Geographical coordinates | ||||
|
First of all, good idea, long overdue (we had this a year or two ago on de.wp, but it was inconclusive). Maybe we can draft a few guidelines.
IMO several coordinates per feature are fine, as long as one is designated as the article coordinate.
feature | main coordinate | further recommended coordinates |
---|---|---|
river | estuary/mouth | source, major confluences |
tunnel | center | both portals |
etc. -- Dschwen 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Valleys seem to be missing here. -- Berland ( talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am interested that a newbie editor is not deterred from posting an article by the complexity of the process. So I see the instruction - the lowest end- to be good and -the geographical centre determined by taking the geometrical mean -to be with the fairies. If there is an esoteric definition accepted by notable bodies- bung it in the text with comment and references and tag something we can see on Google Maps.
OK- just a few thoughts. But we do need a list of simple recommendations that we can publish. ClemRutter ( talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I tend to think in every case we should be making a recommendation as to the main coordinate - the one we would wish to see elevated to the title line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon ( talk • contribs)
I've added valley with opening suggestions. I shied away from tagging wharfedale, iirc, as I was in want of this advice. I note that valleys are not strictly linear, but then neither are rivers, though perhaps they deviate to a lessor extent. I note that valleys have linear features as options, such as rivers & watersheds; not sure how useful that observation is, but I have listed these as additional options. Happy to see valleys reverted, or amended, as you like. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, one alternative to having a "main" set of coordinates for very long features (such as roads or rivers), where a single set of coordinates is not appropriate, is to have {{ GeoGroupTemplate}}'s "map of all coordinates" link in the "title" position, usually occupied by an article's single set of coordinates. I've requested an experimental template edit at Template talk:GeoGroupTemplate#Title display, which would facilitate this. If that generates consensus, I'll speak to my contacts at Google to advise them that they can map such articles in Google Maps and Google Earth. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
When does a list of coordinates for a feature cross over to WP:NOT? Coordinates may well be used as source data for making maps on Wikipedia, but how far is the textual presentation of information that detailed still encyclopedic? Will Wikipedia eventually have geographical information as detailed as on WikiMapia for example? I agree that it's cool being part of a free high profile project where information of our surroundings is recorded, but is it really notable in an encyclopedia article where the air vents of a tunnel are located? Is the point of such detail really to tell readers where the air vents are, or is it to outline the feature for external use? If the source data isn't notable itself and isn't intended for viewing, why show it? Where is the line, or is it not linear? -- Para ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned above that reusers of Wikipedia coordinate data should be informed of these possibly new linear features. What makes a feature linear for a machine reading the wikitext, and how are reusers expected to handle these features differently from other inline coordinates? Inline coordinates are in some applications already plotted on the map, but they may not always be wanted, as was noticed with a politically incorrect historical name recently. A connect-the-dots on a map for the points of interest perhaps, but is there enough detail for that, and how does the machine group together the points of a single feature from an article with coordinates possibly scattered all around the article? Many articles have coordinates in a table or a single section, but they're not always coordinates for the same feature, but just coordinates related to the topic of the article. What new features would these efforts amount to when Wikipedia data is viewed elsewhere? A different kind of icon or colour for the group, or perhaps a note that this point belongs to a group of coordinates thus indicated? -- Para ( talk) 12:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
How about visibility as being a preferred characteristic for coordinates? The midpoint of a tunnel would be less preferred than an entrance, although either is better than no coordinate. If deciding between two points, the most southerly and then most easterly would be considered more visible (due to northern hemisphere aerial photography custom). Multiple coordinates are still encouraged, but visible ones preferred — while being aware that some markers of invisible things can help make hidden things more visible. For caves, the largest or most public entrance would be preferred over location of internal formations or mathematical centers. Locations which are legally or traditionally kept secret are not preferred, such as an archeological site (while a public museum or interpretive center for the site would be preferred). -- SEWilco ( talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Good, more work is being done on the page. Does mid-point have the same meaning as midpoint, if not which one do we actually mean. What is a route? Isn´t Route 66 a road, or do we mean something like the Camina de Santiage de Compostella? Why the southwest and not the southeast? - ClemRutter ( talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The recommendation to give a tunnel's midpoint as its primary point is sometimes problematical, and often requires original research. For example, Vista Ridge Tunnels and long auto tunnels in Europe such as Mont Blanc Tunnel. In all cases, the tunnels curve substantially and there's no real way to know where the midpoint of the tunnel is. Even choosing any intermediate point on the tunnel involves guesswork. However, the ends of the tunnel are frequently visible directly by satellite, thus verifiable.
