Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Archive 1

message: Someday I'd love to do that. But right now it's not possible due to the NC hysteria, the infobox backup, the browse mess, etc. Also we'd have to take it one state at a time. But at one point I'd like to do that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The altering of WikiProject templates 

message: Here is an example of a page tag being used widely:
It seems there are various methods of assessment being attached to these tags at the moment for some WikiProjects; from my limited amount of browsing, the most comprehensive of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, but they also reference WP:1.0, so many more are possible. For examples, see Talk:Winston Tunnel and Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway.
There is an opportunity for bloat there, but the two uses that are a Very Good Idea and should be implemented are:
* Assessment - determining the state of an article and its room for improvement
* Map classification - using the template to identify which articles are in need for maps.
Here's where it gets interesting; while WikiProject Trains has precisely one level of complexity, U.S. Roads has about three; U.S. Roads, Interstates and U.S. Highways, and 50+ state projects. Theoretically, then, there will be 54 different tags to edit, versus WikiProject Trains' 1.
In other words, when these templates are edited, and the people that need to be notified are notified, we need to keep in mind that we don't want :Category:FA-Class Illinois Routes WikiProject Articles; we want :Category:FA-Class road transport articles. It's easy to fall into the trap of the former. Even :Category:FA-Class U.S. roads articles should be avoided.
Anyways, this is all sort of related to the maps task force, but if we're going to be modifying many templates, we'll want to keep this in mind. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion on assessment-related issues will be located on the subproject site at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment. I would hate to dilute the discussion when the Maps Task Force has just started. :-) —Rob (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of page tags 

message: I've posted some code on the main pages of both the Maps Task Force and Assessment on how to integrate article talk pages into the Maps Task Force and Assessment projects. See Talk:Illinois Route 40 for a working example. Statistics should be on the Assessment page by tomorrow. —Rob (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrating into project tags 

message: Hi! Wouldn't it be fine to have a California State Route 1 map? It would be great if someone find some time to draw that one... --85.178.30.0 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move this request to the newly-formed request page. Don't worry, once we get the above proposal finalized (which appears to be very close to happening), we'll get right on this map. --TMF T - C 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  California State Route 1 map 

message: Hey there all.  I just uploaded a test map of a Texas Highway and would like you opinions.  LMK.  Talk:State Highway 16 (Texas).  25or6to4 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. The only issue that I see is the color of the map background, but other than that, it looks pretty good. When comparing the two maps, I personally prefer the inclusion of U.S. Routes. --TMF T - C 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: I've added two new subpages to the home (MTF) page: a requests page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests) and a "peer review" page (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Review). As always, comments are welcome. --TMF T - C 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subpages 

message: ====Discussion for Proposal 1====
We all seem to generally agree on this. Anyone want to send up objections, or shall we approve it as official? —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real minor thing: should we establish a standard background color for the maps as well? --TMF T - C 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I approve. All that's left is to define a background color, note that combinbed Interstates and tollways (Interstate 355 comes to mind) are 5x green lines, and consider using a thicker black line for the mainline barrier. And give examples of software that can be used to generate these things, free and non-free. —Rob (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the background color, I think we should use the one on the NY 153 map; not because I made the map, but because this is the background color used by Stratosphere's Interstate, U.S. Route and state road maps. Also, I support the clairifications expressed by Rob above. --TMF T - C 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thought: a standard map size to fit in Infobox road, which would be a 580x344 (px) ratio. --TMF T - C 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the color scheme, do we have definitions of those colors, or is "close" good enough?  I would like to use the background color used on Stratosphere's maps as well, but I have not been able to reproduce it in ArcGIS yet. 25or6to4 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Background RGB is (247, 247, 237) -- Stratosphere (U T) 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support everything above. However, there is one major (to me) item missing from this proposal: a standardization of map sizes. As stated before, maps designed to be placed in the infobox should be made in a 580x344 pixel ratio (as it will ultimately be displayed as a 290x172 pixel image). All other maps should be designed to match the shape of the subject road. --TMF T - C 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we don't want maps of California roads taking up 580 pixels in height in the infobox just because it's shaped that way. -- Stratosphere (U T) 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, with all of this straightened out, I'll now support this proposal. --TMF T - C 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I say keep them as is, personally. IMHO, there's no need to distinguish between an Interstate and an "Other Freeway", provided they are distinguished appropriately on the map (via Interstate shields, expy. name, etc.) . --TMF T - C 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I tried to hedge off the complications when this started.  I also think it is too many types of roads, and it's especially difficult for those who use GIS software and have data that doesn't differentiate between turnpikes, interstates and divided highways.  I think we need to draft a proposal, seperate from this, and invite everyone from the U.S. Road, U.S. Interstate, and individual State Road WikiProjects to discuss the proposal since this does have the potential to affect the appearance of thousands (?) of articles.  I agree with LtPowers that this does affect a far greater number than just those of us who are part of the task force. -- Stratosphere (U T) 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I don't know how we can form a standard without drawing up a proposal in conjunction with this project. I've proposed a new one below. --TMF T - C 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I have posted a link to this very discussion on the Project U.S. Roads news template, so everyone has been invited technically. But if you want to notify every WP (a la notices to states regarding WP:SRNC), that's fine too. --TMF T - C 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is basically what I meant.  We'd basically discussed and settled on something that was developed out of discussion...I just didn't think it was a very rigid process.  What we've started below (the proposals) is more like what I was shooting for.  I think, since you've notified the roads WP, that if we give this until the end of the month for discussion we'll have arrived at a more solid consensus than what we had before by involving the other WPs.  -- Stratosphere (U T) 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the right proposal is created, there would be no need to make locator maps an exemption, IMHO. --TMF T - C 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott5114's proposal

message: We all seem to generally agree on this. Anyone want to send up objections, or shall we approve it as official? —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real minor thing: should we establish a standard background color for the maps as well? --TMF T - C 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I approve. All that's left is to define a background color, note that combinbed Interstates and tollways (Interstate 355 comes to mind) are 5x green lines, and consider using a thicker black line for the mainline barrier. And give examples of software that can be used to generate these things, free and non-free. —Rob (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the background color, I think we should use the one on the NY 153 map; not because I made the map, but because this is the background color used by Stratosphere's Interstate, U.S. Route and state road maps. Also, I support the clairifications expressed by Rob above. --TMF T - C 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thought: a standard map size to fit in Infobox road, which would be a 580x344 (px) ratio. --TMF T - C 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the color scheme, do we have definitions of those colors, or is "close" good enough?  I would like to use the background color used on Stratosphere's maps as well, but I have not been able to reproduce it in ArcGIS yet. 25or6to4 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Background RGB is (247, 247, 237) -- Stratosphere (U T) 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support everything above. However, there is one major (to me) item missing from this proposal: a standardization of map sizes. As stated before, maps designed to be placed in the infobox should be made in a 580x344 pixel ratio (as it will ultimately be displayed as a 290x172 pixel image). All other maps should be designed to match the shape of the subject road. --TMF T - C 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we don't want maps of California roads taking up 580 pixels in height in the infobox just because it's shaped that way. -- Stratosphere (U T) 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, with all of this straightened out, I'll now support this proposal. --TMF T - C 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I say keep them as is, personally. IMHO, there's no need to distinguish between an Interstate and an "Other Freeway", provided they are distinguished appropriately on the map (via Interstate shields, expy. name, etc.) . --TMF T - C 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I tried to hedge off the complications when this started.  I also think it is too many types of roads, and it's especially difficult for those who use GIS software and have data that doesn't differentiate between turnpikes, interstates and divided highways.  I think we need to draft a proposal, seperate from this, and invite everyone from the U.S. Road, U.S. Interstate, and individual State Road WikiProjects to discuss the proposal since this does have the potential to affect the appearance of thousands (?) of articles.  I agree with LtPowers that this does affect a far greater number than just those of us who are part of the task force. -- Stratosphere (U T) 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I don't know how we can form a standard without drawing up a proposal in conjunction with this project. I've proposed a new one below. --TMF T - C 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I have posted a link to this very discussion on the Project U.S. Roads news template, so everyone has been invited technically. But if you want to notify every WP (a la notices to states regarding WP:SRNC), that's fine too. --TMF T - C 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is basically what I meant.  We'd basically discussed and settled on something that was developed out of discussion...I just didn't think it was a very rigid process.  What we've started below (the proposals) is more like what I was shooting for.  I think, since you've notified the roads WP, that if we give this until the end of the month for discussion we'll have arrived at a more solid consensus than what we had before by involving the other WPs.  -- Stratosphere (U T) 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the right proposal is created, there would be no need to make locator maps an exemption, IMHO. --TMF T - C 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion for Proposal 1

message: After reviewing the wise comments of Stratosphere and LtPowers a few sections up, I'm scrapping my support for the legend proposal and proposing a much simpler one. Remember, we are not a mapping company; rather, we are only trying to give readers a visual aid for the route in question.
Colors:
*Background: solid color, #F7F7ED (tan used on Stratosphere's maps). Bodies of water should appear as white.
*Expressway: (including freeways, expressways, Interstates, Turnpikes, etc.)
**Free: #0080FF (blue)
**Toll: #008000 (green)
*Numbered roads: (U.S. and State Roads, specifically) #FFA900 (orange)
*Other roads: (close-up maps only) #000000 (black)
*Road highlighting: #FF0000 (red)
Strokes:
*Expressway: 3x (numbered road width).
*Numbered/other roads: for close-up maps: 2x for divided highways, 1x otherwise. Large-scale maps: 1x.
*Road highlighting: 3x.
Borders:
*As presented in the prior proposal, for close-up maps only. Large-scale: omit all but state borders.
Expressway features:
*Interchanges: as presented before, for close-up and medium range maps. Large-scale: omit.
*Toll barriers: as presented before, for close-up and medium range maps. Large-scale: omit.
Map size:
*Maps for infoboxes: Must be a 290 pixel by 172 pixel image or a larger equivalent, that is an image size that has a 290x172 ratio. For example, a 580x344 is fine.
*Other maps: No restriction on size: can be shaped to match the road.
--TMF T - C 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I knew I forgot some things in the proposal. I'll make the necessary changes above. For the numbered route color, I could see using orange in place of red while keeping red as the highlight color. --TMF T - C 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TwinsMetsFan's proposal

message: I'm assuming the recommendation of omitting borders on large scale maps means omitting county and municipality borders, but retaining the state borders. -- Stratosphere (U T) 14:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I knew I forgot some things in the proposal. I'll make the necessary changes above. For the numbered route color, I could see using orange in place of red while keeping red as the highlight color. --TMF T - C 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion for Proposal 2

