but I haven't noticed any airports or ferry terminals on other country/region maps.

I think it was discussed briefly before, but should we also design the maps so they work in black and white as well? I'm guessing that some people still print in black and white and I find that with a lot of mid-luminosity colours, it's difficult to distinguish between regions when I print a map in B&W. I've been experimenting with this in the Belgium map -- I'll upload some samples later. Shaund 00:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

To Cacahuate: unlike WT printouts, guidebooks are not 8" by 11" so a map that displays on a standard pc resolution for Wikitravel will be similar in size to that of a printed guidebook. (I've got a good handle on that one from WTP Chicago, which is even smaller than most other printed guidebooks.) Again, these aims are ideals, and there's no reason to try and "force" contributors to meet them. Rather, I think #1–5 is what we should require for star articles (although we don't have any star regions!).

To Shaund: I think major airport + ferry terminals are great, but not always feasible, given constraints of finitude. Especially airports are hard to show since they overlap completely with cities. More ferries + vague dotted lines showing routes, however, would be awesome, but only in the case that you can show where they lead (i.e., the destination country should be visible on the map—if it's not, I say leave the ferry off).

Black & white is standard for WTP maps, and there isn't IMO a good fix for this. My "solution" is to have two layers for the color regions, one for color and one for black & white only. Colors just muddle up b&w maps, so it's better to go grayscale. Printing in B&W is never optimal for maps, though, since you can't make out other details very well--like primary versus secondary roads, for example. --Peter ^Talk 01:31, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

For the record LP's country maps are often 8" x 10", believe it or not, across 2 pages – cacahuate ^talk 22:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] USA map

I combined the 2 USA maps, it does get a little busy in the northeast, but... comments? – cacahuate ^talk 05:38, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

1. Interstates 84 (in Oregon and Idaho) and 25 (through Denver and Cheyenne) are not labeled. (Neither is I-4, but it's too small.)
2. I don't think state and provincial capitals are particularly useful to the traveler, and they certainly overcrowd the northeast. If the nine cities from the article aren't enough, add some more popular travel destinations.
3. I'm not a big fan of the palette; the state names in the Northwest, Southwest, and South are particularly hard to read, and I think some of the adjacent regions have colors that are too similar (Northwest/Southwest, Southwest/Mexico, Mid-Atlantic/South, and maybe Mid-Atlantic/New England).
4. I'm undecided on the highways. At this scale, I'm just not sure how useful it is to the traveler to have the basic road network.
5. The Hawaiian islands are labeled in the same font and size as the states; they should be de-emphasized significantly.
6. The labels on the two Russian cities are unreadable, even at the PNG's full resolution. I'd say either leave them off or make them at least the same size as the Canadian and Mexican cities' labels.

-- LtPowers 10:06, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed about state capitals — I think it would be OK to go over the 9 cities on the map, since the country is so big, but cutting back on the cities would definitely make the map more readable. I really like the highway map, though, and would keep it. I'm also glad you left off the railroads, since they are a much less common form of transport in the US and would crowd the map. As you can guess, I'd recommend really bumping up the size of the text labels for at least the nine listed cities. Fantastic work, though! --Peter ^Talk 10:41, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, round two to the right... I deleted some cities in the northeast due to overcrowding, but generally I think we should have more when they fit ok, it makes the map more useful for planning, in addition to just showing where the 9 highlighted cities are. I adjusted the palette a bit LtP, you were right on the west, but there's still several shades of purple going on, I kinda like it though and it's hard to not use multiple shades of 1 color once you go beyond 7 or 8 regions... are you liking this more or still hate it? I enlarged the 9 cities to stand out, and then IMO there was just way to much similarity between the various text elements so I capitalized the state names, I think it's a good way to break things up, is that agreeable?

And then is anyone else having the same ovelapping issue with text when you have 2 lines? See North Dakota – cacahuate ^talk 00:02, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not a map maker, but as a map user one suggestion I'd make is to cut out more of Canada to shrink the height - I assume the extra height was to fit Edmonton, but I don't think that's necessary. Otherwise I like it a lot - the roads are helpful and the extra cities are a useful addition. The northeast is a bit crowded as you've pointed out, so if there was some way to make that more readable it would be good, but this map seems like a nice improvement/consolidation. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

The second map looks really good and I like the interstates and extra cities being on there. On the nit-piky side, the New England state capitals without city names look a bit strange -- do we need to include the city dots if we don't have the name? It might also be more useful in some states to have the biggest city instead of the capital (Portland instead of Salem in Oregon, Milwaukee instead of Madison in Wisconsin, etc.)

