Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:VerkehrsnetzMuenchen2006.png

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:VerkehrsnetzMuenchen2006.png - featured

edit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chumwa 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Excellent. Alvesgaspar 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I don't see anything excellent in it. Thats a plain map and not even in SVG. --SvonHalenbach 13:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment It is excellent for the purpose it was designed for, to depict the transport system in Munich. It is clear, informative and nice to look at. As for the svg, I believe it has become almost a religion here. My opinion is that the format is not the best choice for cartography, since every map is designed with a specific scale and to alter that scale for producing a different map is not always a trivial task Alvesgaspar 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    •   CommentYes, sadly, SVG has become a matter of faith rather than reason. SVG is good, but it is not always better. In particular, SVG files cannot be read by most browsers (they crash mine, for example), the files tend to be very large, and the SVG converter here in Wikipedia is buggy. It's sad, really, that so many good diagrams are rejected not for content but for format. Madman2001 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Needs to be SVG. Also, there is something wrong with the font anti-aliasing, it looks awful at full resolution. --startaq 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Content and design: Just great, I was just in Munich two weeks ago as a tourist, and that's the kind of map I would have liked to have (I got only two separate maps for tram and subway system). Therefore, support... BUT: could you please additionally upload it in vector format (SVG)? There's not more work for you, but vector format is just much better for this kind of content (for example, also good for hi-res printer) Noebu 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support A lot better than many a commercially produced map. - Vmenkov 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Change my vote to   Support when it is SVG --Digon3 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Tbc 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Great map, but should be svg (printing, easy editing, translating, ...) and svg-images do have a specific scale, the difference is the possibility to resize them without loss and the possibility to edit them easily. -- Gorgo 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support as to quality of picture, and particularly ditto to Alvesgaspar's comment against the ridiculous svg-worship at this place. But   Comment - what is the true copyright status of the pic? Surely those transport logos (DB, MVV, etc) will be copyrighted by the relevant transport companies? - MPF 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose -- Not SVG. ♦ Pabix ℹ 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I really think svg is becoming a cult in Wikipedia. Because I love maps and have been dedicating a considerable time of my life studying, thinking and writing about them, please let me explain why I think the use of svg format in Cartography should be most careful:
  1. A map is conceived and designed with a specific scale, whose choice is determined by the purpose of the representation and conditioned by the availability of accurate data. Traditionally, the positional accuracy of a map is linked to visual resolution. If we take a typical value of 0,2 mm (which is the thickness of a thin line), the corresponding distance on the surface of the Earth depends obviously on the scale of the map: 2m for a scale of 1:10 000, 20m for a scale of 1:100 000, 200m for a scale of 1:1 000 000, etc. The general rule is that the maximum positional error of any object on a map should be, at most, equal to that reference value. This obviously means that for larger scale maps we need more accurate geographic positions. And when we enlarge a map which was designed for a certain scale, say to twice its normal size, we are transmitting a wrong idea about the accuracy of its information.
  2. Another problem is that when we alter the scale of a representation by a factor of “s” we are also altering the available area of that representation by a factor of “s x s”. If we enlarge it, we may end up with too much empty space and/or symbols too large; if we reduce it, the cartographic image may become too small to be readable or, alternatively, cluttered with too much information. The task of adapting the available geographical data to a certain scale (and to a certain purpose) is not a trivial task and it is known as cartographic generalization.
  3. To defend that all maps in Wikipedia should be scalable just because this kind of format is better for editing and printing is to condition a fundamental issue (the cartographic quality) to a secondary one. It is not enough that a svg image has some “nominal” scale, because nothing forces the user to print the map in that scale. In my opinion, scale bars are not enough: the principal scale of all maps designed to be printed should be part of the written cartographic information.
This is, of course, "preaching in the desert". If I'm lucky maybe the next reviewer will think better before just repeating "oppose, should be svg". Alvesgaspar 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - In the presente case using a scalable repreentation wouldn't be a serious mistake, provided the lettering and symbols were readable. The reason is in this type of map (a cartogram) the property to be conserved is the topoloy of the objects, not their absolute (geographic) or relative positions. Alvesgaspar 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose should be SVG. And your last scentence comes across pretty arrogantly Alves. --Dschwen 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Although I'm very much an SVG supporter, I can see reason in Alvesgaspar's arguments: maps may prove an exception to the rule (there may be others with decent arguments). I also firmly believe that SVG is not a fad, worship or fashion but a real technical advance in representation and scalability. Lycaon 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 15 support, 3 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:VerkehrsnetzMuenchen2006.png&oldid=604337363"