User talk:Shereth/2009 Mapping Project

Map Project[edit]

Hey Arkyan,

Good idea on making this a separate page. It could have made user talk pages cluttered very quickly (especially yours).

I decided to tinker around with your raw file for Sarasota, Florida in Inkscape a little bit. It took longer to do than I wanted to for something I would like to be somewhat quick for many hundreds of water-adjacent counties, but I am satisfied with the result. And I'm hoping that if I were to take on manually editing ALL files concerned, I may be able to figure out a process that is somewhat consistent and quick.

Essentially what I did is this:

Split the water elements and "border" elements into a separate layer
Copied the gray shapes showing incorporated areas and placed them under the water and border layers
Trimmed off the water close to the shoreline, and drew separate water shapes, making those shapes fade out away from the shoreline.
Though it is really unnecessary, I copied the county border and made it a solid white shape to place under all the other layers.

I obviously used creative license in deciding where the blue for the water should begin and end. I've used the gradient idea for the manually created maps for Dallas County and I think it could suit our purpose well for showing coastal waters.

The only issue with this is visible in the above image; one can kind of see where the two separate gradated elements meet up. Granted I rushed through this kind of quickly, but trying to draw separate gradients will prove problematic, especially where there are islands and other complex coastal terrains. I will play around some more to see if some kind of shadow or blur filter would work better.

Good luck and let me know what you think.

Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of letting the borders show through the water but I kind of like that idea. I should be able to tweak the script a little to automate a few of your steps. Moving the gray "incorporated" shapes down below the water and keeping the boundaries themselves on a higher layer is pretty easy, as is adding a solid white background. Dealing with the water is a little more tricky, I believe that manipulating it will likely have to be a manual task. It's a bit annoying that the water is rendered in so many different segments rather than a single body. I'll see what else I can come up with. Shereth 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the tweaked (raw) output :

This should take care of some of the footwork in terms of layers. I've essentially organized the file as follows, from bottom to top : White county background -> Native American areas -> Incorporated Places -> CDPs -> water features -> Boundaries only. This way you shouldn't have to do any manual editing of any entities besides the water features. This is a "good thing" since the final version of the script relies on CSS classes to make sure the right city gets painted, and editing a shape in Inkscape kills the CSS classes. Let me know if this helps. Also, let me know if it'd be helpful for the script to place the water elements into a group. Shereth 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work! I was hoping some of those steps could be made automated, instantly saving hours of copious free time.

As long as the water elements are on a separate layer, I don't think it is necessary to group them together. I just wonder why it is the US Census data is bass-ackwards the way it is. Something you've dealt with firsthand, I'm sure. So far, everything looks good! I will still play around and see if I can make a more convincing blur, even if it means hand-coding the filter into the .SVG text. Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-uploaded the latest manually-edited incarnation over the previous map I uploaded last night. I'd like you to check out the file to see if it still plays nice with your scripts (if it doesn't, I need to figure out another method of editing them.) The XML editor in Inkscape still showed the CSS data present, but that's no guarantee it will remain consistent.

I figured out something that will work well for the water gradients. It was so simple, I obliviously overlooked it the first time. After trimming the solid water shapes, I drew a shape tracing the water shapes and extending outward from them. Then, I just added a path, made the path the same color as the water, and added a path blur to achieve the gradient. Afterward, I drew another white shape to act as a mask. Everything else, I placed above these. All in all, it only took about ten minutes of manual drawing and selecting; pretty reasonable to me.

Unfortunately, I could only do this (quickly) using Inkscape layers, so I hope this doesn't mess up the structure of the .SVG file making it useless to your script. Let me know if it will work or not.

