User talk:Kmusser/Archive1

Map Requests

Karl, your maps are clean and beautiful. You obviously have access to some great mapping software and high-resolution vector data. I'm working on a series of base maps for use with the the new locator-dot technique in the Protected Area Infobox; would you be willing to generate some SVG maps for me? They can be in any color scheme you want, and don't need any labels. I can do any color changing and final formatting to match the current standard. Please let me know. And thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response. Yes, I'd be happy to help with that. Looks like you have a good template map for the whole U.S. Just let me know what else you need. I have access to a public domain source for actual park boundaries in the U.S. if you want to make use of them. Kmusser 15:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon dispute maps

Thanks for noticing all that; I let it go fallow but from time to time I go back at it; just fiddled with the article, which to me (ex-British Imperialist that I am) was decidedly NPOV and still needs more work. But I just sussed out two dated boundary proposals FYI on the Oregon boundary dispute talk page and there's more. Ultimately the "disputed area" is the Puget Sound-Olympic Peninsula, either to the line of the Cascades or the line of the Columbia River (as in the 1826 map I posted today on the talk page); the US proposals for 54-40 and bisecting Vancouver Island and such were all spurious; negotiating/threatening positions; as was the British claim to the 42nd Parallel, which no HBC senior official ever took seriously despite the fact much of their own settlement/farming activity was in the Williamette (south of the Columbia). I'll have more later on trade routes and locations of fur posts; just wanted to get these dated maps up and together. I see you're a cartographer; you may REALLY want to find A Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest by Derek Hayes, Cavendish Books Vancouver 1999. More juicy historical maps and historical oddities than you can shake an astrolabe at, including Maldonado's and de Fonte's spurious geographies of the Northwest Passage and the "Great Western Sea".Skookum1 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of India maps

Hey Kmusser. Thanks a ton for your maps on History of India. Your help is very highly appreciated. One thing I must point out, is that in maps such as these, a more neutral representation of the disputed borders in the Kashmir region will go better with Indian editors. this is an example of the standard we try to maintain regarding these borders. In any case, keep up the great work you are doing! deeptrivia (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl; thx for Oregon Map update

Thanks! That's vastly improved, although there's still some bits I'd rather see on it. I've made a schlub version of it with some of these other bits Oregon Country/Columbia District update. Most critical is the Route of "the Express", aka the Brigade Trail, but the term "Brigade Trail" in our history tends to be used for the short route from Spuzzum/Yale to Kamloops over the eastern flank of the Canadian Cascades, which is marked on the map with a dotted line to the ENE of Ft Langley; south of that line is ONE of the various Similkameen Trails, a certain combination of which later was to become the Dewdney Trail; both these and the Fraser Canyon version of the Brigade Trail were developed by the HBC as alternatives to the eventual loss of the main Express Route. The Express was an annual shipment of furs, and the District's bookkeeping, to the Company's North American HQ at York Factory, and from there to London. In terms of regional history it is every bit as important as the Oregon Trail (and, until about 1841 or so, far busier) and is as critical to the British claim as the Oregon Trail is to the American.

Ft. McLoughlin's exact location I'll have to check on; it's offshore from Bella Coola but I don't know on which island; it was abandoned by the time of the treaty-signing, but it was one of the earliest HBC posts on the Coast (older than Victoria by far); Ft Rupert was strategically important as a coaling station. Both are certainly as important as Fort Clatsop, which as far as I understand was "built" by Lewis and Clark, but never used again afterwards (a collection of log huts, one presumes), and also "lost" for a long time (if its location has ever been pinpointed). Another instance of mythology becoming reality; its existence is overblown, esp. in contrast to the much more real British/HBC/NWC installations that came after it.

My scanner's not working or I'd scan up some of historical maps from the Hayes Historical Atlas of BC and the Pacific NW I mentioned, which shows various routes and boundaries. Found a really good one of the territory in dispute along the upper Alaska Panhandle. Also some fine-detail on the various San Juan boundary channel-routings. Gotta run; map update is great, although I think I'd still like to see split shading, with a darker shading for the last-ditch British redoubt around Puget Sound; the term "Disputed Area" might be better served with "Main/Focal Area Of Dispute"Skookum1 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Douglas Road map

I just uploaded a map I'd made for a history paper a few years ago, showing the route of something called the Douglas Road. The original's a huge 2500px but I seemed to have lost something in clarity by shrinking it down; would it have been better to shrink it in PNG format or ??? Or is it legible enough? The basemap is from an out-of-print history, publisher also out of business; and much of IT was hand-drawn, too; so I put it under my own authorship (?)Skookum1 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good except for the smaller text. If you're using Photoshop use the "Save for Web" option and resize it there rather than using the Image Size option - also PNG format is a little better at rendering text than JPG so that would help some. If using something else - try just switching to PNG, if that doesn't make a difference you could upload the big one and I could shrink it for you. Kmusser 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmusser/Sandbox

Wow, thanks for this, that's some pretty darn comprehensive research.--Pharos 01:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kmusser 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patuxent map

Very nice. thanks. If you ever want to expand on it, two black lines marking the damns (and/or reservoir names) on the upper Patuxent would be nice. --Stbalbach 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I left them unlabeled as I think the text of the article describes them pretty well. Kmusser 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harpers Ferry

Sorry about changing the name of the nearest city to Martinsburg. I just realized that I mistakenly read it as Charleston, WV instead of Charles Town, WV. Thanks for catching that!-Nebular110 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV map

Hi. Wonderful map of the Saint Lawrence drainage basin, but I am afraid it is rather POV. It shows the borders of the counties in the US, but neglects the counties in the Canadian provinces. Do you think you would be able to incorporate them? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to, but I haven't been able to find a copyright-free source for Canadian county borders. I could take the US counties out if you think that would be an improvement. Kmusser 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that your Canadian Census Division maps are a pretty clear copyright violation. Products from the Canadian government are NOT public domain and reference maps made by Statistics Canada all have a copyright notice on them. Kmusser 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Mapping

Howdy - I'm currently attempting to create maps for several rivers in Texas and I'd like to mimic the style you've used in your maps of other Texas waterways (namely your maps of the Brazos, Red, and Rio Grande). I think I'm reasonably close to being done, but I have just three questions that I'd like to bounce off you:

1. I'm using QGIS and only using datasets from the USGS - if I read the disclaimers there correctly, this data (and resulting maps) is free to use for any purpose (i.e. uploading to Commons), correct?

2. In the above mentioned maps, you appear to be using the colors suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, correct?

3. And the fun one: Is there anything in the dbf for the watersheds that would indicate the associated river? Or do you just research the river and select the appropriate watershed regions to highlight (what I've done so far)?

Thank you for any time you have to spare from your fantastic mapmaking! Kuru ^talk 00:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, my maps are based almost entirely on USGS - any of their data is free to use. If you need a Mexico boundary for stuff near the border you can get a public domain one from http://www.maproom.psu.edu/dcw/

2. That is correct.

3. Mostly through research, though you may find http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html useful, it gives the textual names that goes along with the numerical codes and makes the hierarchy of watersheds clear, also conveniently gives the size of the watersheds. Kmusser 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your map gallery

Thanks for the great maps - I saw your question about certain maps not showing and fixed it (I had had the same problem, so I knew how). You need to purge each map image page on Commons separately (and I also purged the Gallery page on WP (once), not sure if that was required) and then do a refresh in your browser. I did that for the three maps that did not show on my browser (James, Rapahannock and Angara) and they all seem to display now.

Do you know any PD maps of US creek watersheds or is the USGS material just the data to make the maps? I can edit existing maps but do not have software to make them. Ruhrfisch 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gallery fix. For the maps I'm using USGS raw data - they do not have any existing maps readily available (they do have a nice series of paper watershed maps by state but as far as I know they've never been digitized). You can get small ones through EPA's Surf your watershed [1], but I don't think they're very good. You might be able to make decent ones using the National Atlas [2], which uses the same source data I use. Kmusser 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya map- thanks

Hi Karl, thanks for that nice adaption of the Maya region map- very well executed! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary request

