Talk:OSM on Paper
Discuss OSM on Paper page here:
This page needs a category? Martin Renvoize 11:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Done! Grahamjones 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a bit of cleanup just now. There was a lot of irrelevant stuff towards the bottom of the page which I just outright deleted. Other stuff got moved. For example iPhoto patch details. No idea how on earth someone thought that was relevant to this page. I guess it may have been a hangover from the re-arrangement of the Using OpenStreetMap page.
Still some work to do before this page will be presenting a rational walk-through of different techniques for printing OSM maps.
-- Harry Wood 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Ink Atlas link appears to be dead. Should it be removed?
- Thanks for the note! inkatlas was still working in March 2016. At 18th July it was showing "Inkatlas is currently undergoing maintainenance" (via google cache). Not sure if it is just a temporary downtime. I have asked a user who contributed this link. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Simple web services section and Inkatlas
- Now you have again just put inkatlas on top of the list. You were the one who added inkatlas (on top of the list). I have put it to the end. Now you try it again. Inkatlas even was some days (at least) down recently (see #Ink_Atlas). Is it your service? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the changes. Yes, this is my free service. It has been online for 2 years, and has many users. When I updated the list, I moved Inkatlas to the top because I think that objectively, it is the most useful service (with features like elevation contours, standard map scales, etc). Is there any objective reason why it should now be at the bottom, below services that only map one country, and are not English? Are you also a developer of one of these services? I think that this Wiki page needs to list the sites in order of usefulness to a global audience. Inkatlas, FieldPapers and MapOSMatic should be at the top. I am not starting an edit war, I will wait for your response and will be happy to discuss further. --Kontextify (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. If you look at other service additions (just search all edit comments for "add") you will see that they are all added to the bottom of the list. You emphasize the objectivity – please let other decide the order because you, as developer, have inherent issues to be objective. Just some look around into the community: https://www.ixquick.eu/do/dsearch?query=inkatlas+diary+site%3Awww.openstreetmap.org . Compare those results (none) with those of FieldPapers or MapOSMatic.
- Regarding actual position in the list: from what I read, it seems that it should not be at the end of the list, yes (but there it should be when you add it). As a first step: What about to split the list in two lists and mentioning their titles: "Global coverage, English interface available" and "the rest" (better title needed)? It is done similarly at OSM Map On Garmin/Download.
- No, I am not a developer of any of those services. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Inkatlas was at the bottom of the list for ~1 year, and it's not the newest service anymore. That's not important though. I don't think the list should be in chronological order. It should not be a history of services for OSM historians, it should be a convenient list for users who want to make a good paper map without trying 20 different sites. The most popular and useful sites should always be on top. By "useful", I mean features and overall quality. Also, popularity should not be measured by searching openstreetmap.org (as you did). I think these services are mostly shared on social media and blogs. The internet is a big place. :)
- It's good idea to make two sections (maybe "Global coverage, English interface" and "Local services"?). As for order, I think before my change yesterday it was FieldPapers, MapOSMatic, Inkatlas. After looking at the sites again, I think that's fair for everyone and better for users. Can we please return to this? I won't move things anymore without asking here. --Kontextify (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I agree that a chronological sorting is not really that useful. In fact IF there is any sorting it may be useful to disclose this to the reader. "features and overall quality" – and there it gets a bit harder. Which scoring system, weight? ;-) Yes, if everybody agrees to some current order, this problem is solved.
- Show me the blogs which mentioned inkatlas! :-) I mostly restricted to osm.org to get a sense of the osm people, but also to avoid false positives.
- I did the list split,as I think this is really the most relevant aspect. If someone is searching for a map of the US it does not help if they are presented a service which only offers Germany.
- I have tried to sort the list based on your last version: "walking papers" down (since it is quite succeeded by Field papers), "turbo" a bit down (not really for printing, not much features), special maps (boundaries, …) down, inkatlas before the low-feature/special case services. I would like to hear someone else's comments before moving it up more. Fine for you? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)