Take care! Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The good news : your edits in Inkscape seem to leave the CSS intact and should not cause problems with the final script that highlights the various cities. The bad news : Inkscape is adding a lot of file bloat in the form of unecessary style declarations and unecessary precision - the original maps are precise to 1 pixel, but Inkscape wants them to be precise down to .00001 px! This all results in over 500KB of unecessary bloat in the file, at least in this particular example. The good news is that the redundant styles and the overly precise data can be fairly easily redacted by a second run of the script and cut down on the overhead (I realize that for all intents and purposes we don't have disk space limits but I figure 500KB x 23435 = 12 gigs of data that we can save for a relatively small fix is a nice thing to do for the foundation). What it all boils down to is that your method of modifying the maps appears to be compatible with the scripts I've set up.

It also looks like Inkscape layers are groups, just with some additional metadata, so I should be able to hack in some Inkscape-style layers for you. What I can do is place the shoreline elements in their own group - at the moment, I am running the scripts with lakes enabled, and I don't think they need to be included in the grouping for your purposes. I was able to get around the problem of all kinds of minor ponds showing by limiting the display to bodies of water over 1 square mile in area, but whether or not we want to display lakes is a question we may still need to answer. To that end I will upload a few more sample maps to review.

As far as dealing with the Census weirdness, here's a winner for you. I was having trouble getting the Great Salt Lake to show up correctly - it kept showing up full of holes. It turns out that for whatever reason, they had some (significant) portions of the lake classified as "stream/river" and still others as "canal, ditch or aqueduct" rather than the expected "pond/lake". Try and figure that one out. Anyway, here's some more test images for you!

Take a peek at them and let me know what you think. Shereth 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map Project, Continued[edit]

Before I continue, let me say thanks for doing all the hard brain work with getting this project as automated as possible. I wish I could be of more help in that regard, but my PHP knowledge isn't quite so advanced.

Having the .svg file split into layers was a great help!

The Mohave County map looks great! I have no particular preference as to the color for Indian reservations, but since they are usually depicted as some sort of yellow or tan, that color could work for them.

The Miami-Dade map provided a bit more of a challenge to make a convincing shoreline gradient. Rather than making a blue gradient, I tried just plopping a white mask gradient over the shoreline. As you can see below, the gradient as shown in the rendering doesn't want to overlap the border of the image, even though I drew the mask to overlap the border. Thus, the trimmed water shape shows through near the edges. I may just have to reduce the spread of the shoreline gradient to avoid this issue.

All I can say is blarg, but I will still play around in Inkscape. Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me apologize for the long delay - it's been a rough couple of weeks over here and I had to limit my amount of time I could spend on this, but should be back up to speed now.

Your efforts seem to be paying off as far as cleaning up these files - that's definitely good news. If there is anything else that I can do in terms of automating the steps to reduce the amount of manual labor that will go in to these maps please let me know. I have noticed that while Inkscape preserves the generic CSS information, it strips the style information from any paths that are modified; to make sure that the files remain compatible with the script, we need to ensure that no manual modification of the relevant paths (places in particular) come to pass.

Aside from that I think we are on track with these, and I hope to start processing the states shortly, or at least the ones that do not have any "minor civil divisions" issues. As for the rest, I suppose it would be good to consider what input will be required for those.

Finally, here's one more type of county for you to consider - I'm thinking that island counties should prove easier but wanted to give you one for testing purposes. Shereth 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about late replies. I understand how real life can demand one's attention. It may even be a issue of mine in the near future. But anyhow...

I have noticed how the raw map files seem to have a lot of extra shapes in them, drawing areas far away from the county proper. The Miami-Dade map for example had rendered in it many of the Florida Keys to the south, far beyond where Miami-Dade County ended. I have attempted to trim away some of this excess in an attempt to "clean up" the file and make it slightly smaller. I have also tried to edit the water shapes to remove the white hairlines that appear in between them. But if doing this causes the style information to become unusable to the script, I will avoid doing it from here on out.

Another question, does this style information stripping occur only whenever a shape itself is edited, or for less intrusive edits, such as moving a shape around? If even highlighting and selecting the shape in Inkscape makes it unusable, then I shouldn't even be messing with Inkscape at all.

