User talk:Rcsprinter123: Difference between revisions

Archives 1

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for all of the excellent county maps you have published! Your contributions significantly improve town and county articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Gopats92 (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the gray area should all be red. Providence is on the bay and river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.210.70.99 (talk • contribs)

179.210.70.99: The gray areas are the cities of Cranston, East Providence, Central Falls and Pawtucket, which are incorporated separately to Providence. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: I have a similar question about the Cape Cod (Barnstable County) series, and what is the significance of the gray area over Barnstable? What does the gray area signify, and why is it important to someone looking at the Wikipedia page for, say, Provincetown or any of the other towns? As best as I can tell, Barnstable is incorporated as a city, and the others are all incorporated as towns. But to call the towns "unincorporated" is factually incorrect, and, IMHO, not all that relevant on the location maps for any of the other individual towns. Thoughts? Thanks! Grolltech (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grolltech: Firstly, there's no need to ping on this page as I get notified anyway. Now, the grey area is any place which is incorporated as a city or village, and white is MCDs (the New England Towns) and CDPs.

"Unlike municipalities in most other states, the United States Census Bureau does not classify New England towns as "incorporated places". They are instead classified as "minor civil divisions" (MCDs), the same category into which civil townships fall."

I hope this makes it all clear to you. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. Thanks! Grolltech (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG image File:Prince William County Virginia incorporated and unincorporated areas Dale City highlighted.svg you uploaded contains embedded raster graphics^[1] and is now listed in Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes. If appropriate, please replace the raster graphics with vector graphics. You can either upload an improved version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take this message personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhelion: The raster part of the image is not displayed; it is in a hidden layer. I don't see that this will make any difference to the display? I have uploaded hundreds of maps in this format and they all display fine, full size and thumbnail. Removing the layer would make making updates to the image in the future unnecessarily difficult. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know... I see really no valid reason for this "hidden" layers, to blow up the file-size enormously (with huge code crap). So you can clean it up or some other will do this. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the elements there for example, as we can see the size is out of relation: 0.02 % of the raster size. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last message, but if you think I'm going to be re-uploading thousands of these maps to remove the raster parts, you can think again. I also don't know why anyone cares about this. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@cares about this: file size is always a reason: If there is no care about this, there would be only one image-file-format in the world, BMP (oh but why is this not allowed on Commons?). A 20000px PNG of your maps would be smaller than a corresponding SVG. But I can ask a Wikimedia technician what they say to your statement... @thousands of these maps: there is a way to do this simple with a tool. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Perhelion on this one. I think it's rather telling that the tag name used to categorize files into Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics is {{BadSVG}}! The bit of Perhelion's message that you claimed not to understand is that the "hidden" embedded PNG that you are leaving behind accounts for 97.7% of the file's total size. If we assume that an average of Perhelion's file and mine, File:Barnstable County Massachusetts incorporated and unincorporated areas Provincetown highlighted.svg are representative, then that 6.55 MB file reduces to just 152 KB when it is properly created. Now if, as you say, you've created "thousands" of files with this problem, well... for every thousand such files, you are wasting 6.4 GIGABYTES on the Wikimedia servers!

 

Further, you are assuming that everyone is sitting on a gigabit Internet connection as you are, but you forget that there are still many around the world running at dialup speeds, and they are cursing your maps right about now.

 

