Not disputing that the work is mechanical (bear in mind that the time of work involved here is higher than for the typical photo). However, how does the fact that the "work is mechanical" mean that it fails the VI [set] criteria? The purpose of VI is to identify media "considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects". Not sure how you can oppose something you consider "valuable", on non-criteria grounds?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see anything at all about how the image is created here. The question is whether they are valuable to the project. I would suggest these a very valuable to anyone wanting locator images of the UK which must cover quite a range of uses. --Herbytalk thyme11:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a common agreement that VIs must fulfill something like the en:Threshold of originality. These maps are perfectly predictable. The comparison of time of work must be biased towards a beginner GIS user and/or a very gifted photographer. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Common agreement" - where, exactly? If that exists, it should be encoded in the criteria; as it is not encoded in the criteria, your opposition is not based on the VI criteria. The fact that maps are perfectly predictable is neither here nor there. If an image is valuable for Wikimedia projects, then it should be appropriate for VI. To exclude a class of valuable imagery from VI just because its "simple" is contrary to the whole point of VI IMO - you might as well just call the project "valued photographs" and be done with it.
If you believe VI should be reserved for images that are both valuable to and require the complexity a simple map lacks, please demonstrate/establish consensus on that.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About criteria, Nr. 1 and 2 request that a candidate is the most valuable. This implicitely requests that the scope is non-deterministic, because one cannot elect a superior one if any attempt to depict the subject will give the same result.
With respect to the most valuable criterion - I agree - but that is "most valuable of images on Commons". The style of these maps is quite different to the alternate images (such as File:Cumb.svg) they are designed to supersede: The colours are very different, the nominated maps include areas outside of England (so adding context), are both better sourced (I don't know the origin of the older SVG data) and are actually more accurate. Which of those two versions is superior?
I'd say your interpretation of the criteria may be flawed in general. Please see discussion here. If consensus is these types of images aren't eligible fair enough, but under the existing criteria they are and if the exclusion is wanted it should be codified.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are various basic maps with distinct advantages, one may try to nominate a single VI Map of ceremonial counties in England. This still wouldn't justify a scope for the derivative set of locator maps. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On scope: Is the scope "Locator map of Cumbria" a valid one? (I'd say yes because it clearly has encyclopedic value in articles relating to Cumbria) If so, then each of the locators for each the counties is valuable (as you have already said). This VISC its equivalent to the 47 individual nominations but a lot easier to process. Furthermore, the possible single VI map for the scope "Map of ceremonial counties in England" would not be able to fulfil the role of the derivative maps (but could also be valuable in own right).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
