Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corsica-geographic map-fr.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Corsica-geographic map-fr.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2019 at 21:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vector map of Corsica in French
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks. I am glad that I managed to achieve the state of comprehensive maps thanks to yours and other comments in the previous nomination :) I will add missing names on rivers. --Ikonact (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: you are right, the maps are generated by computer but it is far from "automatic". I coded the software to generate the maps, I gathered and processed various data sources and spent hours to finalise the map and put the names and symbols in place. But what makes this map special? Nothing really. I liked this one out of all those I created because it looks nice and has a lot of details.--Ikonact (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: This map is not really like all maps in Category:Topographic_maps. This map is fully vector and respects Wikipedia map conventions. There are few maps like this. --Ikonact (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kreuzschnabel, further to Ikonact's response: There is a great variety of maps in that category. Many are not featurable on account of size or lack of detail. Which others do you think we'd be obligated to feature if we feature this one? And to all the opposers: What do you find lacking in this map that makes it not excellent? As a long-time geography buff who used to collect the best atlases I could find, I appreciate this as an excellent map of its subject, the entire island of Corsica. It's certainly possible to have more detail: I've seen maps that show every house and had maps like that in the 1970s. But choices have to be made about the scale you will use and the level of detail that can be reasonably and clearly covered at that scale. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose not an excellent picture for me --Fischer.H (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. The maps physical layers of topography, barymetry and shades are vectorial, which is by itself a feast. The map follows wikipedia maps conventions (best practices) : our topographic maps convention, exchange-road maps conventions, map icons toolbox. Human layers are properly fetched from OSM or other sources, while time consuming hand-made corrections have very likely been done to avoid labels collisions. Legend is properly done, coordinates and North are defined via the grid system which is the most accurate approach. The whole file is made of well organized 22 vector layers, easy to reuse in and outside Wikipedia, and easy to translate. The file size could be reduced via path simplifications, but with 13MB, we are at a very acceptable and workable file size. The whole map (end result) and technique used (process) is a feast. Cheer up to Ikonact, we need more maps of such quality. Yug (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Bathymetry contours (and probably even rivers, but not so clearly visible, I think only bathymetry is problematic) are made by polygonal chain, not by spline (they are natural features, they dont have straight line segments divided by angles, so they need to be represented in other way). Some labelling placed wrongly (for example Linguizetta, Grosseto, Sarténe) and generally, labeling could be better readable if it would have some character framing. Symbol for mountain pass seems to me too long and it is placed little bit wrongly in some cases (Col de Verde, Col de Vizzavona). All of these are fixable I hope and otherwise it could be featured picture in my perspective. --Grtek (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Grtek: Thanks for the comments. I tried to address them in a new version of the map. --Ikonact (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - That's a clear improvement. I still think there's room for a few more rivers to be labeled. One small detail: Col. de Vergio is not clearly labeled now, because the red road overlaps one side of the now-smaller mountain pass symbol. I'm not sure what you should do about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Better now. But I still think that some character framing in labels could be improvement. And you changed col symbol in map but not in legend. And I would move legend frame little bit up, so space from bottom and right map edge would be the same. And move hypsometry legend little bit left so left edge of scale frame would "continue" as left edge of hypsometry legend. And then (maybe) move hypsometry legend little bit up so space between left map edge and scale frame would be the same. And last thing that I see now – unit label in scale is usually placed after highest number in scale. So after number 20, not between numbers. But yours non-standard solution doesnt bother me so much.--Grtek (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Supplemented --Grtek (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Grtek: , @Ikan Kekek: I uploaded a new version. Hope this answers your remarks. Thanks--Ikonact (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further improvements. I wish more people would support, but you've certainly made the map more valuable. It should definitely be nominated at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, you did really great job. --Grtek (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps