Wikivoyage talk:Star static maps

Having a hall of fame for static maps

Swept in from the pub

Static maps are becoming a dying art – they take a long time to make, often hours, and sometimes even days. Yet, little is done to incentivise the creation of good-quality static maps, but I don't blame the community given that static maps were integral to an article before dynamic maps existed (I'm not sure when that happened, but maybe some of our contributors who have been active since the site's early days may be able to answer this), but today, the same can be done using other online mapping features such as geojson.io and mapframes, which can provide a much friendlier user experience.

Now, don't get me wrong, I prefer dynamic maps to static maps, but dynamic maps can have their own flaws, which is why I'm a strong beliver of having togglable static and dynamic maps. But to have togglable maps, static maps need to be created, and to have static maps, there needs to be some incentive for contributors to spend hours making quality and detailed maps; hence why there are so few active/semi-active contributors who can make them (off the top of my head, the only users who I know that can make static maps are myself, Ypsilon, SelfieCity, Shaundd and Wauteurz).

So what do I propose we do? Putting myself in the shoes of SHB2000 during June 2022, one of my biggest struggles was looking for which maps to use as a template. That's why I'm proposing we have some sort of "hall of fame" for static maps, something that works similar to QIs on Commons (though we can work out how the voting system later). It works in both ways: it incentivises more users to make static maps, and those who are new to making static maps have something to work with.

What does everyone else think?

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would support doing this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This has my support as well. I'm not sure if it will help getting more static maps made, but it's definitely worth trying. ― Wauteurz (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful reference for map-makers. Support. Ground Zero (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

An interesting idea. For myself, I've hit a bit of a wall on static maps primarily because I don't have a good base layer to use for geographic reference. Powers ^(talk) 01:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I will be happy to help in producing static maps even without "hall of fame" :-) --Ikonact (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to respond earlier, but for the Wikivoyage 10 edit-a-thon, I revamped the Wikivoyage map for New Jersey, based on OSM data (not imported directly, but rather as a base to trace roads and determine the placement of city markers). Does it hold up to the standards denoted below? Is there anything that needs to be added (or removed)? I may revamp other U.S. state maps in the coming months. JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@JsfasdF252: Hey, there's no need to apologize! I had a quick look of File:New Jersey regions map.png and it fulfills all six of the criteria required. Would it pass such a nomination? It probably will, but I don't know how voting will turn out – I unfortunately can't read the minds of others. I'm looking forward to your future maps, but you're off to a great start! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @SelfieCity, Wauteurz, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, Ikonact: Thank you all for your input! I know it's only been three days, but here's my 2 cents on the nomination/!voting system:

• Discussions will be held for a period of seven (7) days.
• Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominations at any time, provided that the level of support is below 50 per cent.
• All files will need an appropriate license – maps without proper licensing are ineligible and will probably be deleted on Wikimedia Commons.
• To vote, users will need to be registered for 3 months and have at least 10100 edits (edited per LPfi's suggestion); users who don't meet this criterion are still able to create maps, nominate their own maps and partake in those discussions. (added per cmt below).
• After the seven-day period and with a minimum of four (4) votes, maps will be promoted if they have at least three (3) votes and 60 per cent support. Maps with support ranging from 40 per cent to 60 per cent will have their discussions extended for another week. Maps with less than 40 per cent support will be slushed.
• If/when a map is promoted, the PNG file is to be locally uploaded, with a top icon added.

