Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mapa de Colombia (relieve).svg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Mapa de Colombia (relieve).svg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 05:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  1. The different strokes for the different kinds of border are missing from the legend (they are explained in File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg: strong solid = international border, dot-dash = disputed border, dashed = claimed ...). Either add them to the legend or simplify to a single style.
  2. The file description page of File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg is much clearer when it comes to listing the sources. Information about where the elevation and bathymetry data comes from appears to be missing?
  3. Which map projection/CRS was used here? Please at least mention this in the file description, ideally with an EPSG code or some other kind of unambiguious identifier.
  4. There are some avoidable collisions of labels (for example, LLANURA DEL PACÍFICO collides with Cerro Calima and many other peaks of the CORDILLERA OCCIDENTAL). With careful manual placement, most of these collisions should be resolvable. Yes, that's tedious work, but imho this kind of attention to detail is needed for a map that is considered "outstandingly good".
  5. The label Páramo de Sonsón @ 6°N, 75.5°W appears to be partially covered by the 3000-4000m terrain layer.
Otherwise I'd say this is really close to what I'd expect to see in a printed atlas! --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   needs some work per El Grafo and here are my additional pain points:
  1. The use of blurred shadows below the text is IMHO ugly and makes it harder to read especially in smaller font sizes. Text shadows belong on birthday cards only. edit: seems to be an artifact of Firefox rendering
  2. Often the text is colored in such a way to blend in with the background too much, e.g. blue text on water and brown text on high elevations colored in brown
  3. I don't know the unit msnm, I would only use SI unit meter here and put the rest as plain text.
  4. Most of the text is serif which is IMHO not really needed here (helping the eye to stay on the line) and sans serif fits better for graphics.
  5. In general there are too many different fonts used where one would be enough and make distinctions with bolding and italics and size of course.
  6. Typographic nitpick: the author information on the bottom right uses straigh ASCII quote marks ("...") instead of real quotes (“...”) or similar depending on the local conventions.
  7. The legend on the lower left covers up a lot of text along the shore.
  8. On many places text is placed over rivers and lakes that make it hard to read the text because of the many interfering lines.
  9. Some lines around the Mar Caribe area end in nothingness and one dash-dotted line goes off alignment with the shape it belongs to. – Lucas 14:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with most of Lucas' points, but regarding the first 3 points:
  1. I don't see any shadows around text, neither when I view the original SVG as rendered by Firefox nor in the png previews rendered by mediawiki.
  2. I'll have to disagree with that one. That's pretty much exactly how it is done nall the time for this kind of map in professional map making.
  3. msnm is the Spanish abbreviation for mean sea level - given that the rest of the legend is in Spanish as well I think that's OK
4. & 5. are to some degree a matter of taste and style. I'm not a cartographer myself, but I've seen plenty of printed maps that purposefully mix serif and sans serif fonts to make certain groups of labels easier to distinguish.
New point: RÍO META is labeled twice at ca. 6°N, 69°W. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mapa_de_Colombia_(relieve).svg&oldid=353131935"