Request Thanks to the nominator for the kind and detailed explantions he has provided on his talkpage. For a layperson, it's somewhat difficult to understand at first sight that this image depicts, if I am not wrong, two kinds of geodetic marks, one ground mark (the stone), and one elevated mark (the pyramid), and that these two marks both materialize the same geodetic trig point (all trig points on one continent forming a network of triangles). May I suggest to complete the description with this information, in the descriptive text and with two annotations pointing to the marks? --Myrabella (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, the annotations and the complements in the description clarify the purpose of this image. A square stone with a triangle symbol somewhere and a small hole (or a cross) indicating the exact point are common features, I have been said :-). In Commons, there are not so many images of geodesic ground marks bearing those typical signs, but without national elements. Those other ground marks—1, 2 or 3—present those geodesic symbols, but in a too narrow close-up. And it seems to me that for this topic, it's important to show the landscape, the topography of the site. An fr-WP editor had suggested File:Camp celtique de la Bure - borne IGN (closeup).jpg but IMO the carved acronym is too specifically French. I guess that a geodesic "stone" (? "borne" in French) could be a good illustration, but I can't find an image of a geodesic stone in a landscape, with discernible symbols (perhaps because the signs are upside), except File:Clifton Hill Trig Point - geograph.org.uk - 205842.jpg. Nevertheless the nominated image has something more: it's interesting to have here two kinds of marks, a ground mark and an elevated one, and the amended description now explain what they are. So I support it as the most valuable within the scope, however hoping that the nominator will upload someday an image as illustrative as this one but of greater size. --Myrabella (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wonder myself why this image is smaller than the opposite view - they're scanned slides, maybe the quality wasn't satisfying. Will have to search the slide. Or visit Nice again. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