Karl, an additional request- would you be able to upload to commons a 'blank' or 'clean' map of the same Mesoamerica img you used to create the Maya region map? That is, that same map of all Mesoamerica, but without any text, sites, or other annotations, and without any shading and borders to indicate the regions and subregions; just a map with the coastal outline, river systems and relief colouring displayed. Such a base map would be highly useful to develop and create a number of other maps to show a range of other data. Let me know if it's something you've time for, or not. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it though. The one I uploaded I took from the Spanish Wiki, I don't have the original base files and it would be hard to delete all the text. I think I have access to the data I'd need to recreate it though so we'll see. Kmusser 14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I suspected it would not be quite so straightforward. If you do get a chance later to look into it, pls let me know. I'll keep looking around to see if there are any alternatives which might more easily be used to derive a base map from. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're in luck, the source files were in the commons as well, Blank Mesoamerica map. Kmusser 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for that- it seems I'd missed it in an earlier search- goes to show how desperately deficient the present commons categorisation scheme is! Anyway, that's great, and will come in v. handy. Much obliged, --cjllw | TALK 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Thanks for all your help improving List of capitals in the United States. Very nice work. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kmusser 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thames and Medway Canal

Hi, you tagged this as needing a map shortly after I'd added one. The map I added wasn't great (pinched from elsewhere), and I have one I'm planning to scan from elsewhere (once I've checked copyright issues): could you say a bit more about what's wrong with the current map, or what you'd like to see, so that I can make sure those issues are addressed. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look at it, I was categorizing existing map requests without checking to see if they been fulfilled. Looking at it now it looks nice, removed the map request. Kmusser 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jolly good. :-) JackyR | Talk 00:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers of Argentina

Hi Kmusser! I was thinking about doing maps for the Category:Rivers of Argentina, and I wanthered if there's a standard for them regarding colours, topografy, etc. More importantly, I wanted to know if any of you knows a good way to do so (sources, programs, wites, etc) I left this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, I'm not sure if you participate of it. If yo, you can answer me there so it reaches more people. Thanks a lot, Mariano(t/c) 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers so more people would see it.Kmusser 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larrys Creek

Thanks for adjusting the color on Larry's Creek's map. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you might like to know that I based the other map (Image:Larrys Creek Watershed Map.PNG) on your excellent map of the Susquehanna Image:Susq.png. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Congrats on getting the article to featured status. It really is excellent. Kmusser 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. Since you feel this way, would you mind sharing your opinion at its FAC page? I have never nominated an article for FA, so I am a bit unsure of the procedure. I assume they just tell you at some point that it is featured (or not)? Anyway, thanks again Ruhrfisch 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support of Larrys Creek's FAC. I really appreciate it. Ruhrfisch 13:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks again for your fixing the map, support, and comments - Larrys Creek made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOT source of GIS data

I noticed you've been making several railroad maps (among other maps), and they look very good indeed. I'm just starting to get into GIS tools (using Quantum GIS), and I'm sure I have a lot to learn. I think I'll figure it out eventually.

One thing I'm trying to figure out: Where did you get the source for your DOT data? I've tried looking at geodata.gov, bts.gov, and the USGS site, but I haven't found anything that's in the ESRI shape data format that Quantum GIS uses. It's either the old NORTAD format, which didn't convert correctly for me, or it uses Web Map Servies, which QGIS apparently doesn't do. Do you know of a good source for this data?

I did find a good source of GIS data for Minnesota (at www.dot.state.mn.us), so I can do the railroads in Minnesota, but I'd like to do stuff outside of Minnesota as well. I'd also be interested in doing maps such as the historic routes of the Milwaukee Road before they kicked the bucket, although GIS data for that might be a little more complicated.

Maybe I'm not such a beginner after all, but any help you can provide or pointers to GIS data would be appreciated. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the NORTAD stuff, which converted fine for me. If you're doing stuff for the U.S. that dataset is identical to the railroad layer used in the National Atlas which is already converted so I'd recommend using that. Using it to do historic routes may be tricky, which is why I haven't tackled it yet, basically you'll need some source that shows the historic route and then select the individual linework that matches the closest. Kmusser 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I figured it out. I didn't even notice the individual raw data download links on nationalatlas.gov until I looked closer. And I think I figured out why the NORTAD conversion didn't appear to work -- it's using a different coordinate system than the MNDOT data. I'll probably have to play around with this a little more, or maybe just use data from one source that has the same coordinate system.