If you're using Inkscape, have you checked the line spacing of the text? That's the only thing I can think of, I've had to fiddle with it a couple of times to make two lines of text work. Shaund 01:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with Shaund - also Orlando instead of Tallahassee, Niagara Falls instead of Albany, and possibly even Calgary instead of Edmonton. Also I'd add Kansas City and Albuquerque. As for colors, I agree it may be unavoidable to have multiple shades of purple -- but they don't have to be next to each other. A couple of color-swaps should resolve that. LtPowers 07:00, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Also Fargo instead of Bismark, Twin Cities instead of St Paul, Orlando instead of Tallahassee, add Albuquerque (so we know which way to turn), Louisville not Frankfort (and move highway 65 from Frankfort to Louisville), add Kansas City.

Consider changing the other destinations to black. Those are linked destinations and should be obvious, but it took me 5 minutes of staring at the map before I even realized they were on there. And, while it's a major pain to do so, bolding the highway numbers would be a big improvement, since they're pretty illegible right now. Awesome work on culling the highway system to the most essential roads, btw. --Peter ^Talk 10:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I knew there was something bugging me about the shields; if we're going to use the Interstate shield, we should use the proper font. SVGs for all Interstates (and U.S. Highways and most state routes) are available on Wikimedia Commons and are in the public domain. LtPowers 13:14, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, Revision B to the right... I got most things, but... Tried getting font for Interstate shields from commons, but the svgs don't use text, the #'s are an image... Found a version of Highway Gothic that would work here, but his license isn't fully compatible. What about bold Arial as a substitute for now? It's closer anyway... see highways 15 and 25 for example. I know there are separate shields for each and every highway on Commons, but that would be a royal pain in the ass to not be able to just alter the #, imagine trying to get the sizes to match of each one on a map like USA with such liberal use of them. Ryan I couldn't figure out how to crop out part of Canada without doing something sloppy like creating two different blueback layers... anyone have thoughts on that? Also blackened the OD's, liked having color for separation but you're right, hard to see – cacahuate ^talk 22:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

cacahuate: here are SVGs that can be used to generate new shields by typing new text. =) You'll need the roadgeek font, though. Typefaces are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States, but our position on the issue here at Wikitravel may go beyond "what's legal", and of course there's a difference between "typeface" and "font", as well as the ethical issues of using the font creator's work. If you still want to use an absolutely free typeface, Blue Highway is probably the closest available; it appears to be loosely based on the official FHWA Series fonts. LtPowers 10:52, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I could try taking a whack at Canada, if you're not currently working on the SVG. --Peter ^Talk 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I uploaded the new svg, I can't stare at the USA anymore! I've left the font for the shields as dejavu for now, it's a lot of work to change, so we should figure out first whether we're going to settle for Blue Highway, or pursue permission for Roadgeek. Didn't feel like bolding them tonight but agree it could be done, feel free if you like Peter – cacahuate ^talk 22:22, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Could I ask why some cities' dots are different sizes? (Compare Niagara Falls with Chicago and Detroit, for example.) LtPowers 13:27, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

When Nick first created it he used larger dots for state capitols and smaller for other cities... our original map template had 2 dot sizes, 1 for "major cities" and one for "minor cities". On another note, have you seen my talk page? can you try opening that svg and see if you have the same problem as Peter, and let us know if you're on a pc or mac? – cacahuate ^talk 17:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] SHAZAM!

Wow! I've been watching maps appear throughout the site lately and must say that you guys are doing a ridiculously amazing job. Maps and regional breakdowns were previously the single greatest shortcoming of this site (IMHO) and in a matter of months you guys have made significant headway into making it one of the greatest strengths of this site - many of the maps are as good or significantly better than what are found in most print travel guides. Kudos all around on an amazingly well-done job! -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:04, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! And it's only been one month ;) --Peter ^Talk 14:43, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] New sub-project

We're near to finishing the goal of having regions maps for all Continental Sections, which is great! These projects, of getting regions maps for a narrow category (i.e., narrower than countries), are easier to work on since there is a reachable end in sight. I'm going to reorganize both the country and US state lists by parent region (so countries by continent/continental section, US states by top-level region). That way we could start going after one parent region at a time and get the satisfaction of finishing smaller lists.

But what to do with the empty column being vacated by the continental sections in the near future? We could feature the regions of another country, preferably a large one that has well developed content and available regions map base material, but lacks good regions maps (so not the UK, which has good maps throughout). Australia and Canada come to mind immediately, although an obstacle would be that most of their provinces don't yet have a well-developed subregions structure. Maybe China or India? I don't know whether the base material is good enough for their regions, though. --Peter ^Talk 12:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I think we could pick two or three countries and see how it goes. The next level of regions down in China and India look well defined and hopefully Commons would have some decent maps that would help (but I haven't looked, so don't hold me to that!). The next level of regions in Canada is also pretty well defined, other than Quebec. If we move to individual provinces, it gets a bit messier though. France and Brazil also have a well-defined second tier of regions. Shaund 00:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)

India looks like a gargantuan task—lots of the states are subdivided by district, and there are a ton of states. It may be better to put that one off for a bit. China has 7 articles ready for region maps (the top-level regions), and that would be very easy to knock off quickly. By my count, Canada has 7 articles ready for regions maps as well (and it would be nice to clean up the region scheme for Quebec, and to create hierarchies for some of the others in the process). Australia has 2-3 regions that look like they are prime for regions maps, but the others look a bit convoluted. I lean towards featuring China first, Canada second. --Peter ^Talk 04:17, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Cacahuate is likely busy enough where that Space map won't be done anytime soon. And since it's not so much a continental section, I'm going to call that sub-project finished, and put up China's top-tier regions in its place. --Peter ^Talk 21:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Color examples

Our palette discussion died, so I thought we might try a different tack. Add maps to the gallery below that have in your opinion a good color scheme, then comment below the gallery on which color schemes work well/poorly and why. Rather than developing a master palette (which may be too difficult or even undesirable), this should give contributors a pool of palettes that have worked in the past. I've added a few with color schemes that I like (off the top of my head):

• I'm a pretty big fan of the Mali color scheme, and will experiment with it more. --Peter ^Talk 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)
• Added Australia, which I think turned out really well. --Peter ^Talk 00:17, 13 February 2009 (EST)

• Peter seems to prefer less saturated colors than I do. LtPowers 10:01, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I think that's because I'm putting a lot of small details on the maps that might not show up otherwise—I'll try using that Texas palette on my next map, and see whether that's the case. --Peter ^Talk 13:02, 13 February 2009 (EST)

That could be it. Note I had to use white for some of the city names on the New York map. LtPowers 14:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I really like our US map, which was what I was trying to emulate with the new map of Europe. LtPowers, could you try to explain what's wrong with the distribution? as I was again trying to emulate our US map on this aspect as well. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 20:52, 14 February 2009 (EST)

All of the warm colors are concentrated in the western part of the map, and the cooler colors used in the rest of the map don't have enough contrast with each other to make the boundaries distinct. I'd have to experiment to be sure, but something as simple as swapping the colors of Iberia and the Balkans might solve the problem -- it's mainly the Balkans that seem to blend in with Central Europe, Belarus-Ukraine, and Greece. LtPowers 10:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I like the Mali map too, as well as the Ohio and New York ones. But, I have to admit I have a pretty strong preference for saturated colours (hence the Alberta map, which does need some colour tweaking). Other maps I like are cacahuate's India map and my NZ map (although, it's dominated by two regions so it's not much help for maps with many regions). I think I'll work the Mali and Ohio colour schemes into maps I'm currently working on. I'd like to see if Ohio's colours hold up as well when the background is grey or blue instead of white. Shaund 21:47, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I've used some of the colours from the Ohio palette for the Botswana map. Some of the detail stuff needed to be adjusted so it looked OK, but overall I think it works. Except maybe the parks? Any thoughts? Shaund 02:18, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I think it works except for that olive color for the northern region. It's too close to green and too dark. Try something with less green and more red or blue in it. =) LtPowers 09:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I updated the Botswana map with a bit of pink/red for the olive green. Details are definitely more readable now. BTW, I've also updated the Alberta map based on the Mali colour scheme. I think the garishness has been toned down a few notches. Shaund 00:32, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Both look nice :) – cacahuate ^talk 03:01, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Botswana looks good, although it is a little hard to tell which region the central game reserve is in. =) Or is it its own region? For Alberta, I'd like to see a little more color -- you have several shades of low-saturation yellow and green in there. But that's just me; others have shown preference for lower saturation values. LtPowers 09:22, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Regarding saturation, I have played around with that more, and I do prefer the higher saturation colors for distinguishing regions. The popular USA/Europe color palette is especially nice. But I have found the low saturation palettes more or less necessary for very crowded country maps (and still attractive). Small size details show up much better on a low saturation regions palette.