Somebody will need to clean up all of these files, so you are creating an awful lot of work. At the absolute least, I'd strongly suggest that starting now, please delete that layer in Inkscape (or whatever tool you use) before uploading. It will cost you just one mouse click to delete the PNG layer. Please. I daresay a sysop or admin would consider plunging forth with an attitude of "if you think I'm going to be re-uploading thousands of these maps to remove the raster parts, you can think again" to be indicative of disruptive editing, and there really is no need to go there. Thank you. Grolltech (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grolltech: I do not agree that "Somebody will need to clean up all of these files"; because the mentioned ballast is not used by the renderer no inferior results are produced, only the file size is extremly inefficient. Of course the files can be replaced by disgarbaged versions, but the database will then held both versions. If SVG files are W3C-invalid, or contain PGF Data or unused raster: as long as the display isn't affected no need exists to create better versions. Quite another thing is not to upload files full of garbage, from the beginning, and with lots of luck we might influence Rcsprinter123 to generate a better output in future. But he is the master of his work and if he preferes to produce files FOS it is his decision. sarang♥사랑 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang: Step back and look at the bigger picture. Physical storage of an old, bloated version of the file is but one factor out of many problems that arise from this approach. Once the file has been cleaned up, that problem is one that can, in fact, be corrected quite easily. As Perhelion indicated in his original post, said version can then be deleted. But beyond that, what about the completely unnecessary added strain being placed upon the Wikimedia Foundation's web servers and network? Don't discount that, for these maps are used on a vast number of very popular pages. You may say that these files are cached, but that too has a cost associated with it. Finally – and perhaps most importantly – there is the impact on the end user, on page load times, and on user abandonment rates, all because it took too long to load the page. Is there any benefit to the user that might justify an overhead of 4,200%? [Yes, that's right: (6550 KB - 152 KB) / 152 KB) x 100 .] I'll answer that question: None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. —grolltech^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Dieter, big is not always nice: it is more workload at upload (but Rcs123 has a fast provider?), and every time when a download occurs for all the innocents (not every one has fast access). I do not believe you about deleting, everything and every version once put into Wikimedia/Wikipedia stays forever somewhere on its databases, it may just be invisible to users without special rights.

Since years I am trying to propagate small files, in an almost excessive manner... I have some success, and sometime I experience some hostility. It depends whether people like to keep things simple, or if they are thinking the heavier a file the better. I am still waiting for opinons of admins at AN. May be they are too not caring? sarang♥사랑 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedPer discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 62#SVG with raster graphics, Rcsprinter123 has agreed to remove raster graphics from future SVG file creations.

Hey, first of all you are doing an amazing job. I just wanted to make a request. For the map of Barnstable County, MA (where I grew up) you subdivided the whole county into villages except for the county seat (Barnstable) I was wondering if you could make an alternate version of the map that subdivided Barnstable into its villages as well for use in the different villages wikipedia pages. Thanks for doing all this great map work I just thought it would be a pretty cool idea.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.127.151 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your very positive feedback. With Barnstable County, the map shows cities (of which Barnstable is the only one) in grey, towns, and census-designated places, which are the villages you refer to. Because the city of Barnstable is incorporated, it does not contain any other subdivisions suitable for this type of map. While I appreciate there may be other villages located within its area, they are not legally-defined entities and so don't have specific boundaries which can be shown here. This is why, unfortunately, I won't be able to help you this time.

It was still a good idea and if you have any others, they're always welcome. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked into this a bit. I see what you mean now. The villages are only retained as the different zip codes of the city now. It's a funny local dynamic. Barnstable is incorporated as a city called the Town of Barnstable because the locals don't want to call it a city. Overall its very spread out only two of the 11 zip codes have over 1,000 people per square mile. I might look to overlay a zip code map over the portion that is in barnstable if I ever have free time again. (Grad student).

