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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:USRD/MTF

Contents 1 The altering of WikiProject templates 2 Overhaul of page tags 3 Maps in SVG format 4 Legend 5 Integrating into project tags 6 California State Route 1 map 7 Testing 8 New subpages 9 Proposals 9.1 Scott5114's proposal 9.1.1 Discussion for Proposal 1 9.2 TwinsMetsFan's proposal 9.2.1 Discussion for Proposal 2 9.3 Stratosphere's proposal 9.3.1 Colors 9.3.2 Strokes 9.3.3 Borders 9.3.4 Map Size 9.3.5 Expressway features 9.3.6 Prototype 9.3.7 Discussion for Proposal 3 9.4 Voting 9.4.1 Support for Proposal 1 9.4.2 Support for Proposal 2 9.4.3 Support for Proposal 3 10 Historical routes on same map? 11 Map review 12 Route shields 13 Legend/map design proposal voting 14 Map source... 15 Design standards continued 16 NY 481 map 17 Datasets 18 SVG route shields... 19 Elevation profiles 20 When maps make an article too big 21 Copyright/fair use question

[edit] The altering of WikiProject templates

Someday I'd love to do that. But right now it's not possible due to the NC hysteria, the infobox backup, the browse mess, etc. Also we'd have to take it one state at a time. But at one point I'd like to do that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of page tags

Here is an example of a page tag being used widely:

	This article is part of the U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Interstate Highway System in the US. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

It seems there are various methods of assessment being attached to these tags at the moment for some WikiProjects; from my limited amount of browsing, the most comprehensive of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, but they also reference WP:1.0, so many more are possible. For examples, see Talk:Winston Tunnel and Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway.

There is an opportunity for bloat there, but the two uses that are a Very Good Idea and should be implemented are:

• Assessment - determining the state of an article and its room for improvement
• Map classification - using the template to identify which articles are in need for maps.

Here's where it gets interesting; while WikiProject Trains has precisely one level of complexity, U.S. Roads has about three; U.S. Roads, Interstates and U.S. Highways, and 50+ state projects. Theoretically, then, there will be 54 different tags to edit, versus WikiProject Trains' 1.

In other words, when these templates are edited, and the people that need to be notified are notified, we need to keep in mind that we don't want Category:FA-Class Illinois Routes WikiProject Articles; we want Category:FA-Class road transport articles. It's easy to fall into the trap of the former. Even Category:FA-Class U.S. roads articles should be avoided.

Anyways, this is all sort of related to the maps task force, but if we're going to be modifying many templates, we'll want to keep this in mind. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion on assessment-related issues will be located on the subproject site at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment. I would hate to dilute the discussion when the Maps Task Force has just started. :-) —Rob (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps in SVG format

This is just for everyone's information. I'd prefer to upload maps in SVG, but ArcMap's SVG export sucks and the output tends to crash Firefox and hang Internet Explorer. That's the sole reason all my maps are uploaded in PNG. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• case in point, Commons:Image:Interstate_19_map.svg, the image page loads fine but when you click to view full size it explodes and Firefox cries and IE usually hangs. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You could probably just run it through Inkscape and it would correct the code. —Scott5114↗ 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I haven't had any success with that as of yet. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Tried saving as "plain SVG" instead of "Inkscape SVG" yet? —Scott5114↗ 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • yep Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I may have some info for you on this. [1] This link is to the Firefox bugzilla website. This error has been noted as a browser error, not an image error. If I'm reading the notes right, it is fixed with version 1.5.0.7 (due in Sept.). 25or6to4 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks, I was aware that it was a bug with Firefox and I'm glad to see they're finally going to address it. However, I still think ArcMap's SVG export is not optimal, even on the highest settings I don't really like it's output. But, since SVGs are preferred for maps and diagrams, when the bugs in Firefox and IE (?) are fixed, I'll do my best to redo my maps in SVG...but I might wait until there's some hard map attributes hammered out for the task force. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As a heads-up, this issue is still present in Firefox 1.5.0.7, as I just downloaded it today and the map shown up above still does not load when viewing it full-size (as it crashes Firefox almost instantly). --TMF ^{T - C} 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad news. I just downloaded Firefox 2.0, and the image above still won't open properly. 25or6to4 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

