Template talk:Gbmapping/Archive 1

Archive 1

Larger scale

You can link to larger scale maps using {{GBvosi}}. Note that it requires completely different parameters from this template. -- RHaworth 19:18, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Link to Multimap

Hum. Not a great fan of MultiMap and its very mundane street maps, and the scale this link brings up is way too large for most of the applications of the template. I must confess that when I created this template, one of my motivations was a hope that I'd be able to find a way to link to the Ordnance Survey's own Get-A-Map web service, which brings up decent topographic maps. But I havn't managed to do so, largely because of the way that service uses browser specific Javascript. So I suppose this is better than nothing; hope that doesn't sound too grudging :-). -- Chris j wood 00:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having added it I was finding that it's scales and quality of view were very erratic. They do offer topographic maps on one of their scale levels although I don't know how to link straight to them. I'll hunt out a better site, but for now it makes the template more useful than before :) --BesigedB 09:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, for get a map we would use {{{1}}} --BesigedB 10:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Defending the existence of Category:Articles with OSGB36 coordinates?

Could whoever thinks this category is necessary defend it on Categories for Deletion. As far as I can tell it just lumps all British settlements and geographical landmarks into one ugly and pointless category. Joe D (t) 17:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also

• Maps of the UK and Ireland

Template:GBvoss

The definition of the category "Articles with OSGB36 coordinates" is stated as "These are articles which contain links to the Ordnance Survey online Get-a-map service (http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm) created by one of the templates also listed in this category." but I just noticed that Template:GBvoss which provides links to Victorian OS maps using www.old-maps.co.uk also adds articles to this category. One or t'other is wrong. 80N 13:31, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

CfD

As per the recent vote at CfD, the category Category:Articles with OSGB36 coordinates is going to be deleted. I've removed the category from all of the templates I knew of, and as the articles are edited, they'll be removed from the category. --Kbdank71 17:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 13 for debate --Henrygb 09:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes

I don't know the wiki-terminology for it but the recent change in the result obtained by clicking on a gbmapping map reference is certainly for the worse; on two counts.

• It leaves choice of format to the reader. If the mapping link is to be used effectively in an article, it is usually important that the writer should know what the reader will be seeing.
• Once a reader is fool enough to click on the map reference, he is stranded on the special page and and has to log in again to get back to the article. Even worse: if a writer attempts to check a link to see if the map or aerial photo illustrates the point being made in the article, he has to log in again and re-write his contribution to the article.

Put these together and a potentially very informative facility has been rendered virtually unusable.

I am now in the process of going through my contributions and taking the gbmapping links out.

Please restore a sane system. (RJP 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

Bit much to remove the links, but I am in sympathy with the sentiment. It was much better when a link just took you straight through to a map. Grinner 09:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean you have to log in again? There's a tick box for remembering your login on Wikipedia, and this issue should be no more affected by one external link than another. Joe D (t) 10:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that ticking the box means that I don't need to fill in the password and the PC logs me in again when I ask it to, I regard this as my logging in. I can discover no other way of going back once I get onto the special page used by the mapping software. Ticked log-in or not, my edit is lost unless I have uploaded it before checking the efficacy of the linked map or aerial photo. Incidentally, before this change, I didn't know about the APs. They are potentially a bonus. (RJP 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps as the original creator of this template I can respond to this. I believe the changes are the result of discussions with the team responsible for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, and should bring some significant new features, such as the ability to search for Wikipedia articles from a graphic visualisation (see the project page for examples. At first that project team wanted everyone to use lat-long co-ordinates in order to do this, but it was pointed out that the prevalence of grid references in the UK made lat-long co-ordinates hard to find/use here. RHaworth has put a lot of work into integrating the gridref system into the overall project, and the recent changes are part of that. I rather like the additional choices of map/photo format offered by this change, and it has actually spurred me to add more {{gbmapping}} references to articles. I have found no problem using my browsers back button to go back from maps and arial photos to the original article, so I'm a bit mystified by RJP's comments on this above. I'd also caution against too close integration between text and external resources (maps or anything else) because the external stuff can change. So no, please do not revert these changes. -- Chris j wood 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Within places like Britain and Ireland, where the grids exist, they are far more convenient. Taking the global co-ordinate information from an Ordnance Survey map is a slow and rather imprecise process. So, from my point of view, you certainly got that right. :-)

Clearly, the constant returning to the options list on the special page when the back button is used, is something to do with my equipment (or with me!). I'll keep a lookout here, for helpful suggestions.