For the Island County map, I'll try just overlaying the gradient and editing only what I absolutely need to and see how that looks. Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is, again, a rush job. Hopefully the 'necessary' edits I did do don't screw up the stylesheets too much...

Take care Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I think I might not have made myself clear. Really the only entities that need to be protected are the ones that the script will go back and highlight after the fact - CDP's and incorporated places. Feel free to edit the water shapes to get rid of the hairlines, as there is no need for the script to change them at all. I think that the style information is only stripped if the path itself is edited.

To answer your question about the extra shapes, it is a result of the way my script generates the county files. Because the source files I have group places (CDPs and Incorporated places) by state rather than by county, I am forced to render a single SVG file of an entire state and then trim out unwanted bits to generate county maps. Ideally, the script would be able to identify any shapes that cross into the county boundaries and retain them while discarding anything not within the county. Unfortunately this entails some collision-detection algorithms that are somewhat beyond my current capabilities with this script. As a compromise solution, what the script effectively does is create a viewing window around the county in question, calculates a bounding box for the individual shapes, and determines if they overlap. If they do, the shapes are retained, otherwise they are discarded. In the case of Miami-Dade county, the overlap is from Monroe county which it abuts, and which contains all of the Keys. I wish I knew how to cut things off more cleanly but I don't, so all the extra little shapes are probably just going to have to stay with us :( Shereth 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help?[edit]

Hey all, just found out about the project and wanted to chime in. I created the maps for Texas and North Dakota, and have already done some tweaking for a next round of images. See the old version Corpus Christi, Texas vs. the newer images for Brownsville, Texas. I have also created maps using the water boundaries as you are proposing (see National Register of Historic Places listings in Massachusetts, the left map), and was hoping to incorporate that into the new maps as well. I create all the maps with GIS software, then do edits with Inkscape and/or Illustrator. Let me know how I can help. Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the project has slowed down a bit but really does need to get kicked in to gear. Really what needs addressed is to come to some kind of conclusion as to the final design of the maps - what information they show, what colors they display, and so on. The actual generating of the maps is all script-based and automated, while any post-processing done in Inkscape has to be done manually (obviously) and if that is something you could assist in when we get to that point, that'd be very helpful. But again, before we dive in to generating maps we have to decide what they will look like in the end. Shereth 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On being too localized[edit]

A concern has been expressed that these maps are too "localized", in that they provide insufficient context to users unfamiliar with US geography as to where these cities are located within the United States. I have to agree that this is true. The intent of these maps is precisely that, to show a more accurate accounting of these cities and their boundaries on a local scale. Some effort should perhaps be made to assist foreign readers with national perspective.

One alternative that has been employed is the "dot-on" style map, but I do not believe this addresses the issue of national context much, if at all. Take Birmingham, Alabama as an example, since it currently displays both styles of map. The city-boundary style map includes an inset of the state of Alabama showing the county to provide regional context; the dot-on map has a similar level of regional context, in that it accurately depicts Birmingham's location within the state of Alabama but does not resolve the question of Birmingham's location on a national scale. Neither map is superior to the other in providing a national-level context to readers unfamiliar with the United States as to where Birmingham is.

Ideas on how to resolve the question of insufficient national-level context for foreign readers would be greatly appreciated. Shereth 15:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In due course Shereth, I hope somebody will create another set of state maps for the svg like now windowed in the corner but upload them with a picture of the state location within the United States. See Ulan-Ude map. That would solve the "regional crisis".