Actually, I think I just found a GIS data source that has data on abandoned railroad lines: The National Transportation Atlas Database has a data source under "Railway Network (1:100,000 base scale)" that contains both current and abandoned lines. With a little SQL querying, it could prove useful. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check out the 1:100,000 scale railway network as well, I hadn't seen that one.Kmusser 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela and Nueva España

Surprisingly, Venezuela was in the Viceroyalty of New Spain, for at least part of the time that viceroyalty existed. Venezuela was a dependency of Santo Domingo, and Santo Domingo was part of New Spain. Here is a link, but it's in Spanish: [3] .

Here is what the article History of Venezuela says:

During the 16th and 17th century, the provinces which constitute today's Venezuela were relatively neglected. The Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru (located on the sites formerly occupied by the capital cities of the Aztecs and Incas) were more interested in their nearby gold and silver mines than in the agricultural societies of Venezuela. Responsibility for the Venezuelan territories shifted between the two Viceroyalties.

And this is a quick and dirty translation from Fernando Orozco Linares's Gobernantes de México, Mexico City: Panorama Editorial, 1985:

The Viceroyalty was an institution particularly Spanish. That of New Spain was founded April 17, 1535. Its capital was Mexico City and it included the following entities: The Audiencia of Santo Domingo, with the governments of the island of Española, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Florida and Venezuela. The Audiencia of Mexico, which included the government of Yucatan. The Audiencia of los Confines, which covered the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Soconusco [part of Chiapas]. The Audiencia of Guadalajara, with the governments of New Galicia, New Vizcaya, Nuevo Reino de Leon, New Mexico and Coahuila. The Audiencia of Manila, which covered the government of the Philippine Islands. This organization was maintained in almost complete integrity until the attainment of independence.

By the time of the formation of the Viceroyalty of New Granada in 1717, though, Venezuela had been detached. However, this is nearly 200 years after the formation of New Spain. I've been aware that the paragraph you edited needs more work in order to include this information, but unfortunately I don't know all the details, particularly which date or dates Venezuela passed between the different viceroyalties.

Rbraunwa 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, one other thing. At least Central America (Los Confines) and the Philippines, although technically part of New Spain, were administered largely independently of it. The same may have been true of Venezuela.

Rbraunwa 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about it, I just saw that the New Spain article contradicted both the New Granada and Viceroyalty of Peru articles, so what you have listed here should go in there somewhere to make it clearer. Kmusser 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee

According to Southwest Territory: "North Carolina ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1789. As a condition of joining the Union, it ceded its claim to territory west of the Smoky Mountains under an act passed by the North Carolina General Assembly." The deed was not passed until April 2 1790, and the maps supplied by the US Government itself for the situation after the signing of the Constitution do not include Tennessee in North Carolina. I'll think about this, though. --Golbez 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State cessions

Very very very very very nice map on the state cessions. :) Except, I'm a little unclear as to which areas were ceded by New York and Virginia, there seems to be an overlap, and the colors aren't quite different enough to figure out which were claimed by both, claimed by only one, etc. Could you clear that up a bit? Maybe using diagonal lines going one way for New York, and the other way for Virginia, so overlapping areas (I'm assuming there's an overlap here, since it looks like New York claimed West Virginia and part of Kentucky?) would have a crosshatch look.

Also, I note you have northern Maine as "disputed", but northern Minnesota as "uncertain". You've seen my maps; do you think I should do the same? Should I keep northern Minnesota as 'disputed' or simply draw a dotted line and say 'uncertain'? (On a related note, do you think I handle Oregon Country correctly? "Unclaimed area"? And should I note a dispute, or what? Things got so much simpler after the Civil War. :P)

And do you have any other comments on my evolution maps? Having someone like you who clearly seems to know his stuff is spurring me to load up the Gimp and work on them a little. :) --Golbez 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of the Woods

