Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stratosphere (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 22 September 2006 (→Stratosphere's proposal: minor change to proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Stratosphere in topic Proposals
Learn more about this page
Shortcut

The altering of WikiProject templates

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Overhaul of page tags

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Here is an example of a page tag being used widely:

Template:U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject

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)Reply

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)Reply

Maps in SVG format

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

As a heads-up, this issue is still present in Firefox 1.5.0.7, as I just downloaded it today and the map shown up above still does not load when viewing it full-size (as it crashes Firefox almost instantly). --TMF T - C 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Legend

Latest comment: 18 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

The first thing we need to do is define a legend. Here's some ideas that I gleaned from various maps:

 

The numbers in parenthesis are the stroke width, which is derived by multiplying the number given and the width of "other numbered highway". The only thing I don't like about this is the double red line, which is close to impossible to do in Inkscape, but would make sense to most people. Ideas? —Scott5114↗ 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. All right. I'm a Rand McNally guy myself, so keep that in mind, but here's what I think...
  1. I'd use green (for money) for turnpikes/toll roads.
  2. How would divided highways and expressways be different? I'd consider merging these two, and where a divided highway is an expressway, using interchange markers (squares, circles or otherwise) to show that.
  3. We might want to differentiate between state routes and county routes, where that level of detail is required. Also, U.S. Routes and state routes.
  4. I don't know how I feel about separating Interstate and Other Freeway. At the least, I think it should be a dark, thick color, since I like the idea of having darker, thicker roads being more important than lighter, thinner ones.

So those are some of my thoughts. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, regarding simplicity. Here's a good example:

 

No legend, and no need for a legend. Here's I-90, and everything else relative to I-90. I don't know if it can be done, but the more maps without legends (or with small legends), the better. At a certain scale, I would even be willing to sacrifice the subclassing of highways in favor of simplicity. I also think all the borders (town line, state line, etc.), if used, would be nice and obvious (with proper labeling where necessary, of course - nothing more annoying than a town line with no town name!). —Rob (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rob on this. The amount of detail that a map actually needs will vary by the scope of the map. For example, a map for New York State Route 153 would have much more detail than a map for say, the New York State Thruway (or Interstate 90). With that said, I see the point for a legend - to standardize maps regardless of scale. So here's my $.02 on the legend:
    • Interstate is fine.
    • Merge turnpike, other freeway and expressway into one road type.
    • Divided highway - I use Inkscape myself, so I'm well aware of how difficult it will be to draw double lines. But it's probably the best way to do it, unfortunately.
    • Other numbered highway and below - looks fine to me.
May I suggest adding another entry for the highlighting of the route itself? --TMF T - C 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
My input on this, is we need to be careful not to get too specific when it comes to maps. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a road atlas. That work is best left up to Rand McNally, Google Maps, Windows Live, Mapquest and Mapblast. Stratosphere (U T) 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
as added notes, it's dependant on the GIS data available whether or not one can distinguish between a 3 lane and a 4 lane highway. Double lines, like for the divided highway, tend to look like crap especially when a particular road has tons of segments to it. For example, using the GIS data for the national road network, I-96 is a pretty short highway, but the line is made up of 202 segments. When you apply the double line to the selection it looks bad. For anything other than Interstate, U.S. Route, State Highway, applying the different types of colors/lines indicated by the proposed legend will be difficult to maintain across the country since the information available varies from state to state.
When I designed the maps for the Interstates, U.S. Routes, and Michigan Trunklines, I went through many iterations before I found a map that was both useful and aesthetically pleasing. You can only cram so much information in there before a map becomes useless. Stratosphere (U T) 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Locator maps don't necessarily need to follow this legend, as they're simple enough that the meaning is obvious no matter what convention is used (blue=system and red=highlighted acts perfectly anyway.)

The reason I have turnpikes in orange is because that's what OK uses on their state maps. (KS uses yellow, so I'm used to yellow/orange = turnpike). It's like saying "avoid this if you don't want to pay up". If we can agree on another color we'll use that, of course.

I originally had expressway and divided highway separate because there are divided highways that are too slow to be considered an "expressway". However, dropping expressway and merging it into divided could work. Do we want to use the purple for that, or double red, or something else?

The best thing about having a unified legend would be that we could just link to the legend SVG on the image description page - no need to actually put it in the image :)—Scott5114↗ 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All right, more stuff:

  1. Does anyone object to merging expy and divided highway, and using the purple 2x line?
  2. Do we want a class for other multilane highways (e.g. 4 lane with turn lane, 4 lane undivided, etc.)?
  3. Interchanges...
     
