327:), but maybe we should cobble something together in the meantime, at the very least for the U.S. counties. I am thinking that the state should have a black outline, with 50% or so grey lines for the county outlines. The counties should all be white, except the highlighted one which should be perhaps a nice blue color (Good contrast with both the white and the grey/black). Somewhere around 200-300 pixels wide would probably be good, with a clickable link to a larger version (especially for large states). Just my thoughts, at least. As for accreditation issues - I would have no problem crediting the US Census or UTexas or whoever as the original source, but we'll be doing lots of manipulation to these images so it's probably not necessary.
95:
integrating them in the articles, I can easily use the rambot to add them to existing articles if you don't already have a bot. I just finished a second pass of the counties where I updated the list of cities in the counties but it only updated a subset of counties which were not up to date. It is really up to you what you want to do. If you have your own bot, you can insert the pictures. It should be really simple to do. My main concern is that the pictures are not inserted haphazardly anywhere in the article. For what its worth, I downloaded and am planning on processing all the
476:
darker, than the county borders (thicker would probably suffice, since the county borders would get pretty light at smaller sizes anyway). The only con I can see with using white for the rest of the state is that it may be hard to distinguish the state from the surrounding area at smaller sizes (especially on coastal states with small islands). This is probably not much of an issue, though, since we're just trying to show where the county is.
31:
710:
visible, though it's a mere speck. I guess maybe choosing the size on a state-by-state basis might be the best idea (it'd look weird to have the same state at different sizes on different county articles). California might need 300 pixels, but for Rhode Island with its 5 counties, 300 pixels might be
858:
It's normal (well...) to have variation in height; I'm not concerned about this at all; the images flow down the page normally. The reason for restriction of width is the problems it creates with text flow; no such problems are created due to height. I think changing the size of the borders would be
484:
is the smallest one I can think of, but there may be tinier ones. A big state with some small counties might have troubles at this resolution. We can just make all our maps large, say, 600 pixels to be safe, and use an automated tool to resize them all. If some get too small, we can make those a bit
475:
Of these, red on white seems to be the most common, however. Blue-on-blue looks nice but is kind of at odds with the custom of using blue for water in maps (not to mention it may be hard for some people to distinguish between shades of blue). I do think the state border should somehow be thicker, or
155:
I tried a table of data, but decied against it. It cluttes up the article. I'd only change my mind if we build a general template to be used for all geographic and political subdivisions of a country. For now, thats way too many articles to go back to, and the research gets really tough for villages
94:
I really like the picture of the state with the county highlighted. Some of the counties in
California are like that. They need to be a bit smaller. But of course there is no reason that we can't have both sets of pictures, but I find that it is most useful to know where in a state it is. As for
888:
The above is what happens if we set a fixed width of 300 pixels, and let height vary accordingly. If we constrain them all to less than 300 pixels in height, also, it seems to keep the proportions a little better (and also keeps the file size under control). Here's the resized
Illinois, which to me
849:
height, since the tall skinny states (like
Illinois, Vermont, etc.) end up looking huge at 300 pixels wide. I just compared all of the states I've done, and most are okay... Illinois and Indiana should probably be padded with whitespace on the left and right prior to resizing, so the height doesn't
783:
How would you feel about using additional highlighting on the smaller counties? I'm thinking that a smallish red circle around the county would help make it easier to spot, especially if it's close to being a single pixel. Alaska's West
Aleutians county consists of lots of small islands. Encircling
399:
I'm happy to get on with it on my own if people think that this will be worthwhile. I did the examples with full red as that's what used elsewhere for similar positional micro-maps (counties of
Britain amongst them). It's clear and visible. We could decide to use something else, if you want, but...
