User talk:Luciano/Bliki/2016 - Old Entries

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kudos to you, L., on the coastal clean up. I bet you found a bit of crap on the coasts of Wiwxia! --Demuth (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2015 (CET)

Thanks! Actually, as I recall, I found no problems whatsoever on Wiwaxia. You have those strange places where the border mostly follows the coastline and then the coastline and border separate at some bay or inlet, at major towns (nobody else has done quite like that), but they were all executed flawlessly from a coastline integrity standpoint.--Luciano (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2015 (CET)
It's that way because I created major world-flooding when I initially tried to make changes around my coastal cities, and that's how Thilo or Joachim cleaned it up. Later, I figured out the easiest way (for me) to alter the coastline was to just add in extra, um, points that I could then adjust, which didn't affect the way of the coastline. I work in potlatch, so I'm pretty lo-tech. --Demuth (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (CET)

On a totally different note, I wonder how you feel about countries that rather than trying to attempt verisimilitude (how often do you get to use that word, ha!) to how things work on earth, have things such as a population that includes mermaids, for instance? --Demuth (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (CET)

I have been having a similar conversation with isleño... I decided to write on this Bliki about it.--Luciano (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2015 (CET)

Tarrasses - shark. I didn't see the cartoon shark at first, but once I had, it was hard to make it go away! I can see why you find it annoying. I think the problem is the 'mouth' at the west end which is accentuated by the urban area being there? It may change once you fill in this area with more detail, but maybe not. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

So here are some suggestions: Tarrasses cs.png change the angle of the island by x degrees so that it is more vertical than horizontal; add some additional islands or land extensions south in the 'mouth' and to the north; break up the 'nose' with some coastal indentations.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

Tarrasses cs2.png Or an alternative that definitively gets rid of 'the shark' is to widen the 'valley'? between San Sebastian and Laguna Pisceas? or even to split the main island in two. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

Thanks for these suggestions, Udi! I particularly like the first one - that sweeping peninsula off the top of the "head" of the shark does a pretty good job at breaking the profile, and I may adopt it. For now, I have already sent a preliminary contour file to Thilo for conversion, so consequently I'm going to stick with current coastlines at least for now. Anyway, thanks for the feedback!--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2016 (CEST)

New Section In response to 2016-07-09 Challenge Diary "Something Blue". Yes - some big problems in Commonia.

Note: I have "cleaned up" (and will continue to "clean up") other users' comments to make more clear who is speaking--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2016 (CEST)

Rivers. Some of the rivers issues you identified I think sorted out fairly easily, that is, I think they were errors, duplicates, or mis-tags, so I've just removed them. The whole river system may not be 'realistic'. I tried to get feedback on the river system design both before and after working on it - e.g. this diary entry, but I'm happy to think more about it. In my imagination most of the rivers rise close to the E side of Commonia because there are uplands/mountains there. But basically I was trying to fit rivers that already existed into a coherent whole, so it wasn't as easy as to design a hydrology from scratch. The mouth of the rivers is a mess.

Big cities. For me, a biggest problem here is lack of communication. How many times have I messaged people to ask why they're mapping major infrastructure, roads etc, I don't know. Never a response.

Other issues. The area of de facto control - by Paul Christiaan - around the mouth of the Potong. PC is mapping 'N European style' city on what should be an equatorial river mouth. Pops Loops, same thing, same place, messes things up, mis tags. Around 2000km of jungle became landuse=residential last week. Doesn't respond to messages. Frustrating.

But the real issue is the lack of coherence and communication. I give it just one more week before I give up on Commonia too. On reflection, I think it would be better if new users got allocated a small area - say the size of a town or district - and were only allowed to map there. 'Blue' areas should only be for mappers who collaborate and communicate with each other. Gobrassanya illustrates what can happen if this is done well.

--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2016 (CEST)

I spent a lengthy amount of time editing and removing useless highways around "ombo" a huge new city that magically appeared a couple of days ago. My logic was, look people, if your going to make a giant city in commonia, make sure it's coherent don't over draw highways, scale it properly. Instead I get a message from a user telling me to not touch it. First off the city shouldn't be there at all, but if it is going to be, do it correctly. I even made a wiki of it. A city of that size would need to be a third world hell hole in most of the inner city and be an ancient capital of commonia or something along those line. It's hard to collaborate with mappers who have no idea what they are doing and working with complete disregard for the overall theme. I spent a lot of time just deleting freeways around this unrealistically huge city. 100km????? There has never been a city that big. But for some reason these mappers insist on it and then get hostile when you try to at least improve it. Pure ego they just want a large pointless city on the map so everyone can see it from the lowest zoom level

--Bhj867 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2016 (CEST)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your reaction seems a bit harsh. "First off the city shouldn't be there at all", is a bit of a weird reaction. I mean it's a blue area and out of all the blue area's commonia is especially a place were mappers learn how to create stuff. I thought my creation was pretty neat too, but if I look back at it now it's kind of rubbish and its location doesn't make much sense too. I think that forcing commonia to be some kind of coherent area will prove to be very difficult and also to be a wrong thing to do. Let new mappers experiment and build whatever they want. Of course you can give constructive tips, but commonia will always be a bit of a screwed up part of the map. Most of the first things people build are not in a correct scale. I still sometimes have problems finding the correct scale, it is probably the most difficult thing in OGF to get correct.