    Here's some ideas. Thoughts?
  4. We could use light grey and tan for gravel and dirt roads respectively.

Also, I thought I should add the reason I have Interstate and Other Freeway separated is because interstates are part of a national system (thus more important) and other freeways might be built to lower standards. —Scott5114↗ 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. No objections here.
  2. Probably not. We don't want to make the maps too complicated to make.
  3. Looks sharp! I like it, personally.
  4. We should only do that if the map has a zoom level small enough that would show these roads.
  5. Your point makes perfect sense regarding expressways. Also, I'll create a map for New York State Route 153 in the next hour or so for critiquing. --TMF T - C 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, maybe it wasn't an hour, but here it is.
 
The black lines are county roads. Red lines are state-maintained roads. NY 441 is blue as it is an expressway in the viewpoint above. --TMF T - C 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good, except expressway/divided highway is purple on my legend, not blue. ;) Maybe I should change that; purple and blue could be easily confused. Would yellow work? —Scott5114↗ 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I dunno, I've never associated yellow with expressways personally. Orange could definitely work, if we give green to toll roads. --TMF T - C 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
What would we do for Other Freeway then?—Scott5114↗ 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd say abolish it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see the difference between an expressway and an "other freeway". --TMF T - C 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I forgot about the ambiguity of the word "expressway". By freeway, I mean something resembling an Interstate, full access control, all that good stuff. By expressway, I'm thinking of a fast, divided, four-lane road with at-grade intersections. —Scott5114↗ 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like the thick blue line = Interstate, thin blue line = other freeway idea. For divided highway/expressways? I'll favor orange for both, with interchange circles where necessary. The detail on the New York Map above is more than I would have expected; it looks nice. Keep in mind we may not know the exact nature of every road in the country, so I'd also include thick and thin red for arterial and minor "undivided or I-don't-know" options. But I like the balance of blue (about 20% of all lines), red (65%), orange (10%) and green (5%) for the maps. —Rob (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I omitted thin black and grey because those are minor and don't really count. That opinion may be change if we start making maps for Michigan Avenue (Chicago). :-p —Rob (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

  How's this? (Left off the borders because everyone generally agrees with those it seems.) For interchanges, I prefer using circles for when the map is so far zoomed out you don't have the ramps drawn out. If you have ramps, I'd say omit the circles and just put the green box with the interchange number there. —Scott5114↗ 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I generally agree with the legend, but what's the reasoning behind differentiating between a 4 lane and 2 lane turnpike? I think turnpikes should just be 3x. Stratosphere (U T) 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, the majority of turnpikes are four lane, but in Oklahoma we do have one worthless two lane turnpike. Since they're in the minority, someone might assume that a shown turnpike would be four lane, when in reality it'd turn out to be two lane.
When you say 2-lane, do you mean an undivided highway with one lane in each direction? Stratosphere (U T) 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Never been on the Chickasaw Turnpike, but judging by the one picture that's available on it via Google Images, yes, he is. The Everglades Turnpike (or whatever that I-95 west of Miami was called) used to be a two-lane (1x1) toll road as well. There's also a 2-lane former turnpike in Kentucky somewhere, also located in a rural, mountainous area. Odds are in terms of actual road construction, each side of road consists of one lane, a right shoulder in each direction, and a concrete 4-foot barrier separating traffic, allowing expansion to a "real" road later on. —Rob (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
And people pay to drive on this "road"? ;) Seriously, though, thanks for the clarification. Stratosphere (U T) 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should toll Interstate segments be differentiated or is that too much detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.94.174 (talk • contribs)

They should be differentiated. This is the intention of the "turnpike" class above, which allows for differentiation between free segments and toll segments. --TMF T - C 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe they mean differentiating between Interstate and non-Interstate turnpikes. —Scott5114↗ 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I assumed as much; there's no need to get that specific on a map for our purposes. A toll road is a toll road and a "free" road is a free road to me, Interstate or not. Also, if there's a section of an Interstate that features both (like a toll bridge), then we'd show the free portion up to the toll barriers, stop the path, make a toll path, then end the path on the other side and continue with the "free" path.
Remember, we want to make these maps as user-friendly as possible, so the more detail that we can present using less road types (the "more with less" theory), the better it will be, not only for the user, but also for the creator of the map. --TMF T - C 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What should we do for mainline toll barriers? Just a black line perpendicular to the highway, like ODOT does? Leave them out?

