Talk:Via Maria

opinion

• Too many links and too little waypoints and geomarks. Please check out El Camino Real for a notion of how to format an itinerary. Ibaman (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman: Thank you for the link to El Camino Real. Via Maria is a little different from that, it is rather a network like Way of St. James, but its structure is also different from, because Via Maria pilgrimages have no explicit starting or ending points just directions - its characteristic is precisely that. (The links will be selected, but they are still needed to compile the "full image".) However, there is still a lot of work to be done and I try to solve somehow to fit it though to the usual here. I hope you look back and by then it will be closer to your taste - it just takes some time. Fauvirt (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As it stands currently I would say it's more like a travel topic than an itinerary, as it's really listing routes rather than actually following the route. That's fine but perhaps, Fauvirt, you could clarify whether or not you're planning to describe the route itself so a traveler can follow it (an itinerary), or whether this is intended to introduce travelers to the routes that exist (travel topic). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The very name "Via Maria" implies an itinerary. It's nothing new. We already have Via Egnatia, Via Pontica, Via Hansaetica, St. James' Way and so on. Ibaman (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understand, but I mean the content in the article, which in some ways resembles a travel topic currently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I confess, even I am just beginning to get to know the Via Maria pilgrimage routes (I only knew about the "M01" until I started writing here). As I described above Via Maria it's more like the Way of St. James with differences. My goal is to clarifying and that it be like as the Way of St. Jame page. Fauvirt (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware of that kind of itinerary, as many of our itineraries are more like Loneliest Road in America, which is organized differently. As that's a usable itinerary I do not oppose your idea to format this article in a similar way. By the way, do you know how to create a marker (coordinates)? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have met with such templates at Budapest/East Pest but I was not brave enough to apply them here... and I was also confused by that "not starting or ending points just directions".... But if you have an idea how to solve this here I'm open to it. :o) In the meantime, I looked at the Loneliest Road in America page ... I'm still thinking about it. Fauvirt (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In many of our itineraries, “get in” is about reaching the start of the route, “go/walk/drive” goes along the route from start to finish, and “go next” links to similar itineraries. That’s a form that can be used, but feel free to use whatever format you think is best appropriate for this particular route. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: it's important, that the Via Maria is not just a pilgrimage (thay are the purpul and blue colored ways), it have other ways to... its diffikult, for me is it too to undestand it... it seems that it is or was still constantly evolving and and the changes, even now, are not well documented... (e.g. the now blue north-south road would also have been purple sign). Fauvirt (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I reworded the text a bit but if you feel I'm wrong, rewrite your version back. Fauvirt (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're the expert, so I defer to you, but while "way" is used in names, I'd suggest using the words "route" or "path" for description. But let's see whether anyone else has any different ideas. Meanwhile, carry on! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips! If you can then look back, I hope the page will be significantly more orderly in 2-3 weeks. I welcome all advice or criticism! Fauvirt (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are the expert. I just want to add – with no knowledge on this route and little about Central Europe pilgrimages in general – that "for tourists and Christian pilgrims" can very much be the right way to state it. The pilgrims I have seen interviewed in Finnish media, and the media coverage on new Nordic pilgrimage routes, suggest that a great part of those following the routes seek spiritual aims that have little to do with their faith, be they Christian or not, and the routes are developed also for general slow tourism. The church is involved, but nobody asks about the pilgrims' motives. Only a minority think the pilgrimage per se will save their soul. Still, a feeling of Christian community is probably important for many. I suppose a non-pilgrim tourist should keep in mind that they indeed are on a pilgrimage route, where many fellow wanderers are pilgrims and many others are there to immerse in the pilgrim experience. It might be good to have a discussion on that in the Respect section. --LPfi (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: thank you too! Good idea! Fauvirt (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman, SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek, LPfi: I want to ask for help. I wanted modified the page, which could be a direction for this content but I don't know if it fits the rules...? The point is, the roads have regional (such as. Via Maria in Upland, Via Maria in Transylvania) "superiors" which are completely independent - I think of these as separate guides (if it should be likened to something, then it is like the French Way in the Way of St. James, but not quite)... at the same time, it is also true that the the regions are connect through them. Is this understandable that I wrote?... So the question is: can I make an "Regional road sections" section in Routes because... I think the presentation of the unit and subunits is also important, so to speak, side by side. But in this, I'm not sure. So this is just a theoretic question yet. Fauvirt (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You could always start by covering those branch-itineraries here, then move them to their own articles when ready. Alternatively, if you think each of them will make a good article on its own, start them as separate articles. It's your call. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Long distance walking in Europe may be an example of the kind of article you want to design. Judging from this article, the concern is that it’s one name for a trail, but many somewhat different routes. Definitely you could create separate article sections or even separate articles for each route, as Ikan Kekek said. I’m not aware of any policy that would prevent or require doing it either way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There really isn't. It's a question of how much content there would be either way. If you're in doubt, start the sections here and see how they develop, then spin them off if they're getting pretty long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

Can I integrate OpenStreetMap to the page?... I founded the section maps M01: Via Mariae M01-01 Mariazell-Terz (3522734) ... Relation: Via Mariae M01-58 Cârta - Șumuleu Ciuc (4548595) and M02, M03, M05, M10, M21 - can these be somehow brought together? Fauvirt (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)