lame Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've tried with the new ArcGIS 9.2 and it still crashes Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note in the SVG section regarding the SVG troubles, and they suggested that I reduce the number of points being used in the images. I was able to find a different road source, and remade the Texas highway 151 image. Doing so reduced the size of the image by a factor of 10, and it seems to be opening properly in Firefox at full size. Here's hoping! 25or6to4 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legend

The first thing we need to do is define a legend. Here's some ideas that I gleaned from various maps:

The numbers in parenthesis are the stroke width, which is derived by multiplying the number given and the width of "other numbered highway". The only thing I don't like about this is the double red line, which is close to impossible to do in Inkscape, but would make sense to most people. Ideas? —Scott5114↗ 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. All right. I'm a Rand McNally guy myself, so keep that in mind, but here's what I think...

1. I'd use green (for money) for turnpikes/toll roads.
2. How would divided highways and expressways be different? I'd consider merging these two, and where a divided highway is an expressway, using interchange markers (squares, circles or otherwise) to show that.
3. We might want to differentiate between state routes and county routes, where that level of detail is required. Also, U.S. Routes and state routes.
4. I don't know how I feel about separating Interstate and Other Freeway. At the least, I think it should be a dark, thick color, since I like the idea of having darker, thicker roads being more important than lighter, thinner ones.

So those are some of my thoughts. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding simplicity. Here's a good example:

No legend, and no need for a legend. Here's I-90, and everything else relative to I-90. I don't know if it can be done, but the more maps without legends (or with small legends), the better. At a certain scale, I would even be willing to sacrifice the subclassing of highways in favor of simplicity. I also think all the borders (town line, state line, etc.), if used, would be nice and obvious (with proper labeling where necessary, of course - nothing more annoying than a town line with no town name!). —Rob (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob on this. The amount of detail that a map actually needs will vary by the scope of the map. For example, a map for New York State Route 153 would have much more detail than a map for say, the New York State Thruway (or Interstate 90). With that said, I see the point for a legend - to standardize maps regardless of scale. So here's my $.02 on the legend:

• • Interstate is fine.
  • Merge turnpike, other freeway and expressway into one road type.
  • Divided highway - I use Inkscape myself, so I'm well aware of how difficult it will be to draw double lines. But it's probably the best way to do it, unfortunately.
  • Other numbered highway and below - looks fine to me.

May I suggest adding another entry for the highlighting of the route itself? --TMF ^{T - C} 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My input on this, is we need to be careful not to get too specific when it comes to maps. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a road atlas. That work is best left up to Rand McNally, Google Maps, Windows Live, Mapquest and Mapblast. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

as added notes, it's dependant on the GIS data available whether or not one can distinguish between a 3 lane and a 4 lane highway. Double lines, like for the divided highway, tend to look like crap especially when a particular road has tons of segments to it. For example, using the GIS data for the national road network, I-96 is a pretty short highway, but the line is made up of 202 segments. When you apply the double line to the selection it looks bad. For anything other than Interstate, U.S. Route, State Highway, applying the different types of colors/lines indicated by the proposed legend will be difficult to maintain across the country since the information available varies from state to state.

When I designed the maps for the Interstates, U.S. Routes, and Michigan Trunklines, I went through many iterations before I found a map that was both useful and aesthetically pleasing. You can only cram so much information in there before a map becomes useless. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Locator maps don't necessarily need to follow this legend, as they're simple enough that the meaning is obvious no matter what convention is used (blue=system and red=highlighted acts perfectly anyway.)