105:
I also like the idea of having locator maps but I'm with Ram-Man in stating these images should be small (ala the
California counties) and placed in the correct places. Since some people are doing great work on adding adjacent county and highway lists to the geography sections of county articles, I
617:
Very trueĀ :) But when the whole state is < 300 pixels wide, some counties might end up being sub-pixel... anyhow, Alaska went relatively well. I doubt I got all the smaller islands with any degree of accuracy, but it should be enough for our purposes. I don't have them online anywhere; I'll set
222:
There is always the U.S. Geological Survey which has data and a web application to generate maps of just about anywhere. They are more like street maps though. Never underestimate the numbers of dedicated souls out there, myself included. These things have a way of eventually getting done. --
777:
Good point Brion. We should probably stick with the existing
California/Nevada naming format. I am not too opposed to a one-size-fits-all scheme, but I've just tried shrinking some of the Alaska ones; they are going to need at least 350 pixels (probably 400) of width in order to make some of the
580:
We should also work out how we want these put into the county pages, and how we mention that they reflect borders as of the 1990 census, and that they are for guide purposes only and people should not use them for anything important, such as navigation (is there a standard
Knowledge cartographic
117:
Mav, I added a comment to that page at the
Metapedia and provided a link that has some great pre-rendered maps. They've got not only county maps for every state, but also worls maps and country maps. The first map for "Africa" on that site is excellent for example. It is large, but the lines are
479:
On balance, I'd have to agree that red on white is probably the way to go. Size is another important issue. Most states are likely to look okay at around 300 pixels wide, at most. Even isn't too bad at this size. However, some counties are very small, and would practically vanish at this size.
664:
I'm an extreme newbie at shell scripting, so you may be able to do better if you have experience with it. Anyhow, I will e-mail you a chunk of them in a day or two. I've so far finished Alaska, California, Oregon, and
Washington (with Nevada soon to come). After that I'll start working my way
194:
Dunno if anyone has suggested this before; when browsing random articles, I often come across some of the many U.S. cities and counties imported by Rambot. It would be quite cool, I think, to have a small state map that indicates whereabout these cities and counties are (a dot for cities, a
735:
I've so far done 11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont) , totalling 326 counties; the names are of the format "Fairfield County, Connecticut.png", which is perhaps not really good enough in term of
250:
Since there are so many US cities and towns, I think the best idea would be if we could have an in-software method of converting longitude-latitude co-ordinates to a dot on a map. Possible implementations are popping into my mind as I type -- I don't think it would be that hard. --
232:
I did look at that web site and they want us to add a citation saying that we got the maps from their web site. It is public domain, so doesn't that mean that the citation is not strictly required? I don't know enough about copyright issues, so maybe I am missing something. --
118:
anti-aliased and the individual countries in africa are outlined. Since the maps is plain, it can be easily colored with a "Flood Fill" command and unneeded border can be removed safely. All the maps are that site are available for public non-commercial use and distribution. See
214:. They would take quite a bit of editing to reduce to an appropriate format for what I'm thinking of, but could be quite nice! If anybody knows of another public source for similar maps, let me know. I'd be interested in working on these. --
283:
Based on these maps (well, the one for New York), I quickly (ish - 20 minutes) did for the state of New York a set (62) of PNGs of the state with each county highlighted individually in red (as with the images of British counties such as at
322:
If we collaborated, we could pretty quickly get through all of the states (as long as we can agree on consistent choices of color and size). Ideally, we'd have software to automatically render this stuff (and even more ideally, it'd be
544:
Remove lines that split counties from each other where there is already a split (such as two islands with a division line between them) - we're using colour to partition the counties, so such lines are not needed and detract from the
151:
The recommendation is that any new Township article should have a title based on Aaa Township, Bbb County, State. Sure, its sometimes creates unnecessary verbage, but going back later to disambiguate or move articles is such a
159:
In the discussion about maps, I'd vote for the state outline version. Several universities (besides UT) have the same outlines, which to me implies a tiger or similar public domain source, I just haven't found it
598:; many tiny counties with lots of coastline, which are quite hard to distinguish. I don't know how easy these will be to clean up, but I will give it a shot; Alaska is likely to be one of the hardest. --
485:
larger. 200 pixels might be enough; we'll see how it goes. Maybe we should try a couple at that size, to see how they turn out (and whether we need to make the state border thicker or whatnot). --
369:
wants to do them all, I would have no problem with that either. Let me know if you want me to lend a hand, James. I can make my images conform to whatever you're comfortable with. --
909:
I find the padding un-neat. After all, it is unlikely that people will see two different states' counties' maps at once, but we do want coherence and similarity between their pages.
672:
739:
As for size, a one-size- (ahem) -fits-all policy would seem to me to be best, so that the format of county pages across all states would be the same. Consistency is a good thing.