message: ====Colors====
* Background: The uber tan that's in all my maps already, Solid Color. RGB 247,247,237 or #F7F7ED.
* Limited Access Highways: #0080FF (blue).  Toll road coloring of #008000 (green) is optional.
* U.S. Routes and State Highways: #FFA900 (orange).
* All other roads shown: #9C9C9C (gray).  Black makes them too dominant IMHO.
* Road highlighting: #FF0000 (red).
* Water: Continental view or regional, water fill should be white.  Local view, light blue (#BEE8FF).
====Strokes====
* Limited Access Highways: 3x
* U.S. Routes: 2x
* State Highways and Other Roads: 1x
* Road Highlighted: 3x for Limited Access, 2x otherwise
====Borders====
* The only border I'm including in my proposal is the state border which should be a grey color (#9C9C9C).  The width of the stroke should be 1.5x for a localized view, and 1x for a regional/continental view.  This is subject to personal opinion, but it's pretty obvious when 1.5x becomes too thick for how far zoomed out you are.  -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colors are fine, although I confess my first thought was, "Why in the world does M-47 split twice?" —Rob (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, actually that 0.5 was a typo, I had been using 1.5px for the border when I was zoomed in locally, and 1px when I was zoomed out regionally/continentally.  I'm not sure if that affects your support, but I'll get a new map prototype up here in a minute or two and edit the border specs for your perusal. -- Stratosphere (U T) 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I made the change to the border specification and uploaded a new prototype.  I purged it at the commons, so you may or may not need to refresh to see it. -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the orange color I specified in action, it might be too light for some users. Maybe #FF8000 would be better for orange? I'm not sure how that orange would look in comparison to the red highlighted road, though. --TMF T - C 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried using other colors, but the orange worked best.  Dark colors are too bold so it has to be light.  Aside from orange, all that leaves is yellow, green and blue.  Blue's used.  Green is for tolls, and yellow you really can't see.  The orange lines are very visible on my CRT and both of my LCD panels.  If they are nearly invisible on someone's screen, I vote they calibrate it. Stratosphere (U T) 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean in ArcMap, the only way to change the output size is to modify the dimensions of your map workspace.  It's stupid, I know.  The only other way is to crop it after you make it. Stratosphere (U T) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to sound rude or offensive, but I wish that we could take one standard and stick with it. There are a number of maps that I want to create, and the uncertainty regarding this proposal is the only thing preventing me from doing so. Sure, I could always alter the maps later, but I'm a "do it right the first time" type of person. --TMF T - C 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  It's really the brightness of the orange and blue that is throwing the perception of the maps out of whack.  Two of my GIS professors agree.  I don't have a problem with forging ahead.  If it becomes an issue for myself I can remove myself from the task force, since I didn't add myself in the first place. Stratosphere (U T) 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that I can speak on behalf of the MTF when I say that you're a valuable member of the MTF and that your presence, as well as your work, is greatly appreciated. With that said, my comments earlier were a bit too harsh (now that I look at them in retrospect), so take your time while figuring out a color combo that works. It'll be better in the long run. --TMF T - C 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, keep it as it is for now.  The only suggestion I have at this point is to make the blue and orange less saturated.  For the blue #77AAFF and for the orange #FFDD88.  Stratosphere (U T) 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stratosphere's proposal

message: * The only border I'm including in my proposal is the state border which should be a grey color (#9C9C9C).  The width of the stroke should be 1.5x for a localized view, and 1x for a regional/continental view.  This is subject to personal opinion, but it's pretty obvious when 1.5x becomes too thick for how far zoomed out you are.  -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders

message: The image to the right is a map created using these constraints.  It is of the Bay City/Saginaw area of Michigan.  It is a local map, therefore I colored Lake Huron, or more specifically Saginaw Bay.  I left out any labels since we're focusing on the colors.  I would most likely have labelled the map indicating Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Midland, and Saginaw if I were creating this specifically for an article.
:Colors are fine, although I confess my first thought was, "Why in the world does M-47 split twice?" —Rob (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prototype