This Vista Ridge Tunnels satimage shows two entrances and two exits which are offset from each other. About half the tunnel curves. But is the west half of the tunnel circular, or is it elliptical? (Google map data shows one guess, or maybe it's from surveys and not a guess?)
Zooming in on—or visiting—a ten km tunnel's midpoint doesn't help actually find it, at least for 2-D thinking creatures. However, either endpoint is eminently useful in the same situation. — EncMstr ( talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If I have a route that runs from 52N 1E to 51N 2E which is the SW end? Surely it is better to choose the S end or the W end? So can I float this idea, if south west is good for routes, why can it not be applied to Tunnels? As in previous discussions, I generally prefer portals to mid points for irregular long items - but have difficulty in seeing how a defendable definition can be achieved. - ClemRutter ( talk) 10:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map. The project is not ready but it can be good to have this solution in mind. -- Kolossos ( talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am just posting this message to revive interest in the project. To stimulate discussion here is an outrageous proposal to debate.
Delete all and replace with: All linear objects should be tagged with the geolocation of their most notable point, often this will be a portal but often it will be it's mid-point.
This would mean that the Ashton Canal would be geotagged at Asda in Ashton-under-Lyne, the Macclesfield Canal in Macclesfield but the Bridgewater Canal at the Barton Aquaduct, and the Manchester Ship Canal at its portal on the Mersey. The Edale Valley would be tagged at the railway station. Most valleys and rivers it would be at the mouth. Bridges -it would be at the point it crossed the midpoint of the valley's river. The Transpennine trail would be tagged where it crossed the watershed, at a mid-point but not the midpoint. The Sett Valley Trail would be at its lowest point in New Mills, which is the mouth of the River Sett- and consistency.
In most cases, the geotag would be placed by an editor who cared about the subject and his/her judgement as to notability is likely to be accurate.
Fixing a policy that delegates the responsibilty of choosing the appropriate point to a Wikiproject or individual removes the pressure from this team- removes the stress, and seems to be in line with the spirit of WP.
-- ClemRutter ( talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) -- ClemRutter ( talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, several articles about electric power transmission systems such as powerlines and cables have been overloaded with geographical coordinates. While geographical coordinates are useful for that kind of articles, there are some drastic examples, such as HVDC Italy–Greece where more than half of the article is just coordinates. Some other articles look very similar. It seems that there is no clear guidance for that kind of situation; therefore, I found like to start this discussion to have some consensus how to have all these coordinates in place and at the same time ensure readability of these articles. Beagel ( talk) 17:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
#Sites
is ok, but #Waypoints of overhead line in Greece
may be being overly detailed. But then again, such "waypoints" are quite cool and also quite encyclopedic. So I don't have a definitive answer. What I would do is simply select the clearest/most prominent part of the powerline/pipeline on the map, and add coords to that... Perhaps WP:COORDS could create a new guideline for such scenarios (or maybe it already has)? Hope this helps. Kind regards.
Reh
man 00:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC){{
Collapse top}}
and {{
Collapse bottom}}
around the wikitable. Or, as someone has already done in HVDC IT-GR, use {{
Collapse|1=<list of coordinates>}}
. —
EncMstr (
talk) 19:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)FYI, A discussion about a style guideline used by several Roads projects has evolved into the perpetual debate on how to geo-tag road articles, discussion at: [1] Dave ( talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone has tagged Manhattan Waterfront Greenway for needing coordinates. Is there a standard for geolocating such Ring roads? Jim.henderson ( talk) 04:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My ref is a railway line, I don't think you can drop a pin on it. But, any rail line would have a line map showing the towns it goes through and each of those towns has coords so why do it again? If someone needs to know where it is they aren't gonna look at an arbitrary pin, if they have the need, they'd have the nous to go look for the data.
Having ranted that! wouldn't any large item benefit from a wiki map link with a line or box showing neatly. This ref is to parish boundaries. A dropped pin tells you nothing about what it is inside of but a suburb style google map shows to scale what you're after. --
Dave Rave (
talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
Attached KML|disp=inline,title}}
along with the appropriate KML file of the route of the roadway. That template calls the KML and adds links to view it on Google or Bing maps. (The other online mapping sites don't yet support KMLs.) The globe icon at the upper right of the article alsp pops up WikiMiniAtlas with the line showing the route from the KML. For an example, look at
U.S. Route 31 in Michigan or
Capitol Loop. (The latter article has the east and westbound directions shown individually.) It's just one option.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The current recommendation is to set the main coordinates for rivers to the mouth of the river. In many cases, however, two rivers will merge into a larger river. In those cases, both of the rivers will have roughly the same coordinates, which can be confusing. Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Severn Tunnel no longer works as this page claims as of Special:Diff/1101541494 in 2022. Uncle G ( talk) 04:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Geographical coordinates | ||||
|
First of all, good idea, long overdue (we had this a year or two ago on de.wp, but it was inconclusive). Maybe we can draft a few guidelines.