99:
data on counties and cities, so I may be doing a pass sometime soon updating the county information, but I don't have that scheduled in. I am a bit busy from time to timeĀ :) --
845:
Crap. I am noticing that setting the width at a consistent 300 pixels tends to cause some size differences in terms of height. We probably should have agreed on a maximum width
199:
articles). Is there a public-domain or GPL source for maps like this? If not, I don't imagine it'd be too hard for a dedicated soul to create them (just time-consuming). --
81:
76:
71:
59:
354:, do-it-yourself county highlighted maps. Makes our work much easier, but I do not know if these images are public or GPL, and it may be hard to remove the county names.
920:
594:
Looking good! I will gladly pitch in. For now, I will start on California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and (gulp) Alaska. I've just looked at the outline map of
778:(relatively) smaller counties visible. Perhaps with some creative cropping, I can fix that... most of Alaska's width is accounted for by the Aleutian islands.
784:
these would make them much easier to distinguish at sub-400-pixel sizes. If we can do this, I think we can definitely keep all the states at 300 pixels wide.
869:
I've made some modified versions (using whitespace padding, so they stay at 300 pixels). To me, the following disparity is jarring (county is arbitrary):
919:
That is certainly true... the padding is something of a hack, but it won't be as visible on the resulting pages. Let me try a couple of mock-ups (see
288:); should I bother uploading these? I know it's only one state, but I could do the others over the next few days if people want. They are available
47:
17:
575:
I'm currently doing the northern east coast (working around New England), so anywhere off to the south or west would be safe from work duplication.
311:
some time ago, by all means do more if you like. It will likely be quite some while, if ever, before we have an automatic system for doing this. --
106:
vote to have the locator maps placed in the vast white areas to the right of these lists. Before anybody does anything though, please check out
361:
I'd personally prefer the black and white 1990 Census outline maps. Anyone who's interested in helping me work on these, leave a note on my
401:
348:, particularly the US Census 1990 outline maps. Nice clean black and white version, but has extra garbage that would need to be removed.
147:
I've been working around the edges, adding or editing a few place articles. As a result I've got one recommendation and some comments:
606:
Have fun. Of course, 'tiny' is a relative comment; these 'small' counties are still rather large... Alaska is 1.5m km, after all. --
711:
excessive. Of course we can wait and see what looks good. I've finished California! This goes pretty quick once you get going... --
648:
I'll email smaller-sized versions to you (since the RGB PNG files are around 60+K each). Also, I've adapted a small script (called
989:
531:
If anyone wants to help (please, feel freeĀ :-)) here are some points as to how I'm doing them (based on the PD images such as
436:
304:
416:
It looks like there are several different practices in use. I don't know if there are any "standards", necessarily.
38:
523:
is there a batch image upload facility - there are going to be a few hundred of these for the east coast alone...?
703:
837:
300 pixels will suffice. We'll make it suffice, one way or anotherĀ :-) I agree with that naming format too. --
456:
446:
1000:
Oh, my bad - the bot-images seem to have them - I just happened to pick on some that were uploaded manually.
809:
Additional highlighting is fine with me; with this, would 300px be OK? It seems most reasonable a compromise.
450:
308:
763:
So: Which size should we go with? How will I upload them efficiently - one at a time will bore me to tears?
789:
I have no idea if we can batch-upload these... surely there is a way. (Maybe Rambot can do it for us?) --
175:
655:#!/bin/bash for file in $ 2; do convert -size $ 1 "$ file" -resize $ 1 -colors 256 "small/$ file" done
481:
442:
893:
381:
362:
289:
880:
873:
726:
to be long and descriptive, and if possible should make for acceptable alt text by themselves. --
342:, clickable county maps, good quality, but colored. Might be hard to trim out unnecessary stuff.
503:
129:
Unfortunately, I fear the non-commerical use clause doesn't have compatibility with the FDL. --
757:
727:
502:
Well, 2 hours later, I've done another 3 states (coastline takes a while). Output is still at
312:
271:
252:
119:
932:
912:
862:
823:
767:
746:
637:
607:
587:
494:
405:
366:
293:
111:
633:
Feel free to email them to me if you want; then they'll all be in the same place at once.
668:
We should come up with a naming convention for these, too. Existing ones are like this:
538:
Remove all text, symbols and markers on the image saying that it's from the 1990 census.
