Talk:Main Page/FeaturedMap

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Instructions for nomination

Achtung.svg To nominate a Featured Map, place your Multimaps (leaflet) template with the correct coordinates and zoom, write a one-sentence description mentioning the User, and add your signature (--~~~~). Example:

Loading map...

This country created by user JSanchez has excellent consistency and interesting names.--Luciano (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (CET)

Nominations are currently subject to approval by User:Udilugbuldigu of the Featured Content team. If the nomination is approved, it will be deleted here and added to the main list. If no new approved content is available for display, old content may be recycled.

The standard of mapping in OGF has increased significantly over time. Some maps nominated a few years ago would probably not meet the standards of today. When nominating, please look widely at the places in the OGF map. A high quality area of at least 1km square is expected.

To help you chose, think about what makes a great map. We are looking for areas which look realistic, but which have character and a sense of place. Pick something that inspires you and that you think deserves to be shared with the OGF community.

Nominations begin here

Mynninghamn, Østermark

Loading map...

I really appreciate this lovely city (created by Demuth) with just above one million inhabitants in the east of our world: Mynninghamn! --Mstr (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2017 (CEST)

Great nomination!--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (CEST)
Thanks Mstr! ----Demuth (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2017 (CEST)

Maps pending further development

Krasynin, Galicja

Loading map...

Very nice detailed town by waa. Nominated by Leowezy (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2017 (CEST)

Fantastic map - it has been nominated before - in 2015. I'm not sure if or how it has changed since then.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2017 (CEST)
Thanks for your appreciation! :-) It was actually featured in 2015 as said before. While expanding the article about city today I found old snapshots of progress of the city in 2014 and 2015. I merged them today into a GIF and forgot to upload, so here it is: link to animation (there was an error with creation of thumbnail so I post it as link)
Since 2015 my "mapping style" of detailed places have slightly changed, I use much more sidewalks, buildings and landuses are more detailed (for example, new school areas are few meter away from the sidewalks), sometimes I use tag barrier=fence or wall (for example). I use more POIs, especially in the city center.
Also, the scale of buildings, backyards and roads got improved, I spend much time on this map (very detailed aerial photos of Wrocław), or this and measuring distances and areas of city features. At the beginning of my participation in OGF I had some problems with scale of my creations, everything looked tiny when I tried to measure actual distances in my cities. For example – the first population estimates of Krasynin were about 250,000 – 300,000. It was definitely too much for 58km² city. From current estimates which are much more realistic, Krasynin would be the fifth most densely populated city in Poland (source). The "problem" was Mercator projection and the latitude of the city. I was used to edit OpenStreetMap in Poland and I knew the projection "distorts" distances (I don't know how to say it properly) but I didn't realized the distortion is that large for Galicia. Since then the measurement tool in JOSM is for me the most important tool used for creating fictional maps!
Sorry for some kind of off-topic and wall of text, but I wanted to elaborate what exactly changed in my mapping and why. I think the "invisible" and immeasurable details like proper scale, diversity of objects are the most important factors that make city good. While mapping I always imagine me walking through the fictional city as its citizen or tourist. That actually helps!
To sum up, I would like to finish the city at first, at last streets and landuses since there are some "white areas" waiting to be filled with objects. I need to change names of several streets as they come from real persons/cities/countries... and the city still contains one two Tesco supermarkets :-) --Waa (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2017 (CEST)
To be honest, I didn't remember the city being featured already, but I think the extensive changes (and long time since then) would generally allow for a second posting. But since Waa wants to "finish" the area first, I guess we will just postpone this until it's ready ;)Leowezy (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (CEST)
This map is moved to the top of the 'pending' queue as, although not yet complete it is quite outstanding.

Maaiza, Eureisia

Loading map...

The detailedly and intricately mapped city of Maaiza, by JBstad1. --tule00 19:52, 15 March 2016 (CET)

This is nice but I think it should have more detail before it's featured, also it has real-world brands like fnac, Apple Store, H&M etc. Myrcia (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (CET)
I moved the nomination further down for the reasons mentioned above; right now it looks like a "work in progress" anyway, I'm curious to see how it will develop in the future :)Leowezy (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2017 (CET)
Moved to the bottom again, same reasonLeowezy (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2017 (CEST)

Krisoaral, Egani

Loading map...

