Template talk:Infobox tunnel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Midpoint co-ordinates?
I'm not convinced that giving the co-ordinates of a tunnel's mid-point is ideal. It is not easy to objectively source this information and it's not that useful. By comparison, citing the co-ordinates of the two endpoints is more verifiable and useful in my opinion. --VinceBowdren 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's the best way to label the article with a single set of coordinates; in fact that's aleady done on the tunnel articles I've seen. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there any compelling need for a single set of co-ordinates though? --VinceBowdren 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, if we want the article to appear in the Google Earth layer for Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett 10:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If the google earth's wikipedia layer is not up to the job of reading two co-ordinates in a single article, I think that's google earth's problem. Including verifiable and useful information for wikipedia's primary audience (human readers using web browsers) trumps google earth. --VinceBowdren 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- While you may, in general, have a point, how is any system supposed to know which of two (or more) coordinates in an article relate to the whole article, and not just a point mentioned in it? Perhaps the answer is to make sure that the article-specific coordinates, in this case a tunnel mid-point, are the first to occur. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Giving a single set of co-ordinates for a tunnel is misleading because the tunnel is not a point feature, it is a line feature. If a single set of co-ordinates for a tunnel article would be misleading in general wikipedia terms, it would be equally misleading to google earth. To take an extreme example, giving a single co-ordinate for the Mars article would of course be meaningless, so we shouldn't include one; and it is obvious in this case that google earth's requirements don't matter when the article's subject makes the use of a single co-ordinate inappropriate. --VinceBowdren 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm having difficulty using the midpoint as the tunnel's location in Vista Ridge Tunnels. The midpoint would not lie over the tunnel at all, but due to the tunnel's curvature, be some distance south of its path. Furthermore, even if the point were chosen midway along its length, zooming in a satellite photo at this point would show residential streets and houses—most confusingly I would think. It would take some map panning to discover the tunnel entrances. Someone familiar with the topography would naturally look left and right, but what would others do? I do believe the most useful handling is the start and end like {{infobox rail tunnel}} has. See that used nicely in Robertson Tunnel, where the "tunnel location" is given at the only station in the tunnel.
- Also, the various parameters seem fairly specific to rail tunnels. Is this template intended for them too? —EncMstr 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing fields
I'm glad this template sprung into existence, as I've been waiting for one for Winston Tunnel. It could use a couple more fields based on that article:
- Vertical clearance
- Grade
As I've not been involved with the coding of the template, I'd like to leave it to active editors of the template to debate the usefulness and inclusion of this info. —Rob (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More documentation needed, what do the following parameters mean?
I have kicked off some documentation of the parameters, but I am confused about some of the,. What do the following mean:, linelength versus track length, character, and system? Cheers, --Commander Keane (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Height parameter
I am also a little confused about the height parameter. Perhaps it could be swapped to dimensions, or clearance.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