1001:
993:
973:
902:
851:
838:
790:
712:
690:
619:
599:
486:
385:
370:
215:
200:
179:
429:
425:
380:
P.S. - I've put a sample image (based on one of James') of what I have in mind on my
123:
532:
468:
345:
267:
207:
107:
595:
285:
234:
224:
130:
100:
702:
The best example of a large state with a small county that I have encountered is
211:
756:
OK, so I lied. Images now resized to both 200 and 300 pixels wide, and crushed:
400:
Standards are standards, after all. I'd suggest making this part of the suitable
137:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
859:
a less-good idea, as it's a bodge to make it look different (not IMO better)...
541:
Remove all markers of external states/countries, including their subdivisions.
339:
292:(I haven't shrunk them yet, though). Alternatively, I could not botherĀ :-) --
196:
565:
Fill in the county in question with red (including unattached islands, etc.)
165:
332:
As for source material for the maps, I've found three good possibilities:
678:
Which may be a bit too long. I'm thinking something along the lines of
421:
133:
195:
highlighted outline for counties, sort of like we already have for
351:
141:
96:
812:
I think dumping the uploading onto a bot sounds most suitable.
324:
110:. IMO those maps are the best in terms of look and utility. --
25:
652:
to resize them, if you would like to use something similar:
548:
Fill in coastline where it was previously obscured by text
706:. In the current version at 200 pixels wide, the county
673:
Image:California map showing San Luis Obispo County.png
90:
Comments on the highlighting of the state on the map
921:Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties/mockups
493:Sounds good. Will get on with it, thenĀ :-) --
8:
618:something up once I get a few more done. --
511:decide to what size to shrink the images to
892:
879:
872:
210:, including nice large county maps like
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. counties
581:disclaimer, or should we make one up?).
208:a collection of public-domain U.S. maps
420:White with red highlight: Counties in
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
680:California_San_Luis_Obispo_County.png
467:Dark blue with light blue highlight:
441:Dark grey with light grey highlight:
7:
988:Any chance of a link here from the
568:Save each as an optimised PNG file.
661:./shrink "" ./shrink 200 "*.png"
555:1bit and add pure red as a colour.
24:
804:What about "Map of <state: -->
190:A Map for US cities and Counties
29:
901:Let me know what you think. --
455:White with dark red highlight:
806:county" for the naming format?
742:However, I'm now going to bed.
551:Downconvert the image to 1bit.
1:
684:CA_San_Luis_Obispo_County.png
435:Yellow with brown highlight:
805:highlighting <county: -->
554:Upconvert the image to : -->
404:; move discussion there? --
437:List of California counties
1019:
895:File:IL County smaller.png
996:12:27, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
1004:13:18, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
905:02:48 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
882:File:IL County large.png
875:File:TX County large.png
854:16:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
457:Cumberland County, Maine
447:Esmeralda County, Nevada
915:18:07 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
865:01:42 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
850:get out of control. --
693:23:11 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
602:17:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
489:14:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
384:. Comments welcome! --
218:23:37 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
203:23:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
168:17:26 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
990:image description page
841:01:00 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
826:00:21 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
793:00:06 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
770:00:01 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
749:23:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
730:23:14 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
715:20:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
640:20:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
622:19:37 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
610:18:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
590:16:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
497:15:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
408:03:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
388:03:11 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
373:02:54 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
315:01:42 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
296:01:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
274:01:17 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
255:01:08 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
237:00:39 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
227:00:33 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
182:14:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
176:Knowledge:Village pump
174:Discussion moved from
760:and follow the names.
686:. What do you think?
482:Storey County, Nevada
443:Lander County, Nevada
42:of past discussions.
704:San Francisco County
514:run pngcrush on them
992:of all the images?
270:with the others. --
927:States done so far
815:And now, I really
449:, and the rest of
819:going to bed.Ā :-)
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1010:
898:
896:
885:
883:
878:
876:
722:Image names are
685:
681:
651:
558:For each county:
340:US Census Bureau
266:Ideas please to
212:this one of Ohio
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1008:
1007:
986:
929:
894:
881:
874:
683:
679:
662:
656:
649:
508:48 states (:-))
505:. Still to do:
469:m:Wikipediatlas
268:m:Wikipediatlas
192:
108:m:Wikipediatlas
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1016:
1014:
1006:
1005:
985:
982:
981:
980:
970:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
954:
951:
948:
945:
942:
939:
928:
925:
917:
916:
910:
889:looks better:
867:
866:
860:
843:
842:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
820:
813:
810:
807:
795:
794:
786:
785:
780:
779:
774:
773:
772:
771:
764:
761:
751:
750:
743:
740:
737:
736:descriptivity.
