Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis

Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2021 at 13:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 
  Map of Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
• 
  Orthophoto of Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, Paris, France.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps of Europe
•  Info created by Paris 16 and the National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information (France) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Question Given recent hemming and hawing about this issue, are we clear on this constituting a valid set? Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support we are --Andrei (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Regarding the map: We should use the phrase “Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors” and include a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, both on the description page and in the metadata of the SVG file. The hint “Map data from OpenStreetMap” is a bit vague and does not mention copyright. OSM data are not public domain, they are licensed under the ODbL; everybody can use OSM data but must respect the terms of the ODbL, especially by declaring that the map data are “© OpenStreetMap contributors” and adding a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright (see that page for details). --Aristeas (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank Aristeas ! I added "OpenStreetMap contributors" in the description.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose I simply fail to see anything special or skilful or beautiful or otherwise wow-y here. For me, it’s just an aerial image of mediocre quality upscaled to 400 percent of its original resolution, and the corresponding area rendered from OSM data. Maybe I’m missing an important point here. --Kreuzschnabel 16:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose One is 2018 (before the fire), one 2021. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others, but Kreuz, how did you figure out it was upscaled? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: It's obvious from the 100% view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Very poor-quality at large sizes, but why 4x? I guess that's an estimate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment It was an estimate from the pixel blocks’ size. --Kreuzschnabel 08:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I like the concept, but aerial photo is upsampled. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per what others have written above. I'd also like to point out some things I noticed about the map. I think it's on a good way already, but not quite FP level yet. On a technical level, the main problem with this map is, imho, that it has a strange balance of simplification vs. detail. The the general look & feel of this map is that of a simple overview street map for a tourist, like the ones you get for free at the hotel reception. It prominently shows names of the most important roads, landmarks, and what appears to be metro stations (legend is missing!) in a clear and simplistic way. The buildings, on the other hand, are very detailed. However, all that detail is practically lost because of the low contrast of 1) buildings vs. roads and 2) building areas vs. building outlines. For a simple tourist map, it would make sense to merge adjoining building polygons of individual houses into simplified polygons for entire blocks (also applies to parks an other greenery). Alternatively, I may have misunderstood the purpose of this map and I'm supposed to use it in a zoomed-in state where I can clearly see the individual buildings. In that state the opposite problem exists: most of the minor roads have no labels at all. Or is it intended to be used in combination with the aerial image, as an annotation layer so to speak? That feels a bit cumbersome, why not label the image directly ... So you see that on the non-technical level, the map's purpose/intended use remains largely unclear to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)