I have now tried using a gbmapping link on a PC in the local public library. That behaves in exactly the same way as mine does. Having looked at the map, I can return to the option list, then the yellow redirection notice page, then that takes me back to the option list. (RJP 16:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

When I read this, I was mystified because I'd never, ever seen anything that looked like a 'yellow redirection notice'. Then I realised that your public library, if it is anything like mine, probably still uses Microsoft Internet Exploder. So I cranked up my copy, and lo-and-behold, it behaves just as you said; ugly and not very useable. My apologies for doubting you. I could suggest that you 'upgrade' to Firefox, but I don't really think that is reasonable. I'll see if I can work out what is wrong, but it will probably need RHaworth to fix it. -- Chris j wood 20:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The idea of giving to the reader, the option of which format to use looks fine but without cluttering his text with instructions, the writer has no way of knowing what the reader will be looking at, so that the value of the technology as a means of getting a point across, is largely lost. The need for instructions means that the reader spends effort learning about Wikipedia rather than the subject in hand.

I take the point about the need to review the article in case the external format changes. That is what I am doing now. :-) I shall be more careful how I use gbmapping and the like, in future. Pitty, it seemed a good idea. (RJP 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

I'm sorry you feel that way. Could you give me an example of a page where you feel this change has made things worse (aside from the yellow redirection glitch, which I now entirely agree with you on, see above). Perhaps we can find a middle way. -- Chris j wood 20:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Try A151 road for starters. -- RHaworth 09:20, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

From the creator of the yellow redirector

"Logging in" problems. In most browsers it is possible to right click a link and select "open link in new window". This should always be used when testing links in a preview window. In Internet Explorer, alongside the Back button there is a little pull-down tab which gives a recent pages history and enables you to go back to a specific page (and other browsers have similar). Either of these methods solves RJP's logging in problems.

"Yellow redirection". The conversion from Grid Ref to Lat/Long is done by . I wrote it in Javascript because it is the only script I am currently competent in. To make a virtue of neccessity, this means that the actual, non-trivial arithmetic is carried out on the user's computer - which, if it was integrated into the Wiki software in this form, could take some of the load off the hard pressed Wiki servers. However the disadvantage is the way that it "breaks the browser back button". If someone would like to volunteer to re-write it in php script ... In the meantime the methods I have given above under "logging in problems" do provide a work around. (I can easily change the colour, make the "Redirecting" message smaller, etc. if you want. But is it worth it?)

Incidentally you may be interested to know that in the three weeks that it has been live, my yellow redirector has been accessed about 3000 times. That seems a rather low figure and suggests that map freaks are a fairly rare sub-species of Wikipedian.

When writing html for my own site, I make a lot of use of links which open automatically in a new window. This might be useful here but I don't think the Wiki software supports it.

If the mapping link is to be used effectively in an article, it is usually important that the writer should know what the reader will be seeing. (RJP above) In the vast majority of cases it is not important - the link is there so people can locate the place. But there are exceptions and one notable one is RJP's A151 road - an article which puts all the other "A.. road" articles totally to shame.

I think the introduction of the yellow redirector has been a success - hundreds of articles where people don't care exactly what the reader will be seeing or actually prefer giving the reader a choice have been changed at a stroke. And it makes for tidier articles than a mess of links like these in Union Bridge.

But there is nothing to prevent editors who do care what people see from creating new templates - and marking them "do not redirect"! There are sufficient Grid refs in A151 road to justify RJP creating a specific template just for that article!

