How do I get to visit Aldabra? Forum / How do I get to visit Aldabra? /

WHS Map - the Data

Page  Page 12 of 12:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  
Author meltwaterfalls
#166 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 10:50 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I haven't been able to find a reliable data set, we could start with a begin and end point at least

I just found these at this site which seems pretty comprehensive to me.

Old Kilpatrick,-4.46525,55.927011
Duntocher Fort,-4.408833,55.922945
Cleddans Fort,-4.388936,55.920128
Castlehill Fort,-4.362001,55.923335
Bearsden Fort,-4.328536,55.919081
Summerston Fort,-4.282812,55.924195
Balmuildy Fort,-4.270764,55.916565
Wilderness Plantation,-4.245442,55.921524
Cadder Fort,-4.215885,55.925938
Glasgow Bridge,-4.184182,55.931522
Kirkintilloch Fort,-4.160986,55.940122
Auchendavy Fort,-4.119567,55.949521
Bar Hill Fort,-4.071953,55.958834
Croy Hill Fort,-4.031307,55.96508
Croy Hill Fortlet,-4.0321,55.964516
Westerwood Fort,-3.984969,55.974855
Castlecary Fort,-3.939881,55.98219
Seabegs Wood Fortlet,-3.906637,55.991478
Rough Castle Fort,-3.855292,55.997224
Watling Lodge Fort,-3.825265,55.997478
Falkirk Fort,-3.787751,55.998051
Mumrills Fort,-3.73651,55.996029
Inveravon Fort,-3.683274,55.998513
Kinneil Fortlet,-3.641474,56.005352
Carriden Fort,-3.563883,56.009779
GLAHM F.2,-4.153618,55.945995
GLAHM F6,-4.362495,55.92562
Distance slab of the Twentieth Legion,-4.365343,55.924643
Distance slab of the Twentieth Legion,-4.37505,55.920889
Distance slab of the Sixth Legion,-4.398927,55.918618
Distance slab of the Twentieth Legion,-4.376657,55.920851
Distance slab of the Twentieth Legion,-4.468254,55.92624
Inscribed building stone,-4.326988,55.920005
GLAHM F.21,-3.939983,55.982418
GLAHM F.22,-3.9395,55.982292
GLAHM F.1936.2,-4.071862,55.967581
GLAHM F.24,-4.06664,55.960606
GLAHM F.28,-4.117244,55.947977
GLAHM F.29,-4.117395,55.948025
GLAHM F.26,-4.117135,55.947992
GLAHM F.27,-4.117159,55.948117
GLAHM F.30,-4.117389,55.948124
GLAHM F.34,-4.215258,55.925632
GLAHM F.1922.4,-4.269218,55.917492
GLAHM F.1922.5,-4.25163,55.917815
GLAHM F.32,-4.413775,55.92553
GLAHM F.1969.23,-4.463515,55.927241
GLAHM F.1969.23,-3.973961,55.972213
Uninscribed Altar,-4.327127,55.920016
GLAHM F.36,-4.095435,55.954734
GLAHM F.37,-4.095304,55.954669
GLAHM F.38,-4.095293,55.954546
GLAHM F.41,-4.095167,55.954827
GLAHM F.40,-4.095092,55.954756
GLAHM F.39,-4.095114,55.954701
GLAHM F.43,-3.939393,55.982637
GLAHM F.1936.4,-4.071566,55.967617
GLAHM F.1936.6,-4.071674,55.967659
GLAHM F1922.8,-4.270981,55.917385
GLAHM F.1922.10,-4.270554,55.917411
Head of a Goddess,-4.327079,55.920107
GLAHM F.44,-4.410521,55.924695
GLAHM F.1936.9,-4.071615,55.967722
GLAHM F.1936.8,-4.071789,55.967625

Author elsslots
#167 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 11:30 

aahrg - latitude and longitude are the other way around, I now have the antonine wall somewhere near madagascar

let's try again...

Author meltwaterfalls
#168 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 11:37 
aahrg - latitude and longitude are the other way around, I now have the antonine wall somewhere near madagascar

No matter how many times I do it, I just can't make latitude and longitude stick in my head. My wife always laughs that someone so obsessed by maps can't seem to get this basic aspect correct. So apologies for that.

Author elsslots
#169 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 11:50 
well, I managed to switch around
a neat little line of dots has appeared in Scotland

happy with it, meltwaterfalls and Solivagant?