message: I like this proposal the best (even over my own). The way I see it, this proposal is a happy medium combining elements of the two above proposals as well as some elements from the large scale (Interstate/U.S. route) locator maps. Quick question though: I assume the gray mentioned for state borders is the same gray color that would be used for local roads. I have no problems using the same color for both (since if state borders are present, then local roads are highly unlikely to be on the map) but I was just wondering what color state borders would be. --TMF T - C 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually that 0.5 was a typo, I had been using 1.5px for the border when I was zoomed in locally, and 1px when I was zoomed out regionally/continentally.  I'm not sure if that affects your support, but I'll get a new map prototype up here in a minute or two and edit the border specs for your perusal. -- Stratosphere (U T) 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I made the change to the border specification and uploaded a new prototype.  I purged it at the commons, so you may or may not need to refresh to see it. -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the orange color I specified in action, it might be too light for some users. Maybe #FF8000 would be better for orange? I'm not sure how that orange would look in comparison to the red highlighted road, though. --TMF T - C 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried using other colors, but the orange worked best.  Dark colors are too bold so it has to be light.  Aside from orange, all that leaves is yellow, green and blue.  Blue's used.  Green is for tolls, and yellow you really can't see.  The orange lines are very visible on my CRT and both of my LCD panels.  If they are nearly invisible on someone's screen, I vote they calibrate it. Stratosphere (U T) 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean in ArcMap, the only way to change the output size is to modify the dimensions of your map workspace.  It's stupid, I know.  The only other way is to crop it after you make it. Stratosphere (U T) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to sound rude or offensive, but I wish that we could take one standard and stick with it. There are a number of maps that I want to create, and the uncertainty regarding this proposal is the only thing preventing me from doing so. Sure, I could always alter the maps later, but I'm a "do it right the first time" type of person. --TMF T - C 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  It's really the brightness of the orange and blue that is throwing the perception of the maps out of whack.  Two of my GIS professors agree.  I don't have a problem with forging ahead.  If it becomes an issue for myself I can remove myself from the task force, since I didn't add myself in the first place. Stratosphere (U T) 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that I can speak on behalf of the MTF when I say that you're a valuable member of the MTF and that your presence, as well as your work, is greatly appreciated. With that said, my comments earlier were a bit too harsh (now that I look at them in retrospect), so take your time while figuring out a color combo that works. It'll be better in the long run. --TMF T - C 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, keep it as it is for now.  The only suggestion I have at this point is to make the blue and orange less saturated.  For the blue #77AAFF and for the orange #FFDD88.  Stratosphere (U T) 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion for Proposal 3

message: *Support both the final legend proposal and all additional terms proposed in the above discussion. --TMF T - C 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Proposal 1

message: One other thing I've forgotten 'til now (doh!); if I want to show the old routing on the same map, to demonstrate the change in alignment over the years (lets say, U.S. Route 66 in Illinois), how can we (or just, can we) integrate that into the scheme? Obviously there will be labels for each of the different segments. Perhaps a dashed line? —Rob (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably employ a similar method to what I've done for maps at I-73 and I-390 (NY), basically a lighter shade of red showing an alternate/past/future route. Stratosphere (U T) 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical routes on same map? 

message: A map has been posted over at the map peer review page. Comments are welcome. --TMF T - C 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map review 

message: While including shields for every route might seem like a good idea, I believe there to be a problem with this. If any route is decommissioned, renumbered, added, or otherwise modified, every map that includes that route has to be redrawn. --NE2 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. We'll keep this in mind when we create the proposals for part two of the design process; that is the use of fonts and shields on maps. Part two discussion will probably begin once we wrap up part one (the legend and map design) above in a week or so. --TMF T - C 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route shields 

message: Does anyone have an up-to-date GIS highways database?  I'm specifically looking for a U.S. Routes, since the one I have has US routes that have been decommissioned.  Thanks.  25or6to4 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be best to edit the database to remove the decommissioned ones. --NE2 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map source... 

message: With the basic design standards in place, it's time to hammer out some of the more trivial issues concerning the maps. Four in particular come to my mind:
*Shields on maps: Locator maps, that is a map showing a single road in relation to other roads, need not have any shields. All other maps where the context is not clear must use shields for all or most roads that are shown. Compare :Image:New York State Route 481 map.png (locator map) to :Image:Bristol.svg (context not clear). The question is what size should the shields be?
*Map naming convention: For consistency's sake, the Principle 1 naming convention (ex. Image:New York State Route 481 map.png) should be used.
*Historical routes: Stroke width should be the same as the highlighted route, but #ffbebe should be used as the color instead of pure red.
*Category names: I've proposed some names for the map categories (on Commons) on the project page. These can be changed if desired.
All comments regarding the above points are welcome. --TMF T - C 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all 4 of the above points.  I have an extra one.  What if there is an expected/under construction extension of a highway.  Can this be added to the map? 25or6to4 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's useful to the reader, why not? --NE2 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with it. Like NE2 said above, if it can be of use to the reader, then I'd include it. For the stroke it should be...probably the same as what a completed highway would be, except the line would be dashed instead of solid. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design standards continued 