Much of this is derived from the voting process on c:COM:FPC and c:COM:QIC, but I'm open to other suggestions. If the percentages are also overly specific, please do give me other alternatives. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason for the suggested very low threshold of 10 edits? Do we want to recruit new Wikivoyagers by this procedure? An additional requirement of being autoconfirmed would help a little; still these could be very new. It is easy to register ten users and vote just as a prank. Does anybody with less than 100 edits and 3 months of experience have a grasp on what is useful for Wikivoyage? There are lurkers, of course, and people who have been active as logged-out or with several short-lived accounts, but I think that to take part in community processes, you can be expected to register an account and keep to it for your main activities. –LPfi (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: possibly – though now that I think about your suggestion, you're right that anyone can prank !vote, though I would suggest dropping the threshold from 3 months to 1 month (for one, the static map on Stratford (Victoria) was created by a user whose account on en.voy was then only 3 weeks old). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think new users should be allowed to create maps, nominate them and take part in the discussion, but I don't think they should get to vote – what is suggested above is voting, not "!voting". –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to subconsciously write !voting instead of voting on WMF projects, even when I was supposed to type voting (and I almost just typed !voting just then). I'll amend the proposal further. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Most registered editors don't make many edits. There are 2,306,663 registered accounts here, almost all of which (97.23%) have never made an edit here, and almost all of which (99.98%) are currently inactive. Only 63,351 have ever made one (1) edit, and only 559 have made any edits at all during the last 30 days. Setting a threshold of 100 edits means that out of the ever-made-any-edit group, we're excluding 97% of all successful contributors, and, based on a spot-check of Special:ActiveUsers, about 80% of recently active contributors.

Is that what you really want to do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

How about 100 edits, or created 10 static maps? As static maps are usually hosted on commons, somebody who is interested in map-making may not make many edits here. Although technically this would include those who have made maps for Wikipedia or other language Wikivoyage, I don't think this is a real problem. AlasdairW (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't need to include people that make more general-purpose maps for other Wikimedia projects. I'd suggest specifying that the maps need to broadly fit our standards, and in general phrasing it as "static maps which fit Wikivoyage map standards for at least 10 unique locations" or something along those lines, otherwise one could argue that a map's SVG and PNG uploads could count as two maps.

While on that topic, I'd personally like to see the practise of providing source files alongside the exported map become a requirement for promoting a map to the hall of fame. Any map that cannot be edited by another user to reflect changes in the real world, is in my opinion a flawed map.
― Wauteurz (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlasdairW, in round numbers, how many people would you like to be eligible to participate? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I expect that each sub-category (100 edits or 10 static maps) would have around 50-500 people eligible, but in practice only 10-20 could be expected to actually vote. People are still eligible if their last contribution was years ago. AlasdairW (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you set that restrictive a level, then I think that in practice, only one or two people (other than the nom) could be expected to actually vote, and maybe not even that many. Commons' QIC is open to all registered editors, has been around for years, and typically gets no more than five votes. c:Commons:Valued image candidates usually get just one or two votes. We are a smaller group, starting a new process. We should already assume less participation than a bigger community with an established and moderately prestigious process. If we add additional barriers, we could expect even less participation, and possibly none.

If you are concerned about brigading, then the solution is to have an "admins can ignore any vote they suspect of being made in bad faith or due to external coordination" rule, not to put up defensive barriers against hypothetical trolls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume that most one-edit accounts were created for that edit and then forgotten (even if some of them might have been created with the intension to start contributing). Of the ones that haven't made any edit, I suppose many are people from other projects checking a link without any intention to contribute (I have contributions on ga-, gcr, gl-, nv-, pms-, rw-, ro-, uk-, ko-, th-, and tr-wp – languages I don't speak and don't intend to edit on. I am registered on more than 170 projects where I have zero contributions (and obviously in most cases don't know the language). Would they like me to jump in on some vote? I think for voting, you should have spent some time on the project, so that you know how the maps are used and what makes a map useful.

Of course, among those with zero edits, there may be people who use Wikivoyage daily. Does WMF have any statistics on those accounts? –LPfi (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that it would be possible but difficult to answer that question. I have never seen a report on how many pages are viewed by inactive logged-in editors, however. The "unique devices" metric would mostly give you information about logged-out readers (editors amount to something like 1 in 2,000 users, and high-volume editors are even rarer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So based on the above information, here's what I interpret from everyone here:

• Myself (SHB2000) – prefer to keep things similar to c:COM:FPC or c:COM:QIC
• LPfi – minimum 100 edits and 3 months of experience
• AlasdairW – minimum 100 edits and/or the creation of 10 static maps
• Wauteurz – unclear regarding the number of edits a user will need to vote, but maps need to fit Wikivoyage standards
• WhatamIdoing – not LPfi's proposal