The reason I have turnpikes in orange is because that's what OK uses on their state maps. (KS uses yellow, so I'm used to yellow/orange = turnpike). It's like saying "avoid this if you don't want to pay up". If we can agree on another color we'll use that, of course.

I originally had expressway and divided highway separate because there are divided highways that are too slow to be considered an "expressway". However, dropping expressway and merging it into divided could work. Do we want to use the purple for that, or double red, or something else?

The best thing about having a unified legend would be that we could just link to the legend SVG on the image description page - no need to actually put it in the image :)—Scott5114↗ 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, more stuff:

1. Does anyone object to merging expy and divided highway, and using the purple 2x line?
2. Do we want a class for other multilane highways (e.g. 4 lane with turn lane, 4 lane undivided, etc.)?
3. Interchanges...
   
   Here's some ideas. Thoughts?
4. We could use light grey and tan for gravel and dirt roads respectively.

Also, I thought I should add the reason I have Interstate and Other Freeway separated is because interstates are part of a national system (thus more important) and other freeways might be built to lower standards. —Scott5114↗ 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1. No objections here.
2. Probably not. We don't want to make the maps too complicated to make.
3. Looks sharp! I like it, personally.
4. We should only do that if the map has a zoom level small enough that would show these roads.
5. Your point makes perfect sense regarding expressways. Also, I'll create a map for New York State Route 153 in the next hour or so for critiquing. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe it wasn't an hour, but here it is.

The black lines are county roads. Red lines are state-maintained roads. NY 441 is blue as it is an expressway in the viewpoint above. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, except expressway/divided highway is purple on my legend, not blue. ;) Maybe I should change that; purple and blue could be easily confused. Would yellow work? —Scott5114↗ 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I've never associated yellow with expressways personally. Orange could definitely work, if we give green to toll roads. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What would we do for Other Freeway then?—Scott5114↗ 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say abolish it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see the difference between an expressway and an "other freeway". --TMF ^{T - C} 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the ambiguity of the word "expressway". By freeway, I mean something resembling an Interstate, full access control, all that good stuff. By expressway, I'm thinking of a fast, divided, four-lane road with at-grade intersections. —Scott5114↗ 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the thick blue line = Interstate, thin blue line = other freeway idea. For divided highway/expressways? I'll favor orange for both, with interchange circles where necessary. The detail on the New York Map above is more than I would have expected; it looks nice. Keep in mind we may not know the exact nature of every road in the country, so I'd also include thick and thin red for arterial and minor "undivided or I-don't-know" options. But I like the balance of blue (about 20% of all lines), red (65%), orange (10%) and green (5%) for the maps. —Rob (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I omitted thin black and grey because those are minor and don't really count. That opinion may be change if we start making maps for Michigan Avenue (Chicago). :-p —Rob (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this? (Left off the borders because everyone generally agrees with those it seems.) For interchanges, I prefer using circles for when the map is so far zoomed out you don't have the ramps drawn out. If you have ramps, I'd say omit the circles and just put the green box with the interchange number there. —Scott5114↗ 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with the legend, but what's the reasoning behind differentiating between a 4 lane and 2 lane turnpike? I think turnpikes should just be 3x. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the majority of turnpikes are four lane, but in Oklahoma we do have one worthless two lane turnpike. Since they're in the minority, someone might assume that a shown turnpike would be four lane, when in reality it'd turn out to be two lane.

When you say 2-lane, do you mean an undivided highway with one lane in each direction? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Never been on the Chickasaw Turnpike, but judging by the one picture that's available on it via Google Images, yes, he is. The Everglades Turnpike (or whatever that I-95 west of Miami was called) used to be a two-lane (1x1) toll road as well. There's also a 2-lane former turnpike in Kentucky somewhere, also located in a rural, mountainous area. Odds are in terms of actual road construction, each side of road consists of one lane, a right shoulder in each direction, and a concrete 4-foot barrier separating traffic, allowing expansion to a "real" road later on. —Rob (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And people pay to drive on this "road"? ;) Seriously, though, thanks for the clarification. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Should toll Interstate segments be differentiated or is that too much detail? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.132.94.174 (talk • contribs).

