Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 4

message: The Map sources now has an entry Find nearby locations on GeoURL, which will present a list of Internet pages with geographic information (based on HTML meta tags). (The new Geo extension will ensure that the Wikipedia articles containing coordinates will get a geo.position meta tag that should make it possible for Wikipedia articles to appear on this list also.)
The type and region attributes are now implemented. The type will set an appropriate default scale (plus of course the advantages for future use. The region is a mechanism that enables selection of targetted map resources (e.g. region:US). -- Egil 18:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest status

message: Many objects are not represented very well by points. Jan_Mayen may - because it is a lonely island - be identified by , but might be better defined by a Dublin Core Box from 7.9253 - 9.1711 W and 70.7914 - 71.1802 N. (But I have to admit that the bounding box of Norway - including Svalbard, Jan_Mayen and Bouvet_Island - would be rather useless.)
:Agreed, but one has to start somewhere, right? This has to be an extension for further study. Would a square box do, or is a generic polygon required? (A square box certainly makes things very much easier wrt representation in the database). Anyway, going to polygons is soon bordering into general maps, for which there is a project already. -- Egil 17:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to the Dublin core box, it that a format that is suitable as inclusion as ordinary HTTP meta data? -- Egil 17:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area vs point 

message: Hi. I signed up when I found this project because it looks like good ideas. I propose to try to find and add coordinates for towns and other items in Australia, particularly South Australia. It looks like I should lay them out as  or . Is this a good thing to do yet? Is there anything else I should put in these template calls (eg scale, type)? What should the last parameter be for suburbs of a city? What about for landmarks within the city centre?
--ScottDavis 04:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very nice if you could include the type attribute. It should give you a reasonable default scale, so you don't have to worry about that. But the real benefit should be when the Wikimaps gets to happen. Landmarks anywhere should just have exact coordinates and type:landmark, we'll leave it to the map engine to manage. Cities should really have the population specified. Suburbs is a very good question, I believe we don't have a type for that. I'll try to look at what others are doing (GIS etc). -- Egil 11:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The term city was used simply because it was used in some US GIS resource. It is certainly meant to mean anything that should be marked on a map, from village to metropolis. By adding the population in parenthesis, the future map engine should be able to handle it according to size. If you think it is important, we can always have city and town as synonym attributes. -- Egil 10:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time yet? 

message: My deep respect to the man, who generated it! Maybe somewhen in the future something similar applied to the sky (for objects with relatively constant location, like stars, there) will appear here, although I doubt, if at the present we can find for this such a good "locator" as e.g. MapQuest. Cmapm 23:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good idea!