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try and work on a better-drafted proposal that incorporates everyone's suggestions sometime tomorrow. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any preference on exact numbers, but I want to avoid trolls and people that don't know Wikivoyage dominating voting. I don't see that as a general risk, but if it happens every now and then, the value of a place in the hall of fame will de seriously compromised. –LPfi (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I get your point – I would also like to avoid trolls, too. I'm thinking maybe ≈30–50 edits? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm still drafting a proposal (off-wiki), so apologies for the delay, but I've changed my mind since last week and now have a similar opinion as WhatamIdoing. Roman from Australia, whose account may only be less than a week old, has already created some usable maps for Greater Geelong and Mornington Peninsula – it goes to show that new users can also create static maps if they want to dedicate time, energy, and passion to it. If we do have issues with trolls, I guess their vote can always be invalidated. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Initial draft

@SelfieCity, Wauteurz, Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, Ikonact, LPfi, WhatamIdoing, AlasdairW, LtPowers: I spent the last few nights trying to draft the following proposal. It probably needs copyediting from my 22:00-tired self writing (or should've let ChatGPT write the entire thing!), but much of this draft tries to incorporate everyone's opinions, in addition to what's on Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition. Does this seem like a good initial proposal? Keep in mind that this isn't set in stone. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

==Guidelines== ===Nominating===

Before a file is nominated, check if it meets the following requirements:

1. The PNG file is at least 1MP.
2. It was created by a Wikimedia contributor. Static maps created by Wikitravel users who do not have Wikimedia accounts are disqualified automatically.
3. It has appropriate licensing; if a map is based on OpenStreetMap, simply state that (e.g. Photo: own work, based on OSM). Inadequately-licensed maps will likely be deleted on Wikimedia Commons and are thus ineligible. EXIF data is not required.
4. Maps have a source file. A map that doesn’t have an appropriate baseline for future editors to edit is not one of the finest static maps. In addition, anything not on the two map templates, such as road or rail route markers, must be included under the “source” tab.
5. Most maps will have two files, a PNG and an SVG. Although SVG files are crucial, the PNG file is what’s usually displayed and should be the file that’s nominated. However, maps without an SVG file are ineligible as they cannot be edited easily.
6. Maps should generally follow the English Wikivoyage style. It’s okay to stray away slightly and experiment with new things, but the underlying principles on Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps and Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition should still be followed.

If the map fulfills the above six criteria, then categorise it into one of the following four categories:

• Region maps – this is for maps with colour-coded regions, countries or districtified cities – for regions, these include both the maps for non-bottom-level regions and bottom-level regions with regions included to illustrate districts (e.g. Hunter).
• Bottom-level region maps – this category is specifically for region maps but with no further subregions.
• City, district, park and diving maps – these maps contain individual POIs; however, these tend to be discouraged on Wikivoyage in favour of dynamic maps, but the few exceptional maps go in this category.
• Other – in some rare cases, a map may not fit into one of the three maps. Such could be a map for an itinerary or a transit network (specifically made for Wikivoyage).

If you’re unsure of what makes a good static map, here are a few elements that most maps contain:

• Important roads
• Route markers
• Important cities labelled
• The general geography of the area – this shouldn’t be a problem as most Wikivoyage maps have this, but some maps don’t.
• Important ODs (such as national parks or important historic/cultural sites) labelled.
• Important airports or railway stations (for smaller region articles or districtified city articles)
• Colours that don’t contain difficult-to-read text or strain your eyes.

Keep in mind that these should be treated on an individual case-by-case basis – sometimes, the additions of these can make the map too crowded or can be too fine-grained. A map not having the following is not a reason to oppose by itself, though a plain map is also not one of the site’s finest maps.

[insert how to nominate here – TBD]

===Voting===

The voting process will be held for a period of seven days, which starts as soon as the nomination is created. Nominators and creators can withdraw their nominations at any time, provided that the level of support is below 50 per cent.

After 7 days and a minimum of three votes:

• Maps with more than 60 per cent support will be promoted.
• Maps with less than 40 per cent support will be slushed.
• Maps with support ranging from 40 per cent to 60 per cent will have their discussions extended for another week.

Users should clearly indicate their preference by bolding their vote or by using Support, Oppose or Neutral templates. Any user may vote, but obvious troll or sock votes may be removed at the discretion of any user in good standing. While raw votes are not prohibited, try and give a reason alongside your vote.