message: I looked at New York State Route 481, and it's not obvious to me that the red line, as opposed to one of the blue lines (rivers or Interstates), is the major route. The red really needs to be thicker. --NE2 01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious to me, and I see no need to make the red line thicker, at least, not on my monitor. --TMF T - C 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: it's 2px because it's a SR not an Interstate.  Red doesn't necessarily mean it's major relative to the other routes displayed, red means it's the route the map/article is about  and it's the method thats been used forever, well for the past year anyway.  See :Image:Interstate10_map_1050.png for the old map highlight style which I replaced with the standard projection for the U.S. as well as less bold colors for the secondary subjects Stratosphere (U T) 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 2px because you decided the shown route should be 2px. I'm saying it should be thicker, and, if I make any maps for Virginia, I will use thicker lines. --NE2 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's 2px because it's a state route which is what the proposal recommended, which no one opposed, btw.  This is still Wikipedia, so you can do whatever the hell you want, even if it flies in the face of the consensus reached here.  Stratosphere (U T) 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, if I make it an SVG, will one of you edit it to make the lines thinner? --NE2 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can change it, just as anyone can replace my maps, just as I did someone elses.  It's an ongoing cycle and in the end none of it matters.  What you create today might be the OMFGWTFPWN!!11!~~ of Virginia Maps, but someone, inevitably, will come along sometime down the line and say, "wtf is this?" and replace it with theirs.  Wikipedia is constantly evolving, especially in the roads department that, arguably, has the most insanely obsessed picky damn people ever...but that's the beauty of it.  Don't expect me to stick a lo-jack on you and follow you around replacing your maps though :P Stratosphere (U T) 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY 481 map 

message: I've been playing around with GIS data, and none of the datasets I've found so far have enough detail to include all primary state highways in Virginia. Where might I find such a dataset? --NE2 07:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. --NE2 03:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This might have what you need. It does seem to have water body data in both line and polygon form. --Polaron | Talk 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; that worked perfectly: :Image:Virginia SR 296 298.svg --NE2 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Datasets 

message: Is there any way to import the SVG shields into ArcGIS?  The closest I can get currently is saving the svg's as png's, but then when I resize them, they look all blocky.  BTW, should I be asking these questions here, or is there a better place for technical questions?  Thanks for bearing with me.  25or6to4 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be best off taking the SVG generated by ArcGIS and adding the shields in an SVG editor. --NE2 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG route shields... 

message: I would assume this fits under the scope of this project. For mountainous roads, it might be useful in include an elevation profile. Are there any thoughts on the best way to create one? The only method I can think of is to use USGS topos to find elevations and DOT information to find distances; I tried that and it went pretty slowly. --NE2 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically one could use DEMs to generate an altitude profile along a particular path.  I haven't explored this, but I'd suspect it would be possible to accomplish. Stratosphere (U T) 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation profiles 

message: Should I dismiss any advice against adding a map to an infobox if I get some warning saying the article is too big? I almost swiped somebody else's map for Interstate 95 in Florida, and put it in the infobox there. DanTD 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean a message that says "This article is 30 kilobytes long" or similar upon editing a page? If so, don't worry about it - that message has no impact on an editor's ability to add content in the article. The only purpose the message serves is to warn dial-up users that the article may take a while to load. My advice: put the map in the infobox, regardless of what the article size will be. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I added it. But I'd like to be able to make the map small enough to prevent dial-up users from having trouble with it, but still big enough to see. DanTD 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a misunderstanding here. The article is 30 KB, not the map. The size of the map is not included in the size of the article, minus the markup that's used to actually show the map. In short, whether or not the map is 20px or 2000px, the article size will still be 30 KB, so there's no benefit to resizing the map. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When maps make an article too big 