And another proof-of-concept, this time urban:
 
Notice that the Lake Hefner Parkway and Broadway Extension are non-interstate freeways. Opinions? —Scott5114↗ 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. Also, for the toll barriers, I know Rand McNally maps use a perpendicular black line, so I think it's fine if we use one as well. --TMF T - C 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Integrating into project tags

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

California State Route 1 map

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Testing

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

New subpages

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Proposals

Latest comment: 18 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion

Scott5114's proposal

 

Discussion

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)Reply

Real minor thing: should we establish a standard background color for the maps as well? --TMF T - C 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Background RGB is (247, 247, 237) -- Stratosphere (U T) 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll separate this into a discussion and a voting section. I know this isn't really a vote, so I used "Show of opinion" instead as the header. --TMF T - C 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the intent of this for close up city maps only? Or is it intended to be for state/region/country-wide as well? -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Colors:

  • Background: #F7F7ED
  • Interstate/freeway blue: #0080FF
  • Toll green: #008000
  • Expy orange: #FF8000
  • Numbered hwy red: #FF0000
  • Border blue: #0000FF

Background is from Stratosphere's map, everything else is taken direct from the legend SVGs. I tried to keep everything as either 00, 80, or FF for ease of memory. Sticking to colors exactly helps add uniformity and makes things generally look nice. —Scott5114↗ 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
OK, with all of this straightened out, I'll now support this proposal. --TMF T - C 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, if 5x is too wide for interstates and 3x is preferred, what do we do for lower classes, especially Other Freeway? —Scott5114↗ 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Okay, I know I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but this discussion seems to affect everyone who edits road pages. Personally, I don't like the proposal. I think it provides an overly-complicated categorization of road types; four ought to be enough (Interstate, non-Interstate expressway/freeway, non-expressway state roads, and everything else). The proposal doesn't list any guidance on how to indicate which road is being highlighted, either; in the NY 153 map, it's just bigger, and I'm afraid that isn't going to show when reduced to infobox size. Powers T 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

I just wanted to clarify that this proposal would not affect locator maps like Stratosphere's for Interstates and U.S. Routes. Those would still use the blue/red convention. It would be more for regional maps (like SPUI's maps of Bristol and Memphis) and strip maps like on Interstate 635 (Kansas-Missouri). —Scott5114↗ 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Show of opinion

  • Support both the final legend proposal and all additional terms proposed in the above discussion. --TMF T - C 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Oppose per Stratosphere and LtPowers above. It's time for a simpler proposal. Less is more. --TMF T - C 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Support all as well. —Scott5114↗ 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Conditional Support I've recently tried the new guidelines for a map around Bay City, MI and I say it looks hideous in ArcMap. 5x is just too large for any line, period. I suggest starting at 3x and modifying. -- Stratosphere (U T) 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. 25or6to4 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Thanks for the discussion and work on this! —Rob (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. (Sorry I've been away from the task force; I've been primarily focused on Pennsylvania State and Harrisburg Area roads as of late.) I'm in favor of the final legend proposal. I also agree with Stratosphere that 5x is a bit large, so I support going with 3x. --myselfalso 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Yes, I'm wishy-washy on this subject, but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to go about this differently. The last thing I want to do is stall this process and cause controversy (we all love controversy in the roads dept, dont we? :P), but I'd like to bring attention to LtPowers comment above and my response. I believe this is a good first step, but I think we need to take it another step further before we set anything in writing. -- Stratosphere (U T) 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

TwinsMetsFan's proposal

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)Reply

Discussion

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)Reply

Also, you've indicated Red (#FF0000 is red, right?) for use on US Routes and State Highways, but this is the color we've been using to highlight the route an article is about. -- Stratosphere (U T) 14:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Show of opinion

Stratosphere's proposal

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)Reply

Map Size

 
Prototype map of M-47
  • Maps for infoboxes should be a proportion of around 290x172. A few pixels off isn't a big deal, but keep the ratio near 1.7:1.
  • Maps outside the infobox are fair game as far as size would be concerned.

Expressway features

  • Interchanges and toll barriers. I think this is too much information for a map, but if it's a very small scale map, they are optional per the specifications set in TMF's proposal above.

Prototype

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.

Discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

Support

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force&oldid=77105167"