Really excellent city by Clik, with the transition from urban center to rural surroundings done exceptionally well. --Thilo (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2017 (CEST)

I agree the city has a nice theme. The layout is great - historical change is identifiable, nice 'old city' - and there is some mapping of agriculture and forests in one area, which looks nice, but mostly lacks anything except the outline of the forests. Overall, the city is very incomplete, very few roads are named and many of the detailed buildings (which also look great) lack names. Because of that, there's not much sense of place. But a great start, with excellent potential.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2017 (CEST)
Thank you for the nomination! I recentely made many edits to better the center and suburbs, as I really enjoy mapping in Krisoaral I plan to add many more details and features in the coming months. --Clik (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2017 (CEST)

Adventureland & Waterworld, TA011

Loading map...

The well-detailed theme park by ArtNerdCirca1983. Looks like a really fun place! --Geoboi (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2017 (CEST)

The theme park is great. Extend this detail over a wider area and it will definitely be featured!--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

Brugham Harbour, Mergany

Loading map...

How much detailed a map of an harbour can be?? Mstr looks over any limit! I cant wait to see it finished!! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2017 (CEST)

Thanks for the nomination! Could we postpone the nomination until it is "finished"?--Mstr (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2017 (CEST)

Beautiful rural area, Wyster

Loading map...

I was looking through the country of Wyster when I spotted this amazing area! Great work! Tommypoo (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (CEST)

The landcover in this area is fantastic. The urban areas need a bit more detail and more labels need to be added before this is featured.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

Detailed and beautiful forests in Antaria

Loading map...

I randomly came across the nice looking forests of Antharia. The border for tree growth as well as the mountain side can be seen very clearly. Made by Stjur --- Nominated by Bstn (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (CEST)

This does give a good feel for the terrain, but I don't find the forests particularly realistic. For a nice map of forests (tropical, rather than temperate) see Suvuma. Good forest landcover is surprisingly hard to achieve.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

Astoundingly detailed mountain, Paxtar

Loading map...

I wonder how this was done...any suggestions? Yuanls (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2017 (CEST)

Ask Paxtar! For this to be featured, some other elements of place need to be added to at least part of it, e.g. names, places, transport routes.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

This nomination list will be re-ordered periodically by editor to show intended "next-on-queue" at the top of the list.


Discussion of River Plate, Demacia

Loading map...

Ragekwa creates great towns and places with many details. Especially the industrial areas are quite perfect, the nominated map also contains amazing landscape. --Mstr (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (CET)

Personally I am not comfortable with this nomination - the mapper's technique involves "collage" of real world locations downloaded from OSM. We (admin) have decided to tolerate this, after repeated debates, because it is not generally individually identifiable, but I don't feel it meets the "originality" standard we expect for a main page feature, and if outside users see OSM work being featured (however much it has been altered or "collaged") it could cause misunderstandings.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2017 (CET)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Does it affect all places in Demacia? There are many other very detailed places, maybe we can take one of those instead, e.g. Kendrick City or Rio Cuarto?--Mstr (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (CEST)
In private messages with the creator, it was made quite clear that the real world collage technique was the primary mode of creation. In one of those locations below, I even found the source map, somewhere in Novosibirsk or something like that, though I don't recall precisely. Again, I don't see this as necessarily uncreative. I have, myself, copied from the real world, though I do so through "tracing and transformation" (size changes, rotations, mirroring, etc.), rather than uploading OSM data, which creates possible copyright problems. My concern here isn't that it isn't beautiful mapping, rather that it is breaking the rules of the site (no OSM data, period - and certainly not where the source is possibly identifiable) - by the author's own admission. Thus it isn't an appropriate map for the front page of the wiki. That's all.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2017 (CEST)

Loading map...

Loading map...

Discussion of Abella d'Or Prairie, Castine, + general Verisimilitude debate

Loading map...