They should be differentiated. This is the intention of the "turnpike" class above, which allows for differentiation between free segments and toll segments. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe they mean differentiating between Interstate and non-Interstate turnpikes. —Scott5114↗ 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed as much; there's no need to get that specific on a map for our purposes. A toll road is a toll road and a "free" road is a free road to me, Interstate or not. Also, if there's a section of an Interstate that features both (like a toll bridge), then we'd show the free portion up to the toll barriers, stop the path, make a toll path, then end the path on the other side and continue with the "free" path.

Remember, we want to make these maps as user-friendly as possible, so the more detail that we can present using less road types (the "more with less" theory), the better it will be, not only for the user, but also for the creator of the map. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What should we do for mainline toll barriers? Just a black line perpendicular to the highway, like ODOT does? Leave them out?

And another proof-of-concept, this time urban:

Notice that the Lake Hefner Parkway and Broadway Extension are non-interstate freeways. Opinions? —Scott5114↗ 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, for the toll barriers, I know Rand McNally maps use a perpendicular black line, so I think it's fine if we use one as well. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrating into project tags

I've posted some code on the main pages of both the Maps Task Force and Assessment on how to integrate article talk pages into the Maps Task Force and Assessment projects. See Talk:Illinois Route 40 for a working example. Statistics should be on the Assessment page by tomorrow. —Rob (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California State Route 1 map

Hi! Wouldn't it be fine to have a California State Route 1 map? It would be great if someone find some time to draw that one... --85.178.30.0 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll move this request to the newly-formed request page. Don't worry, once we get the above proposal finalized (which appears to be very close to happening), we'll get right on this map. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing

Hey there all. I just uploaded a test map of a Texas Highway and would like you opinions. LMK. Talk:State Highway 16 (Texas). 25or6to4 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The only issue that I see is the color of the map background, but other than that, it looks pretty good. When comparing the two maps, I personally prefer the inclusion of U.S. Routes. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New subpages

I've added two new subpages to the home (MTF) page: a requests page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests) and a "peer review" page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Review). As always, comments are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

[edit] Historical routes on same map?

One other thing I've forgotten 'til now (doh!); if I want to show the old routing on the same map, to demonstrate the change in alignment over the years (lets say, U.S. Route 66 in Illinois), how can we (or just, can we) integrate that into the scheme? Obviously there will be labels for each of the different segments. Perhaps a dashed line? —Rob (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would probably employ a similar method to what I've done for maps at I-73 and I-390 (NY), basically a lighter shade of red showing an alternate/past/future route. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map review

A map has been posted over at the map peer review page. Comments are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route shields

While including shields for every route might seem like a good idea, I believe there to be a problem with this. If any route is decommissioned, renumbered, added, or otherwise modified, every map that includes that route has to be redrawn. --NE2 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. We'll keep this in mind when we create the proposals for part two of the design process; that is the use of fonts and shields on maps. Part two discussion will probably begin once we wrap up part one (the legend and map design) above in a week or so. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend/map design proposal voting