I also wondered if you contacted the mapper(s) in question, before you started to remove stuff. I would be pissed of too if you started removing things I made without contacting me. I have experienced that if you contact other users (or if they contact me), we can usually come to a agreement about shared features like borders, border crossing rivers, nearby cities etc. I hope I don't sound too negative towards you, because I do admire your commitment to create a coherent commonia, a theme, and a plausible background story for it. I just think that those three things I just named are hard to realize and any large scale effort to do so impedes with the possibility of other users to experiment and learn to use OGF.

Just the other day I realized that my wiki article about the Drull Free States might limit other users in creating there own stuff in that country, although I really enjoyed the city that someone had created around an old fotress I had mapped there some months ago. The other blue areas seem to be a bit more correct, scale and theme wise, but commonia is were most learning and experimenting takes place. Please dont get too upset with people doing stuff wrong there. Unless they fuck up the whole country, limit others or outright destroy other peoples work, or if the start to do weird things with there own individual countries, I think you should just leave it at constructive critisim. If they don't take heed of your well meant advice, that would be a shame, but not a disaster.

From the language you used, you seem really upset with them. If you think that I am wrong and you do not agree with the things I just wrote maybe you can ask some other users to take a look and ask what they think and we can probable figure out a sollution that would be agreeable to all. "Pure ego they just want a large pointless city on the map so everyone can see it from the lowest zoom level", seems a bit harsh. I think we should avoid such unpleasantness here on OGF.

With kind regards TRJ, --TRJ (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2016 (CEST)

Thank you all, for you comments. @Udi, @Bhj867, you have understood my basic issue, and I saw both your efforts to repair the issues. They are appreciated.

@TRJ - In the matter of "New users" I think you are right - they will make mistakes. I find crap placed by new users all the time - not just in Commonia but all over the OGF planet: in the ocean, in other users' countries, in blue countries, etc. In fact, it's just part of having our "open" platform. However, the reason I became so frustrated yesterday was because most of the "new" problems I identified in Commonia were by long-term users. Thus I have to assume they should be aware of some of the concepts we have been trying develop for our various "blue" countries and perhaps were even responding to my July "mapper's challange." Rather than call out individual users, I wanted to just make a general announcement of my dissatisfaction and frustration.

As I have mentioned in the diaries, I am once again moving strongly in the direction of wanting to eliminate "blue" countries entirely (and please note, this has been discussed among the admin team before but it's not a popular idea, so I'm just expressing my opinion here). Not because of new users. New users either use "blue" countries correctly and move on to adopt their own, or they don't. Each is dealt with in their own way. But I feel that it might work out better for each new user to receive a reserved, private territory (quite small!) immediately, where their edits should be confined for a substantial period - several months! Those who can't understand this idea would self-select into a "not appropriate for the OGF community." Those who can understand would be free to apply for additional territories, per the existing system.

Right now, the "probation" for new users is expected to happen in "blue" countries. And actually, I think that works reasonably well, though not perfectly. The real problem, in blue countries, as I see it, is the long-term users who don't work well with others, but who feel that since the country is "blue" they should be free to do as they wish. So by eliminating the "blue" countries, we move in the direction of pushing these antisocial long-termers to either adopt their own country or find a different environment for their work.

I want to emphasize something, here: I am speaking primarily in my role as a user of OGF, not as a member of the admin team. I'm brainstorming here, and venting some frustrations. Nothing I say here should be taken as an indication of admin policy nor as "official" proposed policy changes.

--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2016 (CEST)

I think the most important thing is to treat other mappers - new or old ones - with some respect. Finding out and saying who mapped what where I think is fine. But lets not jump to conclusions about why things were drawn that may be simply mistakes or bad decisions. We all make them. I certainly wan't trying to do that.

Good thoughts Luciano. I think now that I would go with that idea of small territories for new users, rather than mapping in large blue territories. I absolutely agree we have a problem with some un-communicative/un-collaborative longer-term users. Half-seriously, I'm starting to think we also have a problem with some uncommunicative admins (just 'brainstorming here, venting some frustrations.')

--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2016 (CEST)

I agree, my intentions were not to attack anyone or impede on anyone's work. My frustration lies in the lack of communication across the board by many users, and yes Udi, even some of the admins leading to people becoming bitey or antisocial when they notice something has changed that they created. To put it simply, I was not being unpleasant to anyone until they became unpleasant towards me first. Bhj867 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2016 (CEST)