My ideal would be like Aarau. A simple pin map. But when you click "zoom" it shows the city territory division... Perhaps those Swiss infoboxes will give you something to think about as I believe they are the best way to do this... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings on the solution employed at Aarau. Still, this does't address the original question of how the pushpin maps you are adding provide any better context for foreign readers than the existing maps? They seem to be of equal regional context. Shereth 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the part I said about in due course that regional state pin svgs will have state locators in the corner? Like File:Thuringia location map G.svg regional map shows where in Germany it is and File:Outline Map of Buryatia (with position on the map of Russia).svg where in Russia. In fact if you know how you could easily duplicate the current pin state svgs and make deriritives to quickly solve this problem. Add a window of the relative state in the United States map in the corner... See on the right ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but the problem is your proposed solution is essentially placing the onus on a hypothetical "someone else". At present, your addition of the pushpin style maps does not do anything to solve the issue of localization and appears to be based primarily on a subjective "they look better" basis, correct? I bring this up because your argument against the county-style maps that you have made elsewhere was that they failed to address the localization issue, but your solution does not address the problem either. What I am trying to accomplish here is to come up with solutions to the problem rather than wait for someone else to fix them down the line. Shereth 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that they be made asap actually. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of putting someone on the road of creating several hundred new maps, we allow the discussion to continue (and indeed, other editors to add their input) as to the basic question of what kind of map is preferable? I understand you have a personal preference for the pushpin style maps, but other editors prefer the county outline maps. I would suggest requesting input from a wider audience, perhaps the good folks at WP:CITY. Shereth 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression you have turned out to be awkward after all. I have suggested that we include both map locators for those people who like a county census map like yours and those who like a pin map like mine to visualize where it is in the wider context. Given that there will obviously be a divde in those who like both maps I feel both maps can cater to all interests and that this does not need to be as problematic as you are letting on. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 21:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but what does "I get the impression you have turned out to be awkward after all" mean? No one is implying that anything has to be problematic, but we are saying that it needs to be discussed. I applaud your desire to be WP:BOLD and make what you percieved to be an improvement to these articles, but when other editors show concern as to whether your changes are an improvement or not, the appropriate next step is to discuss the situation and arrive at a consensus as to how to proceed, not to continue pressing forward boldly. Adding both types of maps may well turn out to be the ideal solution, but that should not be decided by one or two people. There may well be a better solution and input from the community as to how to proceed should be encouraged, not viewed as problematic. Shereth 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but when you said "What I am trying to accomplish here is to come up with solutions to the problem rather than wait for someone else to fix them down the line." this came across badly to me. I am trying to solve the problem NOW and am making an effort to make sure the pin maps address the localised problem with the county maps. I think the maps both compliment each other but yes I would rather the graphic of the county maps were improved, although there are probably some people who like them as they are... You;ll probably have a go at me for citing this example like the Swiss one but check out the infobox here. That sort of clickable option would be ideal in my view. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could employ the technology used for the map here in the template we could quite reasonably display your county maps, state pin and even national pin options conveniently and neatly housed in one feature. That would be the way forward in my view and would cater for most preferences and requirements. I do think it would be unfair to make decision either way and say nope we are not using the county locators, or nope, we are not using pin locators. In my view both serve the purpose and I believe that adding a clickable feature for the map of your choice would be the msot beneficial... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you wouldn't presuppose that I (or anyone else) would have a go at you for making a good-faith suggestion; discussion tends to move along a lot more smoothly if we don't try to second-guess the other participants in such a way. That said, it took me a while to figure out what was going on at that template as I do not read French and I kept clicking the actual map rather than the text below it. I actually find this to be a relatively elegant solution, and probably worth looking in to how it can be implemented with the infoboxes employed in city locations. Shereth 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it. This way any reader can click the map and zoom int and zoom out at different divisional levels. And of course there is also the clickable globe for assistance... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for no responses today. I was preoccupied with real life. My two Zimbabwe cents worth has been posted on the WikiProject Cities page in hopes that it gets a wider audience. But suffice it to say I like the idea of having "click-replacable" maps as a compromise.

Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare these two. The top one looks professional and quality and the bottom one looks less so in my view and considerably less attractive. If we had a similar map for Mobile, Alabama and all other census areas this would look a lot better I think. If you are concerned about state county locator this could always be made as a window in the corner of the image like the pin map for Ulan-Ude. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery

Now if we could find a way of making the two maps shown in the infobox example as one, i feel this would be more on the right track... And for the record, I do think the census maps if rendered in the example given are very valuable in defining exact city area which a pin map can not adequately do alone. So I do not fall into the camp where I just like pin maps and not more detailed ones. I'm hoping to find a balance with this clickable map option and to have the quality of the current census maps improved.

An example. I'm hoping we can adopt this technology. If so the third map included would be the census local one like File:Twin Cities Metro Area (13 County).png. I am certain this can be done... It would seem this is the guy responsible for the clickable maps. Perhaps Ixnay or Shereth could contact him and request he adds the feature to our infobox settlement? A message could always be sent using google translate. (No need. The guy speaks fluent english. I'll ask him). ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been sent to Nicolas. He seems an extremely intelligent guy. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 08:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing more about how we might be able to implement the map switching feature. With regards to the two maps you've posted above, could you perhaps be more specific about what it is that makes the first map superior to the second? I understand that you feel it is more "professional" looking but if I am to make improvements to the maps I will need specifics. Is it the color choices? The scale? Showing adjacent counties? I'm open to suggestions as to the formatting of the maps but I will need specific ideas to go on. As a note, I removed the infobox that was here - I'm not sure what it was contributing to the discussion and it was causing some weird formatting issues. Shereth 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be fact as such. Biggest thing for me is the color and that the county is treated as an island. Maybe its just a preference but I don't think blank white maps to display places is a good choice. I prefer maps to have some color and wholesomeness to them. I think with no context around the county they more resemble pieces of frozen haddock I get out of my freezer than real world counties. Second I think the way the map is structured with the county on the left and the state on the right puts off visualizing where it is. I'd rather than the county map was centred and that state county locator goes in a window in the corner. Thirdly there is the grey shading and empty census area parts to it which often come across as scruffy to me. Fourthly I dislike the way they treat even the sea as the same as the land. Most maps even if not conventional are rendered in a way as to distinguish this. They also do not show rivers or lakes like the pin maps or any physical features even if sometimes this may be extremely important to the way the town is structured physically. Some of the maps shown above do at least show water but it looks like the blue has been paint brushed on and doesn't look naturally rendered. I agree that simplification is a good thing but in my view they are too placid for comfort. Fifthly I don't like the way when you click the map you can see the checkered background. It looks scruffy and unprofessional in my view. Sixthly I would adjust the scale and zoom out a little and put the county at least in its context to surrounding counties. I understand the emphasis is on the county but I think this could be adjusted slightly.. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 15:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pasting up a test image of Mobile County that uses the newer parameters already established rather than the old version and will attempt to address your concerns in order. Please note that this is a raw map and has not been "cleaned up" post-processing.

First, addressing the context issue is easily solved. The newer generation of maps already display neighboring county borders and water features; how much or how little of this is merely a matter of deciding how much additional context to provide, which is a trivial matter.
Second, the structure of "county on the left, state on the right" is arbitrary. See File:Pima County Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Tucson highlighted.svg for an example that is structured differently. The size and location of the state inset are, again, arbitrary and easily adjusted. If we are able to develop a system where the active map can be changed with a click, it may no longer be necessary to provide an inset map at all, since context will be gleaned from the other map.
Third, you are going to have to elaborate. Saying they look "scruffy" does not tell me what needs fixed. You will have to tell me what looks bad about it rather than simply saying it looks bad.
Fourth, all of the new generation maps will show shorelines and water features. As far as the blue looking "paint brushed on" rather than "naturally rendered", again, you are going to have to elaborate. What is it, to you, that makes this version look "paint brushed on" and the other linked maps "naturally rendered"?
Fifth, this is an artifact of the way SVG image transparency is handled in Wikipedia. This would be a trivial fix by simply adding an opaque background.
Sixth, the native scale on all of the new generation maps is the same. The final zoom is determined by the display parameters in the infobox and not the images themselves - this is an advantage of SVG maps versus PNG maps, that they can be dynamically resized by software without loss of quality. Again, the size of the state inset is arbitrary and may be discarded altogether depending on how the map switching is handled.