Since the proposals now seem to be stable for the most part, I'll update the notice on the U.S. Roads news template to say that voting/showing of support has begun. Hopefully, this will attract editors from across the U.S. to this page so that we can truly gain a consensus regarding the selection of a proposal. Does an October 5th (at 11:59 PM UTC) closing time for proposal voting sound reasonable? --TMF ^{T - C} 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of these proposals are too rigid. In many cases, it is beneficial to use different colors for different kinds of numbered routes. Specifically, some states have primary and secondary systems. On the other hand, when making a map simply showing one route, that route should be the focus of the map, with everything else in the background. Also, as above for route shields, any time a road was modified from one type to another (wdening, paving, etc.), any map showing that road would have to be updated. --NE2 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The proposals are rigid for a reason. As I've said before, we are not a mapping company nor should we emulate one. Our maps should be as simple as possible. For states with primary and secondary systems, my interpretation of every proposal is that only primary routes should be in red; the others can be in gray (they are secondary for a reason). As for the last comment, other than if the road is upgraded to a limited access highway, there is no case that I can think of where the road would change types (under the preferred proposal 3). --TMF ^{T - C} 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Our maps should be as simple as possible - in other words, on a map showing the location of a route, use two colors: red for that route and black or gray for everything else. Then we don't have to update it if any of the roads in its area are transferred between primary and secondary systems, decommissioned, newly commissioned, upgraded to freeways, or anything else.

By the way, Tennessee has a system of state highways like most states in that most roads are locally maintained. But some of these are primary and some are secondary; many numbered routes have both primary and secondary sections. It would be very useful to show the difference on a map of the route. State Route 1 (Tennessee) illustrates that well, both in the list and in the maps.

In other states, it might be useful to show locally-maintained parts of the route in a different color.

By the way, in the example given for M-47, I-75 and its spurs look to me like the road being shown, not the thinner red M-47.

With respect to standards changing, this is not a problem if we make SVG maps, as those are relatively easy to modify (in small ways, like changing colors and widths). --NE2 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree regarding different road coloring, but this is obviously an issue we're not going to see eye-to-eye on, and I will accept that. Also, the stated goal of this project is to have all maps in SVG format - with the exception of maps created in ArcGIS, for the reasons stated by Stratosphere at the top of the page. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Is there a flaw in my argument? --NE2 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered those questions. If you feel so strongly about your ideas, you're more than welcome to formulate your own proposal. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: use common sense and make an SVG so the colors can be changed. --NE2 11:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't fly when it comes to standardizing road maps across Wikipedia (that was the purpose of the task force, right?). If we elected to use "common sense", we'd be no better off than we are right now: maps that use no standards, look nothing alike, etc. Plus, what you said doesn't count as a proposal - I mean make one above and see if anyone votes for it. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I specifically don't use SVG (for maps) because of the technical issues I've outlined somewhere above. Plus it's not difficult to change colors on any other image format. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they're anti-aliased, it's hard for others to change the colors. The author could, of course, regenerate the map. —Scott5114↗ 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In 9 cases out of 10, the map colors will never need to be changed (at least, not within a year anyway), so the color-change thing is a moot point to me, personally. It's not as if the maps will change on a monthly basis. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map source...

Does anyone have an up-to-date GIS highways database? I'm specifically looking for a U.S. Routes, since the one I have has US routes that have been decommissioned. Thanks. 25or6to4 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be best to edit the database to remove the decommissioned ones. --NE2 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design standards continued

With the basic design standards in place, it's time to hammer out some of the more trivial issues concerning the maps. Four in particular come to my mind:

• Shields on maps: Locator maps, that is a map showing a single road in relation to other roads, need not have any shields. All other maps where the context is not clear must use shields for all or most roads that are shown. Compare Image:New York State Route 481 map.png (locator map) to Image:Bristol.svg (context not clear). The question is what size should the shields be?
• Map naming convention: For consistency's sake, the Principle 1 naming convention (ex. Image:New York State Route 481 map.png) should be used.
• Historical routes: Stroke width should be the same as the highlighted route, but #ffbebe should be used as the color instead of pure red.
• Category names: I've proposed some names for the map categories (on Commons) on the project page. These can be changed if desired.