For any map with details, I'd recommend experimenting with both to see which works better—my Baltimore districts map, for example, has a relatively high level of detail, but the higher saturation scheme still works quite well. I'll add that bolding small text on a higher saturation map helps a good deal with readability, although our preference for non-bolded text may tilt the balance back in favor of low saturation colors.

By the way, I tried to denote the two harbor tunnels on that Baltimore map by making the highway line densely dotted and by decreasing the opacity a little bit—was it a successful method? --Peter ^Talk 06:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Reasonably so. =) I couldn't tell the line was dashed on the image description page; I had to view it full-size. But it still worked; it just looked like a lighter, thinner line. LtPowers 07:54, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Agree on both counts. The dashes aren't really visible except at full-size, but it does look different from the regular highway lines on the smaller sized maps. I like the effect on the full-size map. Also agree on the low-saturation versus higher saturation. I like the higher saturation to make the regions distinct, but the low saturation colours make it easier to blend in the details, especially if there are a larger number of regions (above six or so). Shaund 23:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Route icons

We should aim to use official(esque) route icons when marking roads on our maps that are best known by their number. Since those commons shields all use uneditable paths for their route numbers, I created an svg with the basic 4 route icons for US routes. It would be nice to have the same for other countries as well. --Peter ^Talk 16:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)

You may use the frames in wts:Category:Roads in Israel, which i created several month ago for template. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 10:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] Map template 2

I've finally figured out why the template that we recommend is so disproportionately large—there was a ton of invisible "flowed text" objects in there. I have no idea what they are, or how they got there, but they're gone now. So if you want the template sans the extraneous 1MB, it's available now. --Peter ^Talk 02:40, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

"Flowed" text is, I believe, text that has been attached and shaped to an object. LtPowers 10:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

I have made a few additions to the template:

• added dotted line for sea routes
• added capitalised text for OTHER COUNTRY NAMES
• created all the recommended layers. Important I think if standardisation is a goal. Otherwise, with the best will in the world, layers will rarely be the same. --Burmesedays 23:24, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Keep in mind, though, that having the layers in the template can really complicate things when building a map off of an existing SVG (almost always from Wikimedia Commons), as importing the template will cram all those layers into sublayers of the import layer... I don't care much either way, though, since I keep a slightly modified template for myself to accommodate any idiosyncrasies of how I deal with maps. --Peter ^Talk 12:36, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Yes indeed. I had an interesting experience along those lines the other day with an SVG created in Adobe Illustrator and then opened in Inkscape. Still, I think it is helpful for new mapmakers to have a regional template with the layers defined as standard by this expedition. --Burmesedays 12:42, 20 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Low level sub-region maps

I have just created a low level sub-region map for East Bali here. Thanks are due to both Peter and Stefan for some pointers on a suitable format for a low (third) level region map. I think it works quite well. The only really negative comment I have is that the yellow secondary roads are fairly indistinct from the grey of the region when printing in greyscale. A distinct, strong darker colour would be better (purple came to mind) but that would go against the Wikitravel map standard for roads. Any thoughts? Or indeed any comments at all on this map before I start rolling out the other five Bali sub-region maps? --Burmesedays 03:42, 2 November 2009 (EST)

I don't see any reason the secondary roads have to be yellow, or even that particular shade of yellow. Feel free to find something suitable. =) For comparison, my attempts at subregion maps can be found at Finger Lakes, Niagara Frontier, and Southern Tier. LtPowers 10:10, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the feedback. I am trying to get consistency in the Bali Region maps and I think it is working. Please have a look at the 3 completed so far:

• http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Bali-Central-Bali-Region-Map.png
• http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Bali-East-Bali-Region-Map.png
• http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Bali-West-Bali-Region-Map.png --Burmesedays 11:00, 3 November 2009 (EST)

The first one looks a little dark; I prefer the lighter gray used in the East and West maps. LtPowers 11:58, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Good spot. The darker grey in the Central Bali map is actually a mistake... will put that right tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback.--Burmesedays 12:08, 3 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] What's next?