Once an image is promoted:

• Upload the image locally.
• Add {{startopicon}} to the locally-uploaded file Note: this template does not exist as of drafting this.
• Add {{hompromoted}} Note: this template does not exist as of drafting this.

---

• Excellent. I don't see any issues with this draft at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SelfieCity!

For everyone else, one more thing (cc Ikan Kekek, LPfi in particular): I've deliberately mentioned that EXIF data is not required. Most static maps' EXIF data seem to only have the source (Inkscape) and the resolution in dpc, both of which can be manipulated, while some maps don't have EXIF data at all. Is this okay with everyone else? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems I am a bit lost regarding the basic requirements:

1. From where comes the PNG? Shouldn't the map be an SVG? Is this the canvas size, in some nominal resolution?
2. Shouldn't the map be uploaded at Commons or Wikivoyage? If so, the uploader must by definition be a Wikimedia contributor. Are we saying that you can nominate maps found elsewhere on the net (and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by you or somebody else), but the author may not have an account on WT (how do you know that?) unless they also have an account on WMF. Is the point that a source or username on WT may not need to be attributed?
3. Just stating a map is based on OSM is not enough. It needs to have appropriate licensing. I assume "appropriate" mean a licence accepted by commons, chosen by the copyright owner. Is OSM CC-zero? Why mention EXIF?
4. What's the source file if you use OSM? Is the point that you should upload also the file you use for map data? What is the "source tab"? Is this a layer, shown as a tab in some specific program?
5. Doesn't Commons serve PNGs when you ask for a thumbnail of an SVG? Do you create a PNG for the resolution intended to be shown on the Wikivoyage page, to optimise it better than what the servers do? If so, it seems that we require maps to be 1000px·1000px or the equivalent, or larger, when shown in articles. Or do we create larger PNGs to be scaled down by the servers? Do they do better than if given a SVG – even at ?
6. OK.

–LPfi (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I can answer a few of these questions for you, since I did coin the SVG-requirements:

1 & 5 - The PNG is a user-made export of the SVG file. Ideally, the article on WV uses the PNG file, and the SVG file is available on Commons should either our hierarchy or real-world situations change. Neither of those is a given for all of eternity, so if either changes, it saves hours of time to have access to the SVG file. If it isn't available, the map would in a worst case scenario have to be redrawn from scratch.

When using the SVG file directly, things such as fonts do not get rendered correctly, hence why a PNG (or JPEG, I guess) export of said SVG would be a requirement. Wikimedia's SVG renderer also slightly skews things such as letter spacing. Compare for example the map for Sydfynske Øhav (PNG | SVG). This can impair things such as legibility, and is therefore undesirable. For inclusion in articles, PNGs are preferred, but for future changes, SVGs are required.

3 - That license, for as far as I know, is C:Template:ODbL OpenStreetMap. Since the work is modified by the uploader, a compatible licence can be used, hence why my uploads of OSM-based maps are on CC-BY-SA 4.0 International.

4 - There is none, none to link to aside from OSM itself at least. You don't need to upload the base image, just credit 'OpenStreetMap Contributors', either through the licence above or through C:Template:OpenStreetMap if it's an unmodified export of OSM data. The 'source tab', I would assume, is the field on the summary and licensing data for the Commons upload. Scroll down below any upload on Commons and you should find this field under the Summary heading.

I hope that answers your questions. ― Wauteurz (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wauteurz has already answered most of what I was going to say, so to what else has to be mentioned:

1 and 5. Inkscape SVGs on Wikimedia look hideous, which is why we don't use them in articles. EXIF data is specifically mentioned because some users on Commons think the lack of EXIF data is a reason for deletion (side note: it's not) or that it makes it ineligible for QI/FP.

3. What Wauteurz mentioned (my uploads of OSM-based maps also use the same license).

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1. OK. I still don't understand the requirement for 1 MP. Shouldn't the resolution ideally be the one to use, so that the servers don't need to resize it, or perhaps a multiple for those who want to click on it to get a larger version. I think those considerations should be told intead of the "1 MP". It should be easy to make a different resolution PNG from the SVG, so the uploaded PNG size is not crucial. If it is too small to be nice, then just don't support it in the vote.
2. The WT thing seems unnecessarily convoluted. Should we instead state that the map mustn't be used on WT before the upload to Commons – or that it mustn't be attributed to WT or an account on WT?
3. Should we say that the licence needs to be one accepted on Commons, and compatible with the use of underlying data, giving OSM attribution as an example?
4. If there is no source file for OSM data and we require one, then OSM-based maps are disqualified. I assume this isn't what we want, so rewording is needed. If we by "source tab" mean the standard information template fields, then let's not introduce that confusing term.
5. OK.

–LPfi (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding 1, it's because maps smaller than that look somewhat pixelated (see Algarve for an example of what I'm talking about). I'll get to the other four soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now to the rest:

2. The latter is what I meant.
3. If that's fine with everyone else, then sure.
4. How would you propose rewording it? By source tab, yes, I do mean the standard template field. Should tab be replaced with parameter?

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1. I assume that the "pixelated" look depends not only on the original resolution, but also on the relation between the resolution of the file and the resolution used on the screen. For Algarve, I changed the latter to match the former. Does it still look pixelated?
2. What about: "The map mustn't require attributing or linking Wikitravel."
3. If they are to be used here, I assume they should be uploaded to Commons, so a licence appropriate for Commons is needed. Stating the requirement just ensures it gets checked by the nominator and some of those voting. Does anybody think we should have a more stringent or more lax licence policy?
4. I am not sure what is needed. I guess something like this could work: "There must be a baseline map, which can be used for making new versions of the Wikivoyage map. Either point to that baseline map or include it as one or more layers in the SVG. Typically this is OSM or a blank map on Commons, but it could be any external source that is expected to remain available and hopefully get updated. Attribute the source on the file description page at Commons, whether or not you include the original data in the SVG."

–LPfi (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your first three points:

1. It's better, but it's still comes out a very pixelated to my eye.
2. Sure; that wording works for me.
3. I'll let others decide on whether we should have a more stringent or lax policy on licensing.

I'll get to the fourth point once I check a few things first. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I am generally happy with what you are proposing, but I think 7 days may be a bit quick for the complete voting process (I had originally thought of 3 months, but that is too long).

I would also like a note about the nomination to be posted on the talk page of the article(s) it is used on. It would be great to hear from editors who really know the location shown, especially if they normally only edit a few articles about their home region. AlasdairW (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the voting period be extended to 14 or 21 days? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think 21 days could work. That's enough time for everybody to weight in and for a discussion on points raised. –LPfi (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we need quite a bit more guidance on how to make good maps. Some of this is on the map expedition pages (Mapmaking Expedition, Regions map Expedition, are there others?) and on How to draw static maps, but I think those need updating. We might want to create a few new pages on different aspects. We also need guidance on what threshold we would like for "good" or "star" maps (Regions map Expedition has a list of features expected from star maps, but I think we need additional criteria).

The maps concerned should probably follow best practices (such as on layer names, fonts, colours, features included, symbols), which should be listed on the nomination page, with links to the relevant discussion. On case-by-case basis one could deviate from these, but only with an explicit rationale.

For features to include, these vary by type of map and probably by region. In mountainous terrain I think including the topography in some way would be needed for a star map. Likewise for itinerary maps to be travelled on foot or by bike. For parks one might want to include topography and vegetation. The recommendations need to be worked out. Perhaps we should restrict nominations to categories with a well developed practice until this is done.

Some of the guidelines recommend plain maps, for aesthetics – and because of copyright considerations. With many free base maps available (OSM, CIA, NASA, Commons) I think we should adjust our guidelines.

–LPfi (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Star static maps?

