Thinking about densely-connected urban centers

[atomrab]

One of the effects of switching locations to places connected to containing places is that it has become a lot harder to use the map inset to view and explore places in densely-settled urban areas like Rome or Athens. The current map view of Rome at maximum zoom looks like this:

It's basically impossible to identify the location of individual connected places by mousing over, which in some ways defeats the purpose of the map. Would it make sense to a) offer an alternate view, perhaps with satellite imagery (or OSM outlines?), into which one could zoom further or b) allow a deeper zoom into the relatively featureless (I think, at this scale) AMWC tiles so that one could at least distinguish individual places or c) create a small number of special detail maps of a few key urban areas in the Mediterranean (Rome, Athens, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, ???) where there are likely to be very large concentrations of markers? Athens is even worse right now:

[paregorios]

@atomrab try switching the base map to "modern streets" and see whether you think that's adequate. That's the set of base tiles we have that provides the deepest zoom at present.

[atomrab]

Well, duh. I just assumed that they'd all have the same zoom scale. I imagine that base map would be fine for just about anything we're likely to encounter, so never mind. I assume that a 5m satellite basemap would create problematic dependencies on commercial services (although this is what I want in my feverish brain), so never mind. I wonder if other users show the same lack of initiative, though. Maybe this is something that can be signaled somehow in the text below the inset?

[rmhorne]

Hello everyone,

One of the main limitations for the zoom levels on the map is lack of space in mapbox for tiles. If there is editorial consensus, I could look into using AWMC data and the new veto tiles from mapbox, which may allow us to have even higher zoom levels with the same accurate AWMC data. This will require learning new techniques / etc for mapbox, which may take some time. Is this something that pleiades users as a group would like to see?

Thanks, Ryan

On Oct 3, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Adam Rabinowitz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Well, duh. I just assumed that they'd all have the same zoom scale. I imagine that base map would be fine for just about anything we're likely to encounter, so never mind. I assume that a 5m satellite basemap would create problematic dependencies on commercial services (although this is what I want in my feverish brain), so never mind. I wonder if other users show the same lack of initiative, though. Maybe this is something that can be signaled somehow in the text below the inset?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/isawnyu/pleiades-gazetteer/issues/230#issuecomment-251166298, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUxWG2EQ_EZnj8w0NJ0CFXjka1877d3ks5qwTgegaJpZM4KMy-f.

[atomrab]

Anything that makes it easier to zoom in to a level appropriate for the information users might be trying to isolate would, in my opinion, be worthwhile. I suspect that my students rarely switch the basemap, either, so the question is whether the diminished frustration on the lazy user side is worth the increased effort on the @rmhorne side.

[rmhorne]

Hello everyone,

That should read “vector” instead of veto. Either me or my autocorrect must have politics on the brain.

Thanks, Ryan

On Oct 3, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Horne, Ryan rmhorne@email.unc.edu<mailto:rmhorne@email.unc.edu> wrote:

Hello everyone,

One of the main limitations for the zoom levels on the map is lack of space in mapbox for tiles. If there is editorial consensus, I could look into using AWMC data and the new veto tiles from mapbox, which may allow us to have even higher zoom levels with the same accurate AWMC data. This will require learning new techniques / etc for mapbox, which may take some time. Is this something that pleiades users as a group would like to see?

Thanks, Ryan

On Oct 3, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Adam Rabinowitz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Well, duh. I just assumed that they'd all have the same zoom scale. I imagine that base map would be fine for just about anything we're likely to encounter, so never mind. I assume that a 5m satellite basemap would create problematic dependencies on commercial services (although this is what I want in my feverish brain), so never mind. I wonder if other users show the same lack of initiative, though. Maybe this is something that can be signaled somehow in the text below the inset?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/isawnyu/pleiades-gazetteer/issues/230#issuecomment-251166298, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUxWG2EQ_EZnj8w0NJ0CFXjka1877d3ks5qwTgegaJpZM4KMy-f.

[paregorios]

so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Would a user study at AIA/SCS be worthwhile to try to sort out what would be best?

[atomrab]

I would vote "yes", especially since there will be that SCS maker-space panel where Sarah will be representing us and presumably dealing with lots of interested potential users.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Tom Elliott notifications@github.com wrote:

so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Would a user study at AIA/SCS be worthwhile to try to sort out what would be best?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/isawnyu/pleiades-gazetteer/issues/230#issuecomment-257334259, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEhXg2Zdawq7vAgvWkyu4SrBOwtKXEP-ks5q5g_zgaJpZM4KMy-f .