message: Sorry if this has been covered someplace, but what is the rule about using sections of official DOT maps? MN/DOT has a highway map for each county available online. Would using a section of such a map to illustrate a shorter route be permissible? --Sable232 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; those are copyrighted to the state. --NE2 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some states release everything to the public domain; check Mn/DOT's website for details or write to them. —Scott5114↗ 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know about everyone else...but some of us use ArcGIS and get the highway shapefiles from specific states or from the fed gov't, then export to a graphics program and tweak, add signs, etc.  The main limit to this is some states only provide limited access to their files, while some have free access.  The gov't files are ok, but are fairly old nowadays. 25or6to4 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright/fair use question 

message: This is just for everyone's information.  I'd prefer to upload maps in SVG, but ArcMap's SVG export sucks and the output tends to crash Firefox and hang Internet Explorer.  That's the sole reason all my maps are uploaded in PNG. Stratosphere (U T) 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lame Stratosphere (U T) 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted a note in the SVG section regarding the SVG troubles, and they suggested that I reduce the number of points being used in the images.  I was able to find a different road source, and remade the Texas highway 151 image.  Doing so reduced the size of the image by a factor of 10, and it seems to be opening properly in Firefox at full size.  Here's hoping! 25or6to4 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps in SVG format 

message: Would anyone be willing to help me get some GIS data for Missouri? I've found data, even separated by highway class (better than I could get for Oklahoma) but it's all in an .e00 file format. I've done some Googling and found , but it sounds like the procedure would be nasty to do on Linux (which I run). Could someone convert these and e-mail them to me or upload them somewhere? I'll need the county boundaries (for the background), Interstate, U.S., and numbered state routes. Don't need the lettered. —Scott5114↗ 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should clarify: I'm needing to convert these to shapefiles that will work in QGIS. Alternatively if someone happens to know where to get Missouri data already in proper format that would work too :) —Scott5114↗ 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you tried any of these matches? --NE2 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since found a better data set. —Scott5114↗ 05:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  File conversion help needed 

message: Maps (and infoboxes) for current US Routes have been completed.  If you find one I missed or needs cleaning up, let me know.  25or6to4 09:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Roads complete 

message: I'm trying to learn how to use QGIS to make maps (the map I made of Maryland Route 36 was made in a demo version of Global Mapper that only allows four layers to be loaded at a time). I am able to get QGIS to color all the routes correctly, except I haven't been able to figure out how to get QGIS to color one specific route a different color (i.e. to color the route that the map is highlighting red.) Could anyone with experience with QGIS tell me how to do that? - Algorerhythms 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can go to Project Properties and set the selected color to red. Unfortunately, that won't make the route 2x like MTF requires, so what you need to do is go into edit mode and copy the selected route, then create a new layer that's red and 2x wide and paste that into it. Then turn off edit mode for both layers and make your map. —Scott5114↗ 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may seem like a dumb question, but how do you copy and paste in QGIS? I tried using ctrl-C and ctrl-V and that didn't work. (If it helps, I have version 0.7.4.) - Algorerhythms 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On QGIS v0.8.1, there are cut and paste feature buttons on the main toolbar. Not sure what the equivalent is in the earlier versions, though. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have to upgrade, then. The problem is that 0.7.4 is the newest version that is in Ubuntu's repositories, and I don't particularly feel like compiling it (I switched from Slackware because I was tired of compiling.) I seem to remember seeing an alternate repository listed on the QGIS site that had 0.8.1, though. - Algorerhythms 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QGIS question 

message: I'm currently making a map for U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Maryland), and there are two ~30 mile segments, separated by about 50 miles, making creating one map that contains both segments but still adequately shows the routes somewhat difficult. Would it be more appropriate to make two maps, one of each segment, or to squeeze both segments onto the same map? - Algorerhythms 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Oklahoma, where segmented routes are quite common, I've always squeezed both into one map. See Oklahoma State Highway 2, Oklahoma State Highway 74 (which needs to be redone) and probably others. —Scott5114↗ 19:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought it should be, but I just wanted to make sure. I've placed the Alt US 40 map with both segments on the infobox in that article. - Algorerhythms 19:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are two completely different routes, like the multiple I-76es. --NE2 13:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to split the articles, then? Perhaps a disambiguation page at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Maryland), an article at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Allegany and Garrett Counties, Maryland), and the other article at U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Washington and Frederick Counties, Maryland), although those titles are starting to become very long. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segmented Routes 