732:
731:
719:
718:
717:
716:
696:
676:
675:
660:
654:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
634:
626:
625:
624:
623:
612:
611:
592:
591:
583:
582:
577:
576:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
566:
560:
559:
556:
552:
549:
546:
542:
539:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:
518:
515:
512:
509:
499:
498:
473:
472:
463:
461:
460:
453:
439:
433:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
392:
391:
390:
389:
375:
374:
358:
357:
356:
355:
349:
343:
334:
333:
329:
328:
319:
318:
317:
316:
298:
297:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
259:
258:
257:
256:
244:
241:
239:
238:
229:
228:
191:
188:
186:
171:
170:
169:
162:
161:
157:
156:and townships.
153:
145:
127:
126:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1015:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
995:
991:
984:Links to here
983:
978:
977:
976:
975:
967:
964:
961:
958:
955:
953:New Hampshire
952:
950:Massachusetts
949:
946:
943:
940:
937:
936:
935:
934:
926:
924:
922:
914:
911:
908:
907:
906:
904:
899:
897:
890:
886:
884:
877:
870:
864:
861:
857:
856:
855:
853:
848:
840:
836:
835:
825:
821:
818:
814:
811:
808:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
787:
782:
781:
776:
775:
769:
765:
762:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
741:
738:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
714:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
692:
687:
674:
671:
670:
669:
666:
659:
653:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
621:
616:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
601:
597:
589:
585:
584:
579:
578:
574:
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
550:
547:
543:
540:
537:
536:
534:
530:
529:
524:
521:
520:
516:
513:
510:
507:
506:
504:
501:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
488:
483:
477:
471:, as a sample
470:
466:
465:
464:
459:, as a sample
458:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
438:
434:
431:
430:Staffordshire
427:
426:Herefordshire
423:
419:
418:
417:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
353:
352:Texas A&M
350:
347:
344:
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
330:
326:
321:
320:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
281:
273:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
236:
231:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
217:
213:
209:
204:
202:
198:
189:
187:
184:
183:
181:
177:
167:
164:
163:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
144:
143:
139:
138:November 11th
135:
132:
125:
121:
116:
115:
114:
113:
109:
103:
102:
98:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
987:
979:All the rest
971:
965:Pennsylvania
930:
918:
900:
891:
887:
871:
868:
846:
844:
816:
723:
707:
695:
688:
677:
667:
663:
657:
647:
593:
522:
517:upload files
478:
474:
462:
415:
286:Warwickshire
253:Tim Starling
243:
240:
205:
193:
185:
173:
172:
146:
128:
104:
93:
65:
43:
37:
938:Connecticut
402:WikiProject
206:I did find
36:This is an
956:New Jersey
665:eastward.
305:California
197:U.S. state
124:Robert Lee
120:utexas.edu
974:Wapcaplet
903:Wapcaplet
852:Wapcaplet
839:Wapcaplet
791:Wapcaplet
713:Wapcaplet
691:Wapcaplet
620:Wapcaplet
600:Wapcaplet
487:Wapcaplet
386:Wapcaplet
382:talk page
371:Wapcaplet
365:. Or, if
363:talk page
216:Wapcaplet
201:Wapcaplet
180:Wapcaplet
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
959:New York
947:Maryland
941:Delaware
933:James F.
913:James F.
863:James F.
824:James F.
768:James F.
747:James F.
724:supposed
682:or even
638:James F.
608:James F.
588:James F.
533:this one
495:James F.
406:James F.
367:James F.
294:James F.
968:Vermont
758:go here
658:Usage:
545:image).
422:England
235:Ram-Man
225:Ram-Man
131:Ellmist
101:Ram-Man
39:archive
1002:Martin
994:Martin
650:shrink
596:Alaska
451:Nevada
424:, ex.
346:UTexas
309:Nevada
303:I did
134:Monday
944:Maine
728:Brion
313:Brion
272:Brion
166:Lou I
152:pain.
16:<
962:Ohio
307:and
290:here
160:yet.
142:2002
122:. --
97:FIPS
972:By
931:By
923:.)
847:and
822:--
766:--
745:--
689:--
636:--
586:--
535:):
325:SVG
178:by
112:mav
817:am
708:is
445:,
428:,
140:,
136:,
432:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