I have just created {{getamap}} on this basis. This could be built into a new version of gbmapping which would look like this:

Grid ref SU616687 other maps

Another example is {{mmuk mapdet}} which creates specific multimap links and a Map sources link.

But above all, please use templates for map links - do not code direct links.

-- RHaworth 10:26, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Now I have added mmuknr_map and mmuknr_photo as non-redirecting templates.

As a small palliative of the Broken Back Button problem, I have added some notes to the Map sources page. -- RHaworth 05:26, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I am confused. I want to put a map image in the article for Whitchurch, Hampshire. I do not know what template to use and what generates the png image. Is it possible to have an idiot's guide? User:Jmcc150 20:58, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC0

not working any more?

I'm getting the following error message when I click on the template, is it just me? Grinner 10:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

403 Forbidden
You have been refused access to this page.
Visit our Help & support site for assistance with any problem you might be having, or contact
us to tell us about a fault you have found so that we can fix it.

No. It's 403. Seems BT have worked out what was going on and fixed it. The long-term solution is to vote for Bug 2340, though there may be other temporary work arounds (such as linking straight into OS getamap). Dunc|☺ 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Is there are reason why the initial "g" in the template is in lower case? This looks odd when used in articles, and would in my opinion be better with a capital "G". CLW 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one seems to object, so I'll change this. CLW 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah.. I was just thinking the upper case looks odd when used in a context like

Abbey Dore is a village and parish in Herefordshire, at grid reference SO386305...

Perhaps we need two templates. --Cavrdg 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to maps of larger scale

Hi can any of you help,

On the page for Chew Valley Lake I've used the gbmapping link to the various options available. I originally used a 10 digit ref ST5695059749 but another user said this only showed a part of the lake and would be better to use the 6 digit ref ST5659 in the hope that it would point to a larger scale map showing the whole lake (& a bit of surroundings) (probably 1:50000 would be best for this map. I've tried using mmukscaled|ST5659|200| but when you follow the link it still end up at a 1:25000 scale rather than the 1:200000 that I was expecting for. Rod 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Broken?

Links using the {{gbmappingsmall}} template are currently giving this error:

Warning: main(../../wiki/includes/Defines.php) [function.main]:
failed to open stream: No such file or directory in 
/home/egil/public_html/extensions/mapsources/index.php on line 40

Fatal error: main() [function.require]: Failed opening 
required '../../wiki/includes/Defines.php' 
(include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') 
in /home/egil/public_html/extensions/mapsources/index.php 
on line 40"

Dave.Dunford 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The imposition of this unwieldy mess, withought thought is vandalism

I gave up trying to edit geographical articles in England some time ago, as I could not be sure that some numbskull would not follow up by rendering map links useless by inserting this cock-up of an idea. Now it is being done completely mindlessly by some mechanical device. The only remedy seems to let it get on with making many of the articles which had escaped, largely worthless and stay away. RJP 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the merit of some of your reversions is higher than others. I am minded that in many cases the use of standard templates providing a choice of maps is justified. For example, whilst not all maps display all features, this argument can be deployed on any article and there is inevitably still a choice of numerous maps that do. Also some users may prefer to use sat photos anyway.

If you really have a problem you can subst templates into the document, this may be a better compromise, as what I am really tring to address is the vast number of virtually identical templates for similar purposes. My own interest is really in creating a consistent look and feel. It will also stop similar groups coming along such as those interested in Micro Codes (Articles with long lists of locations are really atttractive to them) which I am told are good but I dont really understand what the difference is to the Template:coor family of templates.

IMHO, ideally, I think UK articles should be all standardised on the Template:coor family of templates, as this allows use by other applications (such as Google Earth) and is more understandable to those (including in the UK - but especially outside) who have little or no understanding of how the British Grid Ref system works. Pit-yacker 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Coord family of templates

Can this template be made more like {{coord}}? Specifically, the little globe that has the drop-down mini-atlas would be a cool addition.

Mauls (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1