IMO several coordinates per feature are fine, as long as one is designated as the article coordinate.
feature | main coordinate | further recommended coordinates |
---|---|---|
river | estuary/mouth | source, major confluences |
tunnel | center | both portals |
etc. -- Dschwen 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Valleys seem to be missing here. -- Berland ( talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am interested that a newbie editor is not deterred from posting an article by the complexity of the process. So I see the instruction - the lowest end- to be good and -the geographical centre determined by taking the geometrical mean -to be with the fairies. If there is an esoteric definition accepted by notable bodies- bung it in the text with comment and references and tag something we can see on Google Maps.
OK- just a few thoughts. But we do need a list of simple recommendations that we can publish. ClemRutter ( talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I tend to think in every case we should be making a recommendation as to the main coordinate - the one we would wish to see elevated to the title line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon ( talk • contribs)
I've added valley with opening suggestions. I shied away from tagging wharfedale, iirc, as I was in want of this advice. I note that valleys are not strictly linear, but then neither are rivers, though perhaps they deviate to a lessor extent. I note that valleys have linear features as options, such as rivers & watersheds; not sure how useful that observation is, but I have listed these as additional options. Happy to see valleys reverted, or amended, as you like. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, one alternative to having a "main" set of coordinates for very long features (such as roads or rivers), where a single set of coordinates is not appropriate, is to have {{ GeoGroupTemplate}}'s "map of all coordinates" link in the "title" position, usually occupied by an article's single set of coordinates. I've requested an experimental template edit at Template talk:GeoGroupTemplate#Title display, which would facilitate this. If that generates consensus, I'll speak to my contacts at Google to advise them that they can map such articles in Google Maps and Google Earth. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
When does a list of coordinates for a feature cross over to WP:NOT? Coordinates may well be used as source data for making maps on Wikipedia, but how far is the textual presentation of information that detailed still encyclopedic? Will Wikipedia eventually have geographical information as detailed as on WikiMapia for example? I agree that it's cool being part of a free high profile project where information of our surroundings is recorded, but is it really notable in an encyclopedia article where the air vents of a tunnel are located? Is the point of such detail really to tell readers where the air vents are, or is it to outline the feature for external use? If the source data isn't notable itself and isn't intended for viewing, why show it? Where is the line, or is it not linear? -- Para ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned above that reusers of Wikipedia coordinate data should be informed of these possibly new linear features. What makes a feature linear for a machine reading the wikitext, and how are reusers expected to handle these features differently from other inline coordinates? Inline coordinates are in some applications already plotted on the map, but they may not always be wanted, as was noticed with a politically incorrect historical name recently. A connect-the-dots on a map for the points of interest perhaps, but is there enough detail for that, and how does the machine group together the points of a single feature from an article with coordinates possibly scattered all around the article? Many articles have coordinates in a table or a single section, but they're not always coordinates for the same feature, but just coordinates related to the topic of the article. What new features would these efforts amount to when Wikipedia data is viewed elsewhere? A different kind of icon or colour for the group, or perhaps a note that this point belongs to a group of coordinates thus indicated? -- Para ( talk) 12:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
How about visibility as being a preferred characteristic for coordinates? The midpoint of a tunnel would be less preferred than an entrance, although either is better than no coordinate. If deciding between two points, the most southerly and then most easterly would be considered more visible (due to northern hemisphere aerial photography custom). Multiple coordinates are still encouraged, but visible ones preferred — while being aware that some markers of invisible things can help make hidden things more visible. For caves, the largest or most public entrance would be preferred over location of internal formations or mathematical centers. Locations which are legally or traditionally kept secret are not preferred, such as an archeological site (while a public museum or interpretive center for the site would be preferred). -- SEWilco ( talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Good, more work is being done on the page. Does mid-point have the same meaning as midpoint, if not which one do we actually mean. What is a route? Isn´t Route 66 a road, or do we mean something like the Camina de Santiage de Compostella? Why the southwest and not the southeast? - ClemRutter ( talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The recommendation to give a tunnel's midpoint as its primary point is sometimes problematical, and often requires original research. For example, Vista Ridge Tunnels and long auto tunnels in Europe such as Mont Blanc Tunnel. In all cases, the tunnels curve substantially and there's no real way to know where the midpoint of the tunnel is. Even choosing any intermediate point on the tunnel involves guesswork. However, the ends of the tunnel are frequently visible directly by satellite, thus verifiable.
