Hello, My apologies for this 2nd long email ;*]
Web 1.0 (Commons-like) VS web 2.0 (OSM-like) :* Ok, so we agree : commons file-by-file map making is archaic and not long term sustainable, compare to more flexible, cuztomisable (skin), and evolutive OSM-like approaches.
ok, we agree to affirm that current map creation on Wikimedia is not very effective. First, OSM, as well as Google map [you can create your maps] are the evidences that web 2.0 map creation does work on the user side.
*Basic SVG Map concepts:* When we look at how is made a map, we see that it is done *layer after layer*. In SVG, each layer may be *display, or hidden*. This two points are very important for collaborative and *encyclopedic uses*. An OSM-like system may also output specific PNG/JPG/SVG files for download.
*Soon to come, OSM Roads map integration :* OSM maps integration will provide us (very soon) : * Layers: 1. Land layer ; 2. Water layer ; 3. Administrative borders layer ; 4. Roads layer ; 5. icons layer ; 6. Labels layer. * View tool: specify the view/frame using geographic coordonies and zoom level ; * Skins: change the icon set, the color set, and all article's maps will by instantly update ; It's what you can see on http://u.nix.is/wiki/index.php/Maptest . It's the very-soon-to-come step, focus on Road maps.
*Encyclopedic needs are wider : * It is important to remember: OSM is a project for GPS users, it thus focus on roads. Their web 2.0 map creation process allowed them to achieve great success. But we are not OSM. We are *Wikimedia*. We have not to focus on roads. We have us to manage a wider 'knowledge project', mainly Wikipedia, where maps have a key importance. An encyclopedia actually need mainly : Background layers (Lands, waters, borders, provided by OSM) • Road layers (p. by OSM) • Topographic layer (GIS data, zoomable) • Location maps (the country or district in grey, to put city dots upon it) • Locator maps (the country in 'red' within is context and the world) • Historical layers.
*Technical needs for Wikimedia maps management :* Second, technically, on maps and knowledge management the need of :
- *reliability (bg): *more reliable land background ;
- *updatability:* easier maintenance (conventions, icon set updates,
colors updates) ; 3. *reliability (2):* avoid information duplicata and ease information correction ; 4. *internationalization:* easier translations (without duplicating the background),
make the move to 2.0 maps NEED. As the pro Google and OSM already did, the Wikimedia foundation will also have to make this move.
*Thus, what next: own to process ?* Since the OSM approach is SVG based, so it is also possible to : ** Hide*: hide layers, by example roads and names, to get just administrative division : that's the "Wikipedia Location maps" ; * *Translate:* duplicate the label layer "English", translate the duplicata into Chinese, and hide (or keep) the former "English" layer, this without changing or duplicating other layers. This will ease wikipedia highly need internationalization. * *Add GIS data:* add GIS datas and style it : that's the highly appreciated "Wikipedia Topographic maps" ; * *Add specific layers:* use the background provide by OSM (Land, Water, Administrative borders), and let create upon it objects such "Italia path red" : that create the "Wikipedia Locator maps" (a country in red within its context: Europe, World) ; draw a path with the shape of Gaza in 1948, add some city names, use the provided icons: that's an "Wiki historical map".
Those style of maps (Topographic, Location, Locator, Historical) are thousands on wikipedia, specific to wikipedia, and highly appreciate. I state it again : current web 1.0 Commons-like management & ducaplication-for-translations make our maps increasingly *unreliable*, while file-by-file management make map conventions impossible to implement.
*Possible sytems to produce OSM-like Encyclopedic maps and fit wikimedia needs :* As previously said, layers can be display (+) or hidden (-). Thus, layers may be combine such : Location map Gaza : Zoom on Gaza [OSM Gaza - Roads - icons)] Locator map Gaza : Zoom on Middle-East [OSM Gaza - Roads - icons + Gaz in Red] Topographic map Gaza : Zoom on Gaza [OSM Gaza - Roads - icons] + topographic data Historical map Gaza 1948 : Zoom on Gaza [OSM Gaza - Roads - icons + Gaz1948_SVG_group (including Gaza1948 in yellow + icons + labels ...)] Historical map Gaza 1948-zh : Zoom on Gaza [OSM Gaza - Roads - icons + Gaz1948_SVG_group (including Gaza1948 in yellow + icons + labels...) - English labels + Chinese Labels] etc.
Such formule/syntaxe may be save in the expanded OSM system under a shorter name : Historical_map_Gaza_1948-zh , associated with academic sources, and OSM license. Thus, within the article, we would have to add something such : [[Map:Historical map Gaza 1948-zh|300px|right|thumb|Gaza in 1948.]] Do you see the whole system ? Pretty similar of http://u.nix.is/wiki/index.php/Maptest , but fitting wikimedia wider encyclopedic needs: location, locator, topographic, historical.
*Conclusion : Wikimedia encyclopedic needs, need specific expanded OSM system* OSM based approach allow: * Layer flexibility: hidding layers, adding layers ; * Style flexibility: install skin & icon set change ; instant style & icon update ; * Reliability: critical data layers (lands shape, topography) may stay lock ; * Collaboration and translations: letting users to work on specific layers (roads, labels, historic) and using provided locked backgrounds ; Adding to this, we know : * Specific needs : Wikimedia have specific, wider, encyclopedic knowledge needs. Thus, Wikimedia should *expand* OSM to fit *its* encyclopedic needs ; * Know needs: after 8 years of Wikipedia and 4 of Map Workshops (Graphic Labs), we know that Encyclopedia's users mainly request about 6-7 styles of map to display semantic knowledge. This will allow wikimedia to increase the *reliability* of its maps, and ease the creation of a graphic identity.
*Integrate OSM, then Expand OSM : need of AN OFFICIAL ROAD MAP.* I'm not programmer. I thus just see to path to walk, and want to clearly set some objectives. My proposal is the following planning. 1. Integrate OSM to Wikipedia (see http://u.nix.is/wiki/index.php/Maptest ) : this is already and great step and soon to come ; 2. then: *Expand OSM* to get specific tools fitting Wikimedia specific Encyclopedic needs.
I'm here asking for an official or strong statement from the Foundation and OSM, that expand OSM to fit Wikimedia needs will be add to the former Agenda of collaboration. The section "Thus, what next" provide several ways to process: by hidding some layers, adding GIS data, letting users collaboratively duplicate then translate linguistic layers and draw historical layers, we will create an Encyclopedic OSM. I'm conscient of the huge human work force this expansion will need, that what I would encourage -if its possible- the Greenspun found to support this project, if need.
*End:* I Know I'm here flowding by just 2 emails a lot of concepts, a full system, and actually the fruit of 2-3 years of thinking. That's pretty huge. But as a wikicartographer, I state it again : expand OSM to Wikimedia's specific encyclopedic needs is the path we *HAVE TO* walk, sooner or later.
Also, Hoping an strong statement from the Wikimedia fountation and OSM leaders, Regards,
---- Hugo LOPEZ (French), User:Yug (wikigraphist) Institute of Innovation, Technology and Management (Master 1) NCHU, Taizhong, Taiwan.