Author meltwaterfalls
#170 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 11:57 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
happy with it, meltwaterfalls and Solivagant?

It looks good to me and short of having the comprehensive dataset from UNESCO it is about as good as we can get.

Author Solivagant
#171 | Posted: 30 Mar 2017 12:15 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I can start with removing the incorrect ones (all of Antonine Wall)?

It appears I have wasted my time given what Meltwaterfalls has found!!! Anyway here are the results of my afternoon! MY FAULT - I did ask and shouldn't have set off!!
Replace them all - these are the "25 Forts/Fortlets" - enough I would have thought to "trace" the path - Forts are what most people are going to want to see anyway.
Eventually found this site which the "holy grail" for anyone wanting details on locations of Antonine Wall!
From West to East
Old Kilpatrick 55.926667, -4.466420
Duntocher 55.923333, -4.409746
Cleddans 55.922234, -4.370014
Castlehill 55.924570, -4.363240
Bearsden 55.919904, -4.327954
Summerston 55.924638, -4.283578
Wilderness Plantation 55.921869, -4.244607
Balmuidy 55.916657, -4.270945
Cadder 55.925890, -4.216043
Glasgow Bridge 55.932578, -4.184004
Kirkintilloch 55.940268, -4.161415
Auchendavy 55.949583, -4.118803
Bar Hill 55.958851, -4.072000
Croy Hill 55.964443, -4.031117
Westerwood 55.973536, -3.988187
Castle Cary 55.982500, -3.941140
Seabegs 55.991117, -3.906695
Rough Castle 55.997498, -3.855838
Watling Lodge 55.997512, -3.825010
Camelon 56.008080, -3.825035
Falkirk 55° 59′ 54″ N 3° 47′ 15″ W
Mumrills 55.995554, -3.735620
Inveravon 55.998340, -3.683628
Kinneil 56.005395, -3.641484
Carriden 56.010002, -3.564456

Author Solivagant
#172 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 02:44 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Re the Antonine Wall locations.

I have looked further at the list found by Meltwaterfalls and "adopted" yesterday.
I think it contains far too much detail and has unnecessarily increased the number of locations (UNESCO hasn't given a location number to any of the Antonine Wall locations presumably because it found the same problem with the details in the Nomination File as we did i.e that the coordinates refer to lengths of wall)
Our purpose in identifying locations for (T)WHS is primarily to assist the visiting of locations as well as, I suppose to identify, the general routes of linear sites such as the wall. Whilst it is true that many of the Forts/Fortlets along the Antonine wall don't actually have anything visible now, they do at least show "underground locations" still present
The list of "locations" discovered by Meltwaterfalls however includes the locations of discoveries of artifacts and boundary stones during excavations. Many of these now reside in the Glasgow Hunterian Museum. This explains the naming system for many of the "locations" . e.g GLAHM F.1969.23 ="GLAsgow Hunterian Museum" presumably disovered in 1969.
I would propose that we limit the mapped "locations" SOLELY to the forts and fortlets and do not include locations of archaeological finds - by all means provide a reference in the site page itself to the map showing all these other locations.

So - from Meltwaterfalls's list ONLY the locations between Old Kilpatrick and Carriden Fort should be used. Both the list of Forts/Fortlets found by Meltwaterfalls and myself contain 25 locations - but they are very slightly different both in content of forts/fortlets and (by usually only a few meters) in location.
It seems easiest to stick with the first 25 from the Meltwaterfalls list as they have already been uploaded and simply delete all locations after them.

Here, by the way, is the Google map of the Wall covering both Forts/Fortlets AND "finds" 90996834187845%2C-4.024879037109372&z=11

Author nfmungard
#173 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 03:14 
I would second and generalize Solivagant's comment on locations. There should be something tangible (visitable) about them and there is very little point to pin huge seria sites within a few 100m of each other.

There is still the idea of adding more levels to locations:

* Primary/Nominal: Shown on global map. Dark color.
* Secondary: Shown on country map, hotspot map and site map.
* Tertiary/POI: Shown only on site map.

Author Solivagant
#174 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 04:02 | Edited by: Solivagant 
There is still the idea of adding more levels to locations:
* Tertiary/POI: Shown only on site map.