All comments regarding the above points are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all 4 of the above points. I have an extra one. What if there is an expected/under construction extension of a highway. Can this be added to the map? 25or6to4 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's useful to the reader, why not? --NE2 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. Like NE2 said above, if it can be of use to the reader, then I'd include it. For the stroke it should be...probably the same as what a completed highway would be, except the line would be dashed instead of solid. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NY 481 map

I looked at New York State Route 481, and it's not obvious to me that the red line, as opposed to one of the blue lines (rivers or Interstates), is the major route. The red really needs to be thicker. --NE2 01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me, and I see no need to make the red line thicker, at least, not on my monitor. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

it's 2px because it's a SR not an Interstate. Red doesn't necessarily mean it's major relative to the other routes displayed, red means it's the route the map/article is about and it's the method thats been used forever, well for the past year anyway. See Image:Interstate10_map_1050.png for the old map highlight style which I replaced with the standard projection for the U.S.[2] as well as less bold colors for the secondary subjects Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 2px because you decided the shown route should be 2px. I'm saying it should be thicker, and, if I make any maps for Virginia, I will use thicker lines. --NE2 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's 2px because it's a state route which is what the proposal recommended, which no one opposed, btw. This is still Wikipedia, so you can do whatever the hell you want, even if it flies in the face of the consensus reached here. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But, if I make it an SVG, will one of you edit it to make the lines thinner? --NE2 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can change it, just as anyone can replace my maps, just as I did someone elses. It's an ongoing cycle and in the end none of it matters. What you create today might be the OMFGWTFPWN!!11!~~ of Virginia Maps, but someone, inevitably, will come along sometime down the line and say, "wtf is this?" and replace it with theirs. Wikipedia is constantly evolving, especially in the roads department that, arguably, has the most insanely obsessed picky damn people ever...but that's the beauty of it. Don't expect me to stick a lo-jack on you and follow you around replacing your maps though :P Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Datasets

I've been playing around with GIS data, and none of the datasets I've found so far have enough detail to include all primary state highways in Virginia. Where might I find such a dataset? --NE2 07:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it. --NE2 03:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Now is there a good water layer? --NE2 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This might have what you need. It does seem to have water body data in both line and polygon form. --Polaron | Talk 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; that worked perfectly: Image:Virginia SR 296 298.svg --NE2 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG route shields...

Is there any way to import the SVG shields into ArcGIS? The closest I can get currently is saving the svg's as png's, but then when I resize them, they look all blocky. BTW, should I be asking these questions here, or is there a better place for technical questions? Thanks for bearing with me. 25or6to4 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be best off taking the SVG generated by ArcGIS and adding the shields in an SVG editor. --NE2 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elevation profiles

I would assume this fits under the scope of this project. For mountainous roads, it might be useful in include an elevation profile. Are there any thoughts on the best way to create one? The only method I can think of is to use USGS topos to find elevations and DOT information to find distances; I tried that and it went pretty slowly. --NE2 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically one could use DEMs to generate an altitude profile along a particular path. I haven't explored this, but I'd suspect it would be possible to accomplish. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When maps make an article too big

Should I dismiss any advice against adding a map to an infobox if I get some warning saying the article is too big? I almost swiped somebody else's map for Interstate 95 in Florida, and put it in the infobox there. DanTD 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a message that says "This article is 30 kilobytes long" or similar upon editing a page? If so, don't worry about it - that message has no impact on an editor's ability to add content in the article. The only purpose the message serves is to warn dial-up users that the article may take a while to load. My advice: put the map in the infobox, regardless of what the article size will be. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. But I'd like to be able to make the map small enough to prevent dial-up users from having trouble with it, but still big enough to see. DanTD 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The article is 30 KB, not the map. The size of the map is not included in the size of the article, minus the markup that's used to actually show the map. In short, whether or not the map is 20px or 2000px, the article size will still be 30 KB, so there's no benefit to resizing the map. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright/fair use question

Sorry if this has been covered someplace, but what is the rule about using sections of official DOT maps? MN/DOT has a highway map for each county available online. Would using a section of such a map to illustrate a shorter route be permissible? --Sable232 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No; those are copyrighted to the state. --NE2 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some states release everything to the public domain; check Mn/DOT's website for details or write to them. —Scott5114↗ 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)