I'm currently on a tear, and the US states are almost done. I'd like to next feature a single continental section in the middle column. I'm also inclined to pick one that we could knock off quickly, to generate a little motivating excitement among our Expedition members. We don't have a good Japan regions map, which is criminal considering how exceptional much our Japan content is, so I'm leaning towards East Asia. Other suggestions? --Peter ^Talk 05:12, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Well, I'd really like to see Europe finished off too, but too bad I can't really contribute at the moment. As for the column; East Asia seems reasonable, loads of regular work on Chinese destinations by Claus and Pashley, and Japan is second to none it term of content + the remaining maps seems pretty easy to do. --Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 05:52, 5 November 2009 (EST)

As soon as the Bali Map Project is finished (10 complete now, another 10-15 to go) I will very much be up for helping. East Asia seems good. --Burmesedays 08:40, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Getting all the US states finished is some achievement - very well done. --Burmesedays 03:39, 19 November 2009 (EST)

I will second that. If there is someone prepared to give a little coaching and suggest a source bitmap or whatever, I would like to have a go at producing a WT region map. Burmesedays, if you would like to subcontract one of your Bali map regions, let me know. -- Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 04:17, 19 November 2009 (EST)

I certainly would have Peter but I am right now finishing the 2nd last Bali map (phew, relief). I am more than happy to pass on some coaching though. My learning curve was steep and mostly thanks to excellent, patient advice from Peter. Although I still have a lot to learn, I can certainly try to pass that on - give me a few days as a little busy right now. I have found sources a big issue for detailed city maps but for the broader regional maps required by this expedition, OpenStreetMap ought to nearly always do the job.--Burmesedays 05:03, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Two other good sources for base files are the PD maps created by the U.S. Government at the Perry Castañeda Collection [3] and the assorted maps at Wikimedia Commons, e.g., wmc:Category:Maps of Taiwan. It would be great to have a new member to the Expedition! --Peter ^Talk 09:49, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Should Hong Kong really get a region map? The article uses the huge city template. LtPowers 11:40, 19 November 2009 (EST)

It should get a districts map, which is essentially the same thing, I think. --Peter ^Talk 12:54, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Very nice job done with Hong Kong. Might I suggest showing the major ferry routes? Only the major ones. --Burmesedays 23:19, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Done. --Peter ^Talk 12:58, 23 November 2009 (EST)

So what will be in the East Asia column? I suppose the regions of Japan?

• Hokkaido
• Tohoku
• Kanto
• Chubu
• Kansai
• Chugoku
• Shikoku
• Kyushu
• Okinawa

Globe-trotter 08:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Apart from Japan, East Asia is now empty (Hong Kong, Taiwan and North Korea (at least)) were there when the current What's Next was decided. I am not sure whether specific internal region maps were intended to be covered now or not. If so, then the Japanese ones make sense. --Burmesedays 08:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Ah, in case that was not intended, then we can first work off the list of Europe, and maybe Southeast Asia. I'm working on Thailand at the moment, trying to improve my map-making skills ^^ Globe-trotter 08:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

[edit] Taiwan

I have just added my first regional expedition map and really would appreciate any comments. I realise the route markers are not there yet (see Talk:Taiwan). Have I neglected anything else? Any style issues? Cheers. --Burmesedays 10:34, 20 November 2009 (EST)

I believe you've matched the predominant style perfectly. Great work. LtPowers 12:58, 20 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Tennessee

Given the generally excellent standard of our US state region maps, I think somebody should look at doing a proper map for Tennessee. --Burmesedays 11:29, 23 November 2009 (EST)

I'd call that a "usable" map—far from the level of perfectionism of a "star" quality map, but it fulfills the basic criteria that we want from a regions map—it makes the regional division clear as day. It would be great to see existing maps improved, but personally I tend towards spending time on maps for regions that are in more dire need of them. --Peter ^Talk 12:20, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Fair comments and point taken. I did actually think it was a corrupted file when I first opened the page :). That though, speak volumes for the extremely high standard of maps I have become used to seeing here. --Burmesedays 12:27, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Ohio and Texas have similar maps, and they've been up for years. In fact, they're what many of our color schemes are based on, as well as my guide in coming up with an aesthetic for New York and Florida. LtPowers 12:28, 23 November 2009 (EST)