This Vista Ridge Tunnels satimage shows two entrances and two exits which are offset from each other. About half the tunnel curves. But is the west half of the tunnel circular, or is it elliptical? (Google map data shows one guess, or maybe it's from surveys and not a guess?)
Zooming in on—or visiting—a ten km tunnel's midpoint doesn't help actually find it, at least for 2-D thinking creatures. However, either endpoint is eminently useful in the same situation. — EncMstr ( talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If I have a route that runs from 52N 1E to 51N 2E which is the SW end? Surely it is better to choose the S end or the W end? So can I float this idea, if south west is good for routes, why can it not be applied to Tunnels? As in previous discussions, I generally prefer portals to mid points for irregular long items - but have difficulty in seeing how a defendable definition can be achieved. - ClemRutter ( talk) 10:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map. The project is not ready but it can be good to have this solution in mind. -- Kolossos ( talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am just posting this message to revive interest in the project. To stimulate discussion here is an outrageous proposal to debate.
Delete all and replace with: All linear objects should be tagged with the geolocation of their most notable point, often this will be a portal but often it will be it's mid-point.
This would mean that the Ashton Canal would be geotagged at Asda in Ashton-under-Lyne, the Macclesfield Canal in Macclesfield but the Bridgewater Canal at the Barton Aquaduct, and the Manchester Ship Canal at its portal on the Mersey. The Edale Valley would be tagged at the railway station. Most valleys and rivers it would be at the mouth. Bridges -it would be at the point it crossed the midpoint of the valley's river. The Transpennine trail would be tagged where it crossed the watershed, at a mid-point but not the midpoint. The Sett Valley Trail would be at its lowest point in New Mills, which is the mouth of the River Sett- and consistency.
In most cases, the geotag would be placed by an editor who cared about the subject and his/her judgement as to notability is likely to be accurate.
Fixing a policy that delegates the responsibilty of choosing the appropriate point to a Wikiproject or individual removes the pressure from this team- removes the stress, and seems to be in line with the spirit of WP.
-- ClemRutter ( talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) -- ClemRutter ( talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, several articles about electric power transmission systems such as powerlines and cables have been overloaded with geographical coordinates. While geographical coordinates are useful for that kind of articles, there are some drastic examples, such as HVDC Italy–Greece where more than half of the article is just coordinates. Some other articles look very similar. It seems that there is no clear guidance for that kind of situation; therefore, I found like to start this discussion to have some consensus how to have all these coordinates in place and at the same time ensure readability of these articles. Beagel ( talk) 17:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
#Sites
is ok, but #Waypoints of overhead line in Greece
may be being overly detailed. But then again, such "waypoints" are quite cool and also quite encyclopedic. So I don't have a definitive answer. What I would do is simply select the clearest/most prominent part of the powerline/pipeline on the map, and add coords to that... Perhaps WP:COORDS could create a new guideline for such scenarios (or maybe it already has)? Hope this helps. Kind regards.
Reh
man 00:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC){{
Collapse top}}
and {{
Collapse bottom}}
around the wikitable. Or, as someone has already done in HVDC IT-GR, use {{
Collapse|1=<list of coordinates>}}
. —
EncMstr (
talk) 19:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)FYI, A discussion about a style guideline used by several Roads projects has evolved into the perpetual debate on how to geo-tag road articles, discussion at: [1] Dave ( talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone has tagged Manhattan Waterfront Greenway for needing coordinates. Is there a standard for geolocating such Ring roads? Jim.henderson ( talk) 04:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My ref is a railway line, I don't think you can drop a pin on it. But, any rail line would have a line map showing the towns it goes through and each of those towns has coords so why do it again? If someone needs to know where it is they aren't gonna look at an arbitrary pin, if they have the need, they'd have the nous to go look for the data.
Having ranted that! wouldn't any large item benefit from a wiki map link with a line or box showing neatly. This ref is to parish boundaries. A dropped pin tells you nothing about what it is inside of but a suburb style google map shows to scale what you're after. --
Dave Rave (
talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
Attached KML|disp=inline,title}}
along with the appropriate KML file of the route of the roadway. That template calls the KML and adds links to view it on Google or Bing maps. (The other online mapping sites don't yet support KMLs.) The globe icon at the upper right of the article alsp pops up WikiMiniAtlas with the line showing the route from the KML. For an example, look at
U.S. Route 31 in Michigan or
Capitol Loop. (The latter article has the east and westbound directions shown individually.) It's just one option.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The current recommendation is to set the main coordinates for rivers to the mouth of the river. In many cases, however, two rivers will merge into a larger river. In those cases, both of the rivers will have roughly the same coordinates, which can be confusing. Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Severn Tunnel no longer works as this page claims as of Special:Diff/1101541494 in 2022. Uncle G ( talk) 04:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)