LOL cartography by Ramasham. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2017 (CEST)
Frankly, this nomination strikes me as a blatent repudiation of the rules of verisimilitude. Everyone else has been skirting around the edges with vague discomfort (myself included), while this is right up in its face. Is that where we're going? I might be grateful.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (CEST)
Would you mind elaborating on this? While I agree that the settlement structures are quite unusual in some aspects, I don't see any laws of physics or geography being blatantly violated; but maybe I just didn't spot it. Again, I'm just interested in what exactly you are referring to ;)Leowezy (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2017 (CEST)
@Leowezy - The issues are not against the laws of physics. The physiography is a bit unnatural - "schematic" - hm, we need a wetland, put it here, need a mountain, put it here, etc. Not much evidence of how the geology works. Similar to the way fantasy-maps are designed, in popular fantasy fiction or role-playing or video games (speaking as someone who has designed such maps). In fact, the overall impression is of a country-sized theme park - some kind of wholly designed environment. It is, admittedly, a very detailed, interesting, well-mapped theme park, but nevertheless a theme park. I like theme parks, and the level of detail is beautiful and intriguing. The problem with this, vis-a-vis verisimilitude, is the same problem as the problem that exists with ocean-spanning bridges or excessive motorways: it lacks what you might call "socio-economic" or "anthropological" verisimilitude. This is not the way human societies, as we understand them, will typically generate landscapes. So that leaves aliens or faeries or some other supernatural element. I feel that conclusion is obvious, even setting aside the naming, which more or less gives it away. Anyway, there's a rule about that. Bear in mind I'm coming from a fundamental position of sympathy - the Ardisphere, as I've mentioned before, originally included magic and aliens. In my case, the rules of verisimilitude were invoked, early on, and I decided to comply. So really my question is, are we going to just not worry about that anymore? If so, I have some changes in mind for my own country.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I think I need to disagree. Things might look a bit put-together, but I doubt Ramashan did so with the intention of creating an "unrealistic" landscape; to me, it looks like the attempt tp map a range of realistic landscape features, and while I'm sure that this exact landscape with all its details would be impossible on a real planet (like most places on OGF if we are honest), I still don't see any obvious verisimilitude breaking features. No river flows uphill, mountains come in ranges and everything seems vaguely to-scale. Of course it's not "perfectly realistic", but I would attribute that to the fact that not all of us are complete experts on every aspect of realistic mapping ;) Than again, that might be the reason why I don't see the verisimilitude breach that obvious as you do, I'm pretty sure there's not even one 100% "realistic" mountain change or river bed in Kojo; but those are not conceptually flawed, but rather things to improve on, in my opinion. With this featured map, I, with my limited knowledge of geography, don't see any overall, conceptual incompatibilities of Abella d'Or Prairie with realistic mapping. But I'm always open to having my mind changed.Leowezy (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
I feel quite misunderstood. The mapping is realistic, but what has been mapped is not. If I make a country that resembles Disneyland (a giant theme park), and map it perfectly in detail, is that realistic or not? The map might be realistic, but the country is not. That's my main point. Everything on the map is entirely possible - but socially, who's paying for it? What is it for? Why would a society do such a thing? It's not realistic. "Possible" doesn't mean "realistic." It is possible to build a bridge connecting Greenland to Canada (and then map it quite nicely). Is that realistic? Shall I cover the Ardisphere in a grid of motorways, 1 km x 1 km? I can map them in fine detail. That's possible. Is it realistic? You are seduced by the beauty of the map - and I agree it is a beautiful map. Indeed, if Ramashan writes a novel about this country, I will want to read it. But that doesn't make it realistic, anymore than the many well-done maps of Narnia or Middle Earth or Oz or Tatooine or Westeros are realistic.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
I'm not trying to carelessly brush off your point, I just need a concrete example. For example, I would say the motorway network is quite extensive for a city that size, but with a population increase in the surrounding and a car-oriented society I wouldn't deem it completely unrealistic. Maybe cutting away a bridge or two would do good to realism as well, after all the river is over a kilometer wide. But besides that, I fail to see any large scale amenities that would be unrealistic to expect the society to pay for them. There are zoos, botanical gardens, universities, and cookie-cutter residential quarters (they remind me of Florida-style suburban developments in a way).
It's surely debatable whether this nomination is "worthy" of being on the featured map section, and for my part I would not put it on the main page as long as there is some kind of indisposition from a number of community members. But in terms of violating the general verisimilitude criteria, I would still appreciate some more concrete examples of your concerns Luciano.Leowezy (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
Land uses. What are all those circles about? And... Are there roller coasters in every public park? There's a bit of "pastiche" going on. It lacks any sense of historicity or organicity. Sigh. How about: "I give up. Y'all win. Nevermind." I suppose this will be another case where my points are lost on fellow mappers. I probably should make my resignation from the admin team official and move forward with my intentions to "retreat" from the wiki.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
Well as others have pointed out, these irrigation patterns can be found in some areas where water is pumped up and spread on circular ares, such as in Saudi Arabia. And for the roller coasters, I interpret them as some kind of monuments rather than passenger rides... Anyway, I don't think you should take such small differences in opinion as a reason to retreat from the community in any way. It's input like these that actually get discussions going.Leowezy (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
Just to comment about the circles (and not the broader issue of verisimilitude): I can't speak for the creator, but when I saw the circles I immediately thought of irrigation patterns very common in semi-arid parts of the United States and even into Canada. I think it's an attempt to hyper-detail where things actually grow. (I don't presume this is what the creator wanted, but that's how I saw it.) Given the mountainous terrain and geographical location of Castine, I think that type of irrigation is certainly possible. I can't find a good instance right now of the concentric circles, but I have seen them. Different crops grow in different rings, essentially. — Alessa (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
Maybe I shouldn't speak about this nomination becouse I'm here since only two months, but as an civil engineer with a specialization in roads I must say that longer I look at this map, more I cry. The ignored primacy of economics in roads is the smallest problem here (maybe this country is as rich as Quatar or something). There are some problems with engineering. Can you see the motorway 2E (this in the center of the layer)? Well, first roundabouts are completely forbidden on motorways due to security reasons. Second when we project a road we should change a roadclass (motorway/trunk/primary etc.) very often, so all the road 2E should be a secondary road. We should never change a road class on a part of the road becouse one junction is in the lower class than others. In this case all of the road should be in lower class. Of course this is not the only problem. There is a tram, which two times crossing the river without goiny anywhere away. There will be no passengers... I don't want to say that mapper did a bad work. He put a lot of hard work in this city. But on the other hand it's completely unrealistic. Rustem Pasha (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
'Well, first roundabouts are completely forbidden on motorways due to security reasons.' I beg to differ... Sarepava (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (CEST)
I don't know how we should handle with motorways with MXXX names. The Wikipedia article says that they are spurs of main motorway system, so maybe they were projected more as the parts of the junction than motorways (most of them are very short, except form M180, which is completely grade-separated). Also in the Great Britain the max speed limit is one of the lowest, probably becouse quality of motorways varies from high to very low (like this). Rustem Pasha (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (CEST)
I see two separate questions here:
(1) Does this mapping call for enforcement of the "Be realistic" rule? Here are some rough guidelines I use to determine whether the rule should be enforced:

Content that seems
deliberately unbelievable

Not deliberate, but obviously unbelievable to most people
(including poor mapping skills)

Unbelievable content that is obvious only to an expert
(or requires considerable observation for most people to perceive)

High visibility



community feedback

Low visibility


community feedback

community feedback

Since this is low visibility content, the standard for me would be, does it seem deliberately unbelievable? This place has an odd vibe, for sure, and it may be a 'disguised' fantasy place, but I don't see anything that's clearly deliberately unbelievable. As others have mentioned, the circles definitely seem like central pivot irrigation (here are some really good ones in Texas). Are there roller coasters in every park? Is there something I'm missing? (Maybe the town names would seem deliberately unbelievable to native French speakers? If so, they should be fixed.) It's certainly possible that this mapper is doing some wishful thinking in terms of what the population can afford, and may be struggling to weave the various pieces of mapping together into a coherent whole — and both of these issues probably contribute to a 'theme park' effect. But I don't see evidence that the effect is deliberate... and the lack of fantasy elements in the wiki content would seem to back that up. If there is evidence that this is a deliberate fantasy, it should be shared with admin.
(2) Should this mapping be featured content? I'd say no. I think featured content should be free from any significant controversy.
--Isleño (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2017 (CEST)
As usual, isleño enters with the voice of calm, cool rationality, which I so deeply value and respect. It's a nice brake on my own often emotive rantings. This has turned into a substantial conversation, and I actually would like to hear from the country's owner, at some point, because, as I've said, I mean no disrespect to that person's mapping skills nor even to their creative vision. My real concern is, ultimately (and as usual), a kind of conflict over the verisimilitude problem. I suspect Udi is aware enough that that was likely his intention in the nomination - and it's worth commenting that the class of verisimilitude problems I see here are quite similar to the class of verisimilitude problems I have noted in some of his work: what might be termed "sociological verisimilitude." The thing about these types of problems is that with enough "just so" stories (on the wiki) they can be, conceivably, "hand waved" out of existence. That's what Udi accomplishes successfully with his wiki work. So does Ramasham intend the same? That's an important question. Isleño once offered an excellent clarification to me, by conceptualizing verisimilitude as a genre rather than as a rule. That made sense. My concern with this particular geofictional space is that it's not clear to me that it belongs to the genre.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2017 (CEST)
I nominated this map because of the intriguing detail, the fascinating names and the interesting layout - for example, the way the river snakes through the grid city. Yes, there are a few things that could be improved. But to me, it looks more believable than many things in OGF - and I actually find it kind of inspiring. Unbelievable content that is obvious only to an expert? Perhaps the layout of some of the landforms, but there are whole countries in OGF where that fails - and many have been nominated as featured maps before. Verisimilitude - to define it as a genre is a skewed way to think about it. A map of Narnia, or any of he places Luciano mentions, could be mapped in that genre. They could even be made to look 'realistic' (maybe something like Wesmandy in 1400?). But Abella d'Or Prairie - as far as I can see - could exist somewhere - in the real world, today. If we ask for the wiki to follow the map, shouldn't we see how the map develops before we judge its 'reality'? In the real world, socio-economically, how can somewhere like Khaiwoon exist when there is no East Asian - or global - commerce and finance around to support it? Where is the agriculture that feeds all the people? It is there in Abella d'Or Prairie. And as for sociology, isn't giving one of the largest countries existing in the world today (the Sathrian Empire) the name 'Empire', a blatant infringement of rw 21st century society and international politics? Happy mapping!--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2017 (CEST)
Thanks for the kind words, Luciano. I agree this mapping feels a bit off-genre, which might come across as deliberate if it was stronger, but for me it doesn't rise to that level.
As for Udi's note... it would seem that "LOL cartography" may not have been the best description for such apparently praiseworthy work. And to clarify 'realism as genre,' it refers to the genre of the world being imagined, not the genre of the visual style of the map. 'Realism as genre' means that the purpose of the "Be realistic" rule is to promote the genre — an overall atmosphere that generally feels realistic — rather than to mandate that everything should actually make sense when examined in depth, as a real world would. In this way, 'realism as genre' explains why the focus on realism in OGF tends to be shallow rather than deep, and why it's okay for so many aspects of the OGF world to fail to make sense on deeper levels. --Isleño (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2017 (CEST)