Presumably this proposal
a. wouldn't involve identifying yet more locations but, rather, in splitting the locations already identified into 2 levels?
b. would have the intention of making the maps currently showing locations simpler to look at/faster to load etc

If it were to involve yet more locations (I suspect it doesn't or do you mean identifying "points of Interest" WITHIN a site like e.g Prague or Paris? If so then that, as they say, is a "new ball game" which I am not sure we should get into! There are lots of other sources for such a level of detail) then I don't see any reason to do so. For WHS we should use the UNESCO "Location IDs" as our prime source unless there are gaps/errors etc in those numbers. For TWHS where we have no location IDs we should operate at the same sort of "level" which we could expect to be used if/when the site became inscribed

If it relates to splitting the locations into 2 levels for certain sites then again presumably it would only be relevant for those sites with VERY "large" numbers of locations. I have just had a trawl through the inscribed list and (errors excepted) found
a. 6 with more than 100 locations -Qapac, Pile, Calais Mining, Front of RE, Rte of Sant (Sp), Med rock art)
b. 3 with between 50 and 99 (Belf, Rte of Sant (Fr), Camino R)
c. 16 with between 20 and 49 (Mzab, Gondwana, Sruve, Stecci, Atl For, Gr Canal, Silk Rd, W Ghats, Vicenza, Fuji, Kii, St G Bermuda, Merv, Merida, Uvs Nuur, Amst Def Line)

A number of these cover several countries and therefore in each country will be rather fewer They seem to split into 2 types
a. Those with a lot of locations in a small area - e.g a city
b. Those spread out over a large area e.g Santiago routes

The former only really show up at a high level of zoom if a country map is being used - is that much of a problem then? They are not "cluttering" the country map are they? The latter it seems to me are worth seeing on country maps. Also they would need to be available to make the "Hot spot" map valid would they not? There are some which are "in between" - e.g all those rock art sites!! But is it worth complicating the whole thing and moving away from UNESCO terminology for these few.

We don't have this analysis by number of locations for our T List sites- I suspect that there may be a few with high numbers but won't a similar analysis come to a similar conclusion?

Regarding map performance levels. I find this pretty good- I don't know how much delay is at the server and how much on the line (My village doesn't have fibre Broadband). The only slowish one is the total T List map. If one only wants the "List" this is a slight nuisance - I guess there could be a separate "toggle" by which the list could load and the user could then be asked if he/she wanted the map?
I guess a similar approach could be used for locations at the country level?

Author nfmungard
#175 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 05:26 | Edited by: nfmungard 

I think we agree there are a few main offenders when it comes to huge inscriptions, that severely crowd out each and every map they are shown in full. Rock Art and Limes come to mind.

Several of these could be clustered where applicabl, e.g. a Rockart cluster near Valencia:

* Abric de las Sabinas Bicorp, Valencia, Valencia, Spain
* Abric del Barranco Garrofero Bicorp, Valencia, Valencia, Spain
* Abric de los Gineses Bicorp, Valencia, Valencia, Spain
* ...

Technologically, we could hide most till a certain zoom level is reached.

With regard to POIs, no, I wouldn't see a concerned community effort here. However, when I recently visited Tanum I could have supplied more detailed location (POIs):

* VITLYCKE (Museum) - 58.701332, 11.340732
* Rock Carvings I - 58.700408, 11.336185
* Aspetberget - 58.695277, 11.337430
* ...

It would have helped seeing I passed some on my way from the bus station to the museum and didn't have the time to make it back. Similar, for Hamburg there are two components (Chilehaus, Speicherstadt) and having two dots seems reasonable. And on the far end of things, Paris and Prague are so huge, adding a few POIs may seem sensible, especially when Els mentions them in her review.

Author Solivagant
#176 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 05:46 
Several of these could be clustered where applicable, e.g. a Rockart cluster near Valencia:

Sounds good - presumably it would use the same approach as with the clustering for e.g Europe etc on the world map?

Author nfmungard
#177 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 06:04 

Naye. I think I can set the min/max visible zoom level per dot.

Author elsslots
#178 | Posted: 31 Mar 2017 09:07 
So - from Meltwaterfalls's list ONLY the locations between Old Kilpatrick and Carriden Fort should be used.

OK, I'll remove the other ones

Page  Page 12 of 12:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  10  11  12 
How do I get to visit Aldabra? Forum / How do I get to visit Aldabra? / WHS Map - the Data Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®