message: After making this map, it looks like it doesn't agree with the infobox format. I've put it in the body of the article for now, but are there any other options? See Interstate 355. —Rob (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Interstate 355 map.png]] 

message: Do these look good?
I followed the recommended standards except for dashing the county lines (I couldn't make that work with the data I had, which was areas rather than lines) and making U.S. Highways wider (given what's happened to them in California, it's probably not useful to give more prominence to US 101 and US 395 over SR 99 or SR 299). I also needed several more symbols for recently relinquished and unconstructed sections. My plan is to use this zoom level for all routes that are entirely contained with it, for easy comparison of routes in the LA area. --NE2 07:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  California 

message: Fellow USRDers, I am proposing a criteria by which we should accept map requests.  In an effort to improve the overall quality of articles across the WP:USRD project I propose that map requests may only be made for articles which have reached a B-Level assessment.  This will not only trim down on the workload on the Map Task Force as a whole, but will encourage editors to improve an article prior to requesting and receiving a map.  I encourage discussion on this proposal.  Cheers. Stratosphere (U T) 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. A good rule of thumb is that the article should at least be long enough to support an infobox with a map, which usually requires the article to be at B-Class. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all behind this - defintely would like to have the text drive the bottom of the article, not the infobox.  — master sonT - C 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, also another idea is a cap on the number of requests per day. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer the B-class method... it's my wont to almost wait until A-class, even. For a while I didn't even think there were that many map requests, but I suppose that's changed.—Rob (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me.  I would, however, like to continue making the Texas SH maps (in my spare time).  25or6to4 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'd imagine that that would not be a problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal for Map Requests 

message: I need a map for I-80 (UT) and I-84 (UT), just like the ones on I-70 (UT) and I-15 (UT). Thanks 71.35.237.195 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests are handled at WP:USRD/MTF/R. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I will file my request there. Thank you - 71.35.237.195 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map request 

message: Borman Expressway, Rush Street (Chicago), Historic Michigan Boulevard District and Prairie Avenue for WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  09:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment two sections above; requests are handled at WP:USRD/MTF/R, not here. – TMF 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map requests 

message: What does everyone think about organizing the request page into sections based on article quality.  Even though it states at the top that a article should be "B-class" or above, we still get requests for stub and start articles.  I think arranging the requests this way will help map makers know which maps to create first and it will also encourage those requesting a map to improve the article so their map will get completed faster.  --Holderca1 talk 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the above discussion regarding "B-class" articles, I am going to go ahead and implement this change.  Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree.  --Holderca1 talk 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on request page to help prioritize requests? 

message: Many maps show urban areas in a light yellow color. Shall we make this part of the standard? What exact values of yellow? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always used a background of 255,255,230 and given the area a 0.5x solid border colored 110,110,110 (the 0.5x border was achieved by experimenting with some values in QGIS' print exporter). My inspiration for it was either some maps by Strato or 25or6to4, which used those/similar specs. I say it should be part of the standard, since virtually every map produced by the two (good thing BTW) and several of mine have these areas. – TMF 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and out of curiosity, where are those layers coming from? I went to the ESRI TIGER download site, but the only zip files it'll give me have 77 zips inside, each with a set of shapeline files. Can I get one that has all urban areas in a state? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a nationwide shapefile on the Census Bureau site  but they don't have ones by state. The ones on the ESRI site appear to be separated by county. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Supposedly, this is from 2006. Strato|sphere 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just recently started using the updated TIGER shapefiles here for 2007, which are separated by state.  Select your state, then download the "Current Place".  I have used the lightest yellow option in arcGIS (255,255,190). 25or6to4 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban area light yellow