Thanks for answering my question! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.127.151 (talk) 19:44, 01 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created one here based on zip codes for the locations mentioned at Barnstable, Massachusetts#Geography and villages. If you like it I can save a series of them (red highlights) and add them to the individual articles. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfect man. Thank you so much. I've been planning on updating each of the village pages with populations/pop densities based on the zip code data sometime and that would definitely make them look much better. Wikipedia is definitely one of the best things that the internet has spawned in my opinion.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.127.151 (talk) 20:30, 01 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can now be found at Category:ZIP code maps of Barnstable, Massachusetts and on the village articles. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This map you've created appears to be of the WCML plus various lines which are not the WCML but are direct connections (eg Crewe/Stafford to Manchester; Weaver Jct to Liverpool; Northampton Loop); however it doesn't include the line to Birmingham New Street. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was working off the en.wikipedia article and have only included spurs which are classed as part of the official main line, so for example not the Marston Vale Line which is merely a connection with local services. In other words, the map shows the route the fast trains take from Euston to Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool/Edinburgh. This is why I don't think they need removing. It looks like I've omitted the loop to Birmingham, so I'll add that today. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck: Birmingham part now added. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this photo taken? The description and categories don't specify. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens' Ardwick train depot in Manchester. Here. There aren't any categories for this depot. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the maps you work on are pretty cool, specifically the Knoxville in Knox County map, which was where I was born. I grew up in this city called Morristown, Tennessee which is in Hamblen County. I noticed its map is not as near as developed as most and was wondering if you would be wiling to create one of Morristown in Hamblen County? It would be awesome if you could. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Count Awesome (talk) 2:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'll do it later today. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count Awesome: All done for you! (link). Rcsprinter123 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great work on the county maps! I've noticed some aspects of the Nassau County, New York maps that need to be corrected:

• Island Park, Centre Island, Roslyn, and Munsey Park are villages and should be gray.
• The border between Oyster Bay (village) and East Norwich is missing on most maps.
• Plandome Manor should include the white space currently shown in its center.
• The long wedge north of Seaford is actually part of North Massapequa.
• There are also a couple of scattered parcels that are not part of any incorporated village or CDP—I'm not sure how those should be dealt with.

It would also be great if you could do neighboring Suffolk County next, so that we have both Long Island counties. Thanks! Antony-22 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antony-22: Thanks for finding these issues; counties with many small and complicated places are really not my favourite! I'll come to this at some point, but because I'd have to copy the corrections to 145 images, and then re-upload all of them, it will take time and I don't know when I'll have the opportunity to do it. Regarding Suffolk County, somebody has already made a load of maps but not added them to articles. I'll redo them in my style and naming sometime (again, many municipalities. Easier in Texas!) Rcsprinter123 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I made the corrections to File:Nassau County New York incorporated and unincorporated areas.svg, which should make it easier to propagate them to the other maps when you get to it. The existing Suffolk County maps show only towns and villages but not CDPs, which is good for some articles but not all. Thanks! Antony-22 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antony-22: All uploaded now, so Nassau County is up to date across all its many municipalities. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much! Antony-22 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG files category Maps of Franklin County, Vermont you uploaded contains embedded raster graphics^[2] and is now listed in Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes. If appropriate, please replace the raster graphics with vector graphics. You can either upload an improved version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take this message personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! If you are not sure how to avoid raster embedding you can find hints and many helpers to ask.
Hi, it seems that you did recently something wrong with Inkscape. Please take care in future to avoid it. sarang♥사랑 07:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarang The files have a raster base map in a hidden layer. This shouldn't affect the appearance/scaling. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It affects the file size, and therefore the download effort in time and megabytes; the "hidden layer" is not used at all and cannot affect the appearance, it just bloates the files and wastes the database. It is bad style to upload useless crap when it is so easy to avoid that by cleaning the code before uploading. sarang♥사랑 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your recently uploaded File:Morris County Texas incorporated and unincorporated areas Omaha highlighted.svg, and I thought I'd better point out a slight error — there's a little bit in the northeast corner of the county that's transparent, for no reason that I can understand. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it later. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the maps now. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do a county map for Buncombe County, North Carolina, specifically county seat Asheville? That would be an interesting map to see and I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Count Awesome (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do! No promises on how soon, though. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you had some sort of script (don't care what language) that you used to create, e.g. the Arkyan-style place within county map for e.g. Winnetka, Illinois (Arkyan did have a script but has vanished from the face of Wikipedia, so can't ask him). If so, could you please make it publicly available somewhere and point to it on your user page? Thanks DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a script, but I am happy to make maps for any particular county on request. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will work on writing one! Thanks for your prompt response. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]