Letzter Kommentar: vor 16 Jahren16 Kommentare4 Personen sind an der Diskussion beteiligt
The revert of my color map to my b/w blank map is less constructive: the last one is useless as geographic content is invisible. That is why I've made the new one colored. Compare:
I will return back color map, but before I want know your arguments, dear Obersachse.
This is not a discussion! What Obersachse meant is that this map to colourful. That is my opinion too. Articles that look like Klickibunti (sorry, don't know the English word) are not well liked in the German Wikipedia. Your argument is that geographic content is not visible. But I think this is not necessary. Because you still can't recognize the details - there are no labels for the subregions. That is not what the map is for. It should just give an overview. --Euku:B⇄12:29, 5. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
I need explain the sense of position map: it is used for better understanding of geographic point location inside of a region. Does my black/white map help to understand where is the mark? You, dear Euku, really think this b/w map helps? What is the difference between my b/w map and my colored map? Did you noticed the difference? At b/w map are shown all levels boundaries spaghetti - you can not imagine what every line means. Colored map makes possible to recognize rayons/urb.okrugs and rayons subdivisions boundaries. Has b/w map useful geographic content? No. Has color map it? Yes. Poor maps is the WikiPedia past, but a lot of Wikipedians are accustomed, these maps are "traditional". You, dear Euku, really want poor quality maps in WikiPedia? I don't think so. It is not a question to replace somebodies map with mine one. Both maps are mine, but b/w was uploaded for future maps creation. Density map for example. This b/w map is useless for the location purposes. Bogomolov.PL08:34, 9. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
A position map has to be not colored (water bodies only) if geographic content is limited to 1-st level division boundaries only. You, dear Obersachse, used the 2-nd level divisions map and rayons boundaries were lost. I've used color version to extract rayon (1-st level divisions) from hundreds of 2-d level divisions, which can not be placed at a location map (using current agreements). So, dear Obersachse, you decided add 2-d level divisions, not me, I was trying resolve this problem.
What is the problem with outlined maps? On my screen (I think not mine only) thin gray/black lines (rayon boundaries) are not visible at all (LCD 1600*1200), some pixel dust only. What you, dear Obersachse, is naming "colorful" is a color filling of administrative units territories. I'm in profession over 25 years and it's routine fill these adminisrative divisions maps. Why? Wery often some administrative units consists of several areas (as Moscow, Khimki, Leninsky rayon) and if areas are not filled with the same color these white holes look like separate administrative units. And vice versa: rayon level cities small territories could be interpreted as adjacent rayon exclaves.
You see, dear Obersachse, I like correct maps and I don't like not correct! It is encyclopedia issue provide correct maps, isn't it?
And, I hope, you are closer now to the common position map version with 1-st level divisions. It is very strong difference 2-d level divisions map and 1-st level. Bogomolov.PL08:58, 17. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
I'm afraid, I'm understanding. But why colorful map is not a good one? Any arguments? It is more correct, isn't it? This is the main argument. Is it ugly? It is normal, traditional map. The reasons why this tradition had formed I've explained above.
Are the rayon level boundaries better visible at your new map? Or at my map? This is no any problem - my new map better fulfil the position map purposes. Bogomolov.PL11:32, 20. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
The question we have to answer is another one. On which map the marker will be better visible? The location maps are done to show the position of the object. All other information like inner borders is less important. --Obersachse12:03, 20. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
You mean the marker will be lost? You really think so? You really think the geographic content hamper the marker position definition? Do we need see marker at the empty space? What will we know about it position at a white paper? Why, why we are adding 1-st level divisions boundaries? With the aim not to see them? Bogomolov.PL14:04, 20. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
Firstly: I'm a professional cartographer, too. I'm drawing maps for years, too. I like correct maps, too. Map are correct or not but surely not more correct. This is senseless.
Secondly: I can tell you: Your colour map doesn't fit to German map tradition. It is too colourful. This doesn't mean your map is wrong or ugly or poor, it's just a question of cartographical tradition. Normal is a term that cannot be discussed for it depends on the point of view. This is just a question of taste! And the marker point will definitely easier to be seen on a less colourful map. If you don't believe it, try it. And even if you won't believe: it's a German decision to think that b/w is better for a locator map. It's a wiki and everybody can change it! So what's the fuss about it? If you think Germans are crazy to use bad maps why don't you just laugh about it? I don't really understand this discussion...
Thirdly: Even in a b/w version of an administrative map it is possible to show that a rayon consists of two or more distant areas. To be honest: It's quite easy to do. It has been done for centuries in cartography and no wheel has to be invented anew.
Fourthly: If you cannot see thin grey lines, well, then Obersachse can make them thicker (I don't have any problems to see them). By the way: In your colour map the second level is almost not visible either.
Fifthly: German locator maps of Russia (and almost every other country) don't need a second administrative level. Even the first level is almost unknown. For most map users borders are quite abstract. So what's the information of the second level? It just irritates. The third map shown on this side is perfect as a locator map in German Wikipedia.
Sixthly and by the way: In the description of your image it is not explained what all the lines mean. NNW21:38, 20. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
Nice to meet you, Collegue!
1. Map are correct or not but surely not more correct. This is senseless. You know, dear NordNordWest, as a practical cartographer, a map can be more accurate or less accurate, isn't it? 100% accurate map is possible in theory, but in practice... So more correct can be more accurate map (for this scale). Obersachse claimes his map (the 3-rd one from top) is not accurate enough (really so!), and it is for discussion only. So my map (4-th one from top) is geometrically more accurate and content is more accurate (rayon level cities added). My map really is more correct.