Now that I think about it, having a page like "Static map hall of fame nominations" sounds long and unwieldy – would there be any objections to trunkating the name to "Star static maps"? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but "Star static map nominations", leaving "Star static maps" for a gallery to show good map examples. AlasdairW (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that. Apols for not being clear about that earlier. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Implementation

Given that we've settled on most of the foundations, are there any objections to creating this page on May 19? Add another 12 days to finalise the structure of the page, and that leaves us with June 1 to officially start the first voting process. Any final objections to this? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the map projection also be considered for large regions? For instance many continental section maps use a cropped Robinson projection or some other pseudo-cylindrical projection, which isn't really ideal, as North won't always be shown as being perpendicular to East/West. Which map projection(s) would be ideal for such regions? Azimuthal equal-area? Azimuthal equidistant? Some other projection? JsfasdF252 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have a single answer for this. People can use their best judgement to choose a projection that makes sense for the specific case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What WhatamIdoing mentioned – I think this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but we might want to give some advice also on this. Not everybody creating maps has any understanding of projections, and they might pick a base map with a certain projection just because that was what they found first, or because that's the projection common where they live (such as the transversal Mercator projection dominating in Sweden: it is ideal for a long country along a meridian, but used there regardless of the shape of the depicted area). –LPfi (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It's May 19, meaning it's time to create Wikivoyage:Star static maps and Wikivoyage:Star static map nominations. Imma do that right now and format the pages over the next 12 days (leaving me 2 weekends). I'll keep everyone updated on this specific thread. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not yet commented on aspects other than the voting. I will take a better look on those soon. However, I suggest not using the term "star" yet, but instead creating a gallery of "good static maps". I think we need some experience before we know what can go wrong and may otherwise end up with a bunch of "star" maps with obvious deficiencies. It is quite frustrating for those whose maps have to be de-starred after a year, and likewise a gallery of less than ideal maps labelled stars will also be bad. After a year we might want to make the star category available and nominate the best of the "good" maps for that. –LPfi (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope we are lucky enough to have enough maps at the end of a year that we would be willing to consider any of them to be "deficient".

If this process gets too heavy, if it gets too encumbered with rules (and you know how quickly well-intentioned "advice" becomes "mandatory rules"), if the creative elements are suppressed through detailed checklists and negative criticism about every little thing, we will likely get no new maps. Then we will not be able to de-list any of them because nobody will want to contribute.

(Of course, if you're really worried about people feeling bad if the map is de-listed in 12 months, rather than worried about support and gratitude being shown for potentially less-than-perfect contributions, then we could just make a rule that says maps can't be reviewed for possible de-listing for at least two years.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What WhatamIdoing said. The entire purpose of this is to incentivise more maps, regardless of quality – the quality maps will then come along with practice. I fear that adding too many rules and regulations will kill this process, defeating the entire purpose of why we're having this process – to incentivise more maps. The current proposal isn't set in stone and when the time comes, they can be added. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. With no criteria on what makes a map good, I am not going to vote, but I hope there are others who have some feel for it. I wish good luck to the project. Another way to get more maps is to check whether there are some parts of the help pages that could be complemented or edited to make them more complete (regarding the basics) and more easy to understand. My impression is that they are not too easy for a beginner like me, but it might be that there is no simple way. (Yes, I should take the time to learn at some point, especially as there is good free geodata on Finland, but that will be later.) –LPfi (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: I found some good information on Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition#Standards; should that be moved over and adapted? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's more or less what I suggested in the last posting in #Initial draft, but the page says the standards are under discussion (although nothing has changed since 2013, other than copy edits and that the shields have been moved to a separate page, and the only discussion there on standards since 2014 has two postings). I think one should check whether there are some obvious problems and remove the warning template.

That said, WhatamIdoing is probably right in that we want to keep the criteria reasonably simple.

–LPfi (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess so – I'll suggest a simplified version when I get some time.

Also, there's no way I can realistically finish this in 3 days from now; any objections to pushing the start date from June 1 to June 15? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel dumbfounded, but I completely forgot about this. I've mostly finished laying out the foundations of Wikivoyage:Star static map nominations, just a few templates – hopefully shouldn't take too long. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi, WhatamIdoing, AlasdairW, JsfasdF252, Wauteurz, SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek, Ikonact, Ground Zero, LtPowers: After months of hiccups (and forgetting last week), I'm excited to announce that I've finally completed creating the several pages and templates required to kickstart this process. Not all galleries have been created – I plan to create them as we go, but feel free to create these if you feel doing so. The first nomination is already up – it is an example of how the nomination page looks like. Please vote as you see fit. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)