At all for me there are too much geometric playfields. It is not the question of watering - I see only a lot of decorative patterns. --Histor (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2017 (CEST)

Perhaps this isn't the place to have a detailed discussion on 'the verisimilitude rule'. But we started... and frankly, I don't understand the concept of 'realism as genre'. 'Realism' is ambiguous, but can't it be defined as the style of mapping, as much as the 'realistic content' the map presents? That's one of the ways having OSM tools is very helpful to us - we achieve similar styles. In terms of the content, I think simply 'human scale' and 'contemporary' is key, isn't it. Not much else - just because OSM doesn't map third world countries or types of forest or land cover doesn't mean we can't try. With this area in Castine Ramasham has tried include much more than contributors to OSM do. So perhaps we are talking about a difference in style, after all. And if it's a theme park - that's fine by me. The whole real world is a just a huge theme park anyway, isn't it(!). But I agree with aiming for a map with 'an overall atmosphere that generally feels realistic'; that's a very nice way of putting it. The initial comment - yes, should have expressed that better. Hope it led to some constructive thoughts, rather than the contrary. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2017 (CEST)

Discussion of Чара: impressive mapping of a nice and well developed country

{{#MultiMaps: center = 41.2370,90.5788 | height = 500px | zoom = 11 | maxzoom = 12 | minzoom = 10 }}

The exotic and well-developed country of Chara by Danny11 makes me wish I could read Russian.--Luciano (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2015 (CET)

I'm impressed by Chara (and I like the other nominations proposed here). I'm able to read Russian, but I think now that one day we should create a separate layer in OGF where the international "Ingerish" names are being displayed. But this would require all users (especially those who don't use Latin characters) to add the name:en tag (or a comparable one) to their places. --Joschi81 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2015 (CET)
I started out using name:en along with name tags in my Korean areas, but I didn´t like how it behaved in JOSM where it used my system's default language (which is English, for other purposes and needs), thus hiding all the naming work I was doing in Korean. So I quit using name:en tags and deleted the ones I had. Lately, just to make my locations "exotic", I've been double-labeling important locations in Korean and Spanish in the name tag(e.g. "name=영광시 (Ciudad Gloria)"), with an int_name tag for Romanization of the Korean. I'm not sure if this is the "right" way to do it but I like the result.--Luciano (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2015 (CET)
I think that it is a good way how you did it. :) --Joschi81 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2015 (CET)
I think, we can accept not only latin letters, but too greek or cyrillic ("russian"). This are for many people to read and are both not far from latin letters. Problems I have with hebraic or arabic letters or chinese. --Histor (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (CET)
I think we should allow users to use whatever characters they like. But it would be nice for other users to make both original and Latin name appear on the map as Luciano did it within one part of the Ardisphere. --Joschi81 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2015 (CET)

I removed Isleño's nomination of my Estrecho Gómez region because I am being perfectionistic and want to still make changes.--Luciano (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (CET)