Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Info created by Sting - uploaded by Sting - nominated again by Ronja --Ronja 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC). Moved to top by --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Info New version with brand new background uploaded : in this one the shaded relief is correctly displayed. The topographic data is also more accurate (due to problems with the former GIS software) and I've added a few names I found. Sting 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Info note that this is a re-nomination: the vote was on halt due to a request from the map creator Sting
- Support This is an awesome map! --Ronja 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice map --No-w-ay 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this should pass, but many voters might not see the re-nomination as it's now so far down the list. I'm moving it back to the top, with a new date as it's really a new nomination. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support oho ! -- Walké 07:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nice /Ö 09:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent map. How long did it take you to do? Freedom to share 13:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I'm more accustomed with this kind of map (and specifically this one as it's the third version !), I only needed one or two hours for the topographic background. For the shores which need a specific work, several hours too, and more complicated they are, more time is needed because Inkscape runs very, very slowly when it has to handle with 3 or 400.000 points (when for example 16 SWBD tiles are used – a 4° x 4° map). In these cases, it may need several days to clean the SWBD file ! The rivers are also very greedy in time, as their course need to be corrected in order to follow precisely the relief of your map. For this version, only about one or two hours because I re-used the former drawings, but it can also need several days (like in Image:Pyrenees_topographic_map-fr.svg).
- To resume, I would say that the topography and the bathymetry are the fastest and easiest to be drawn ; the shore limits (taken from the NASA SWBD files) may need from a few hours to several days depending of the area covered by the map ; the same for the rivers depending their number ; several hours too for additional data (roads) depending their complexity and the quality of the source. Sting 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I vote so Sting knows I'm impressed by his work :) But I think before voting that these kind of map should be checked for their accuracy first (I suspect it to be accurate), and I'm too lazy to take the time to verify :) Benh 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Benh. About the topography, you can be insured about its accuracy as it comes directly from the NASA. The only manipulation of the data is the simplification of the paths after vectorization, and for this I give the equivalent scale in the description page. The doubts could be on the rivers and roads, and I give the links to their source to be able to compare. Sting 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I begin to know how it needs a long time to do this kind of maps... Sémhur 10:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support ack Benh. But since when is NASA a reference?? Lycaon 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Info -You can check en:Shuttle Radar Topography Mission for more information about the en:digital elevation models they make available as well as their external links (specifically their accuracy report page). The SRTM data were measured by instruments from the Shuttle, so with no direct human interference, and post-processed afterwards. The SRTM project is leaded by the en:National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. I'm not a professional cartographer but for our project here and our needs, I don't see what kind of better references can be given. But note that these maps have to be taken for what they are, for example they aren't of course intended to be used for flight or sea navigation as this is not their purpose. Sting 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice encyclopedic work. Shushruth 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very professional. Rocket000 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ronja 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)