Actually, look at [4], created by the U.S. government - it clearly shows the border of Minnesota between Superior and Lake of the Woods as unclear (Along with the northern border of New York and Vermont, between NY and Connecticut, and apparently between Kentucky and Tennessee). Thoughts? --Golbez 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to Wikistalk (I have your talk page on my watchlist). The reason for the uncertain border in northern Minnesota is explained in the Northwest Angle article. Basically, the border was originally set to be on a line between the northern point of Lake of the Woods running west to the Mississippi River, which was thought to have a source north of there. After someone discovered that Lake Itasca, the source of the Mississippi, is actually south of Lake of the Woods, the boundary was later fixed at the 49th parallel, leaving a small section north of the 49th parallel (hence the Northwest Angle). Hope this helps. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains the border to the south and west of Lake of the Woods, but not to the East. I've seen that eastern section marked as dashed on a couple of maps, but haven't found a trace of a textual description of the dispute (if any). I did find the text of the Treaty of Paris and that seemed to define that particular border rather clearly. Golbez, I'm not sure I'd trust that map, the Terr. south of the Ohio is definitely wrong, and the NY border was resolved well before that. Kmusser 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another gate-crasher here -- I just noticed the conversation here, which made me wonder about the boundary east of the Lake of the Woods. I seems to recall reading about it before. One note I came across is the following statement in History of Minnesota#Minnesota Territory: Border disputes east of the Lake of the Woods continued until the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. Unfortunately, the treaty article doesn't do much to elaborate. The Treaty of Paris was actually rather vague in describing the boundary as follows: through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi. Not the least of the vagaries is the use of the nonexistent Isle Phelipeaux as a reference point. There is no mention of the Pigeon River (Minnesota-Ontario) and the reference to Long Lake is absent in later treaties. This could use some additional info, but my estimation of the situation is that the boundary was uncertain until defined in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. I'm having browser problems right now that are hampering additional investigation right now. older ≠ wiser 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after rebooting, I was able to find this description of the "disputed" aspects of the boundary east of the Lake of the Woods. older ≠ wiser 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, that's exactly what I was looking for and couldn't find. Kmusser 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NY Colony Image

Did you ever know that you're my hero? Amazing work. Thank you. jengod 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) That one did prove more difficult than anticipated. The rest should be easy in comparison. Kmusser 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Connecticut too! These are such outstanding contributions to Wikipedia and the Web in general. It makes me happy to think of the students and teachers who will be able to enjoy these for a long time to come. Keep up the great work! jengod 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulins Kill

A big thank you and bravo for the map you did for Paulins Kill. Just what we needed. It looks fantastic! —ExplorerCDT 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it Kmusser 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lena watershed

I am interested in having a large version (as big as you can) of lena_watershed.png, Tigr-euph.png and if you can make me one with the Nile I would be very grateful. --DelftUser 10:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded them to the commons as lena_watershed_highres.png and Tigr-euph_highres.png respectively. I also have the Photoshop files if you want them - and my GIS output which is just the linework is in postscript, which you're also welcome to. Kmusser 14:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't get to one for the Nile anytime real soon - I don't have any of the Africa base datasets downloaded yet - I will eventually though as I already have the Congo on my to do list. Kmusser 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I am not in a hurry to get the Nile image, but if you could let me know when it's uploaded I'll be very grateful. --DelftUser 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Georgia Tech Lorraine

Georgia Tech Lorraine is actually in France. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for catching that. Kmusser 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are long overdue for the Mapmaker's Star

Sir, I have taken the liberty of awarding you the MapMaker's Star, putting it in a place of honour on your User page (you are welcome, of course, to move it where you see fit). You are apparently (according to Google at least) only the second to receive this award. Keep up the good work. MapMaster 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, ol' chap. And, yes, I did see your sorting, and adding a number of "requested map" templates. I'll have to try to tackle one of two of those after I get some other work done. Thanks again. It's nice to work with such committed companions. MapMaster 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon

Please do not replace the map that I made for the Divisions of Cameroon. Thank you. Rarelibra 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

hello Kmusser, I believe showing Abkhazia as a separate country on your location map is POV. If so, you should also make similar maps of other separatist enclaves in Russia (Chechnya, Ingushetia, Daghestan) Nagorno-Karabakh and others separate from their de jure borders. You should show the location of these regions (officially recognized as Autonomous republics) within the countries they belong to (like here [5]). Im not blaming you for anything, on contrary admiring your work, however, we should keep in mind the legal borders which are recognized by UN and other world organizations in order to avoid misleading the reader. Thanks a lot. Regards. Ldingley 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making similar maps of other enclaves is on the drawing board, Abkhazia was first because it was first in the alphabet :-). Currently there is nothing at all to show where Abkhazia is in the world and there was a request in project maps to make sure all country articles (including unrecognized ones and dependant territories, etc) have a locater map. Kmusser 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a PS if you think just using the locater map for Georgia instead would be better that would be fine, but there should be some sort of frame of reference for the existing maps to let the reader know what they are looking at. Kmusser