2. And the marker point will definitely easier to be seen on a less colourful map. If you don't believe it, try it. I've tried that, dear NordNordWest. May be you know - color map was present in de:Wiki for several days. Obersachse said it is not visible - I said it was. Who is right?
And, dear NordNordWest, you need to make an important choice: or "it's a German decision to think that b/w is better for a locator map", or "It's a wiki and everybody can change it".
I am not any enemy of Obersachse or somebody else in WP. I am not enemy of Germans, not because I am a German (but I am), but because I am a normal human. You, dear NordNordWest, was the first who began use nationality as a reason for this discussion. It was only emotional, I hope. Or, as you said about yourself: "I don't really understand this discussion".
3. Even in a b/w version of an administrative map it is possible to show that a rayon consists of two or more distant areas. Who said that is not possible? But to do that you need add connecting arrows, isn't it? Were this arrows added? Or were rayon numbers (the second possible way) added? The map as it is has nothing from these. I think less graphical elements is better - you think so, I guess. Or hatchig is better decision for you?
And, dear NordNordWest, you really think "no wheel has to be invented anew". Administrative units color filling is for you, dear collegue, an invention?
4. If you cannot see thin grey lines, well, then Obersachse can make them thicker But he didn't do that. And I have this problem (not visible thin black lines) really, so it is not any question of my preferences. This effect happens.
In your colour map the second level is almost not visible either If you are talking about my first version (second image from top) it was my objective to make 2-nd level units less visible because Obersachse used my 2-nd level divisions map. If you are talking about my second version (4-th from top) - these boundaries were erased.
5. German locator maps of Russia (and almost every other country) don't need a second administrative level. So what's the information of the second level? It just irritates. I'm glad to find a support from you, dear NordNordWest. Present position map used by Obersachse in de:Wiki is my map of 2-nd level municipal divisions. It was not reasonable, but decision to use second level divisions map belongs to Obersachse, not me. In my response I tried, as you noticed, to emphasize with color 1-st level divisions and hide 2-d level. I can cite myself:"You, dear Obersachse, used the 2-nd level divisions map and rayons boundaries were lost. I've used color version to extract rayon (1-st level divisions) from hundreds of 2-d level divisions, which can not be placed at a location map (using current agreements). So, dear Obersachse, you decided add 2-d level divisions, not me, I was trying resolve this problem." And after that the Obersachse map second version was made without 2-d level divisions, but it was not accurate. And thin gray lines were not visible at my monitor. And exclaves/enclaves problem was not resolved. But my map 2-nd version resolves all these problems.
6. In the description of your image it is not explained what all the lines mean There are three my images at this discussion page: first (from top), second and fourth. The first one is named "Moscow Oblast Municipal Divisions" and consists of all municipal divisions boundaries spaghetti. The second one consists of rayon level units (filled) and second level divisions (boundaries with color darker than filling color). The fourth one is "Russia Moscow oblast rayon division" map and no 2-nd level municipal divisions now.
As I said above, I still don't really understand this discussion. And a whole new bunch of rhetorical questions won't make it better but just more annoying. I'm not Obersachse's spokesman. It has been mine opinion, that's all, not a defence of his opinion or what he's doing. So it might happen that we both are d'accord and it is senseless to insist anew where you were right and Obersachse didn't do what you thought/think would be better. I can see the difference, you do and I think Obersachse can do, too. But in the end this discussion is quite senseless to me because the French and German map labs are planning a new series of locator maps in a unified style which will replace all now existing maps. That's why I won't answer to your questions. Time will bring a solution, not this discussion.
There is only one point I want to correct: I never spoke about nationality or used the word “enemy“. Such thinking is completely ridiculous to me. I used “German“ as an equivalency of “German speaking“ Wikipedia with all the Austrian and Swiss and South Tyrolean users included. German (or German speaking if you might prefer) WP differs alot to other WPs like no stubs, no articles about single fictional characters, no bot-generated articles etc. And it is less colourful in infoboxes. So this wasn't meant emotionally or even nationalistically but just as a matter of fact. Taste and tradition, that's all. Glad to be able to say, the French cartographers prefer it less colourful, too.
We, Obersachse and me, are understanding the topic of this discussion. You, dear NordNordWest, as you told - no. What a pity! You, dear NordNordWest, are calling my questions rhetorical because you won't answer, but the answers are. You know the answers, but you said: "I won't answer to your questions". So my questions are very, very practical not rhetorical.
Time will bring a solution, not this discussion you said. So - close your mouth and wait? But why YOU was taking a part in this sensless discussion?
I didn't think you are anybody's personal defender. But you said, that it would be "German decision", you are German decision defender, isn't it? Next you corrected your position: not German decision, but German speaking decision. Aliens not welcomed? It is WikiPedia or I'm missing? Yes I'm not German speaking, but German! Alien? If I'm (as you listed) German, Austrian, Swiss or South Tyrolean user - OK. Elsass? Luxemburg? Liechtenstein? You really think so? You never used word "enemy". Never. I think de:Wiki is much more tolerant than you, dear NordNordWest - this (sensless?) discussion is the evidence.
And an other one question. I've said I dont see boundaries lines at the Obersachse's map and my image looks not colorful in my eyes - it was a question of my monitor settings: contrast reducing to 47% level made the truth visible. I can see rayon boundaries and my image is too colorful. Sorry. Bogomolov.PL17:48, 23. Jun. 2008 (CEST)Beantworten