As an aside, I might point out that using terms like "scruffy", "unprofessional" and "wholesome" are subjective qualifiers and do little to convey to me what you think the maps lack. The use of objective qualifiers, such as specific color values, brightness, and so on are preferable since I know what these mean. Shereth 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent upload is a major improvement. Stage 1: Use this on the right as a color guide. The code of the blue is given. The rustic pink for non state territory, so shade in left hand side of this Mobile map in #F6E1B9, the water in #C6ECCF. However to distinguish against the grey of the census areas I'd recommend a lovely tea green color code #D0F0C0 to shade the top and right of the map for the land which is the rest of the state but outside the county. The county itself then should be looking good without changing the instead color from white. Try that... Stage 2: Then next step I'd recommend creating new svg county locators using File:USA Alabama location map.svg. Just shade in the appropriate county. So shade in Mobile on the bottom left in say a blood red color or something and upload that. (which can also be used to update the county maps in each article too by using it as the main image. Then add the uploaded map into the bottom right hand corner of this map as a window keeping the map as it is in your new version but so the reader can see where the county is they are looking at in the state of Alabama in the bottom corner. Try that... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's another example. I've taken some of the above suggestions but not word for word. Please note that the extra lines in the water are a temporary artifact; they can be easily removed with manual processing. Also note that the areas in neighboring states still appear blank because of the way the script processes the files, but this too can easily be fixed with manual processing. The reason I mention manual processing as a necessary step is because of the inset maps; due to the irregular shapes of counties, on some maps it may be beneficial to put the inset on the upper left while others on the lower left, and so on. There is no way for my script to be able to guess where to put the inset map, this has to be left to human editors, who can easily repair these niggling little issues.

You will also notice that I have changed the scope of the map slightly. Since there is some concern about regional context I realized that counties alone may not always convey the most desired context. This map, for example, covers the Mobile-Daphne-Fairhope CSA to show context within a greater metropolitan area. A strategy that I would consider adopting is to do these maps by CSA, then by MSA where no CSA exists, and finally by county where no CSA or MSA exists. As always, feedback is appreciated on this strategy. Shereth 17:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is already a tremendous improvement! Take out the lines in the water now and shade the outside state in tea green and other counties in the rustic pink and this will be looking really good. In fact if you can make them with the county-state locator in the corner making maps like this I think they would actually be superior to the pin maps... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Are you still going to make an effort with this? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've had a few things come up that have limited the amount of time I've had to work on it lately but would still like to move forward with this. To be honest I was hoping to get some more feedback but since that does not seem forthcoming, I'll go ahead and move forward with what we have here. I'll be posting up some results of another test run later tonight to try and get some fine-tuning done. Shereth 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to jump in here to say that I find the "push-pin" maps to be relatively devoid of information. The maps created by Arkyan convey MUCH more information relevant to the topic of a particular city. --Dystopos (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Neverending Map Project[edit]

Hello Shereth,

I haven't dropped off the face of the earth, but I find my time to devote to Wiki projects to be much less.

Before I begin, the whole of this effort may be moot, as I suspect (and hope) with the release of 2010 Census data, some wonderful creative user out there in Wikiland will generate a whole plethora of city/CDP locator maps based on the new data.

Be that as it may, I am trying my hand at updating the Maricopa county locator maps to look more like the universally-agreed upon standards. I am redrawing them all to match the color scheme of this map for example. I'm halfway done with hand-tracing a new map and I think the end result will look nice, at least for Phoenix metro area city articles.

I was just wondering where you stand on your auto-generated map project and if there is still anything you'd like me to do to help that along.

Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maricopa County Incorporated and Planning areas Phoenix highlighted.svg is an absolutely brilliant map which O'd like to see replicated for everywhere.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]