Talk:OSM on Paper

Discuss OSM on Paper page here:

---

Category

This page needs a category? Martin Renvoize 11:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! Grahamjones 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

Ink Atlas

The Ink Atlas link appears to be dead. Should it be removed?

--Gregrs (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

- Not delete inkAtlas is again up! --Lateralus (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple web services section and Inkatlas

I reorganized the section to put the services with more features and global map coverage on top. Any thoughts? --Kontextify (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

I like the organization of the list now and the note about sorting, but I think it's time to compare the services again and change the order. IMHO these are the features to keep in mind:

- Terrain data (for maps of remote places, not just cities).

- High resolution output (for example, this Field Papers PDF is low resolution).

- Standard map scales (like 1:50000).

- Multi-page atlas option.

- Large paper sizes (like A0).

- Option to add GPS tracks and other user data.

Each of the current "leaders" in the list is missing some (or all) of these features. By contrast, Inkatlas has all of them and has been greatly improved in the past months. In my opinion, Inkatlas is now the most useful site and should be first on the list. If you do not agree, please try the services yourself and explain why you think the current order is correct. What do you think? I'm open to other opinions and comments about this.

Regarding blogs mentioning Inkatlas: here's an example, although quite old now. It's true that Inkatlas is less well known than some of the other sites. This is because it's not run by a large company, university or other organization. It's not presented at OSM conferences around the world. So far I am doing this myself, with a few donations from users. That means the site is mostly shared on social media, like here. For more reviews, see this Disqus thread. --kontextify 18:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the following order:

- Inkatlas

- Field Papers

- MapOSMatic

- mapz.com

- milvusmap.eu

--kontextify 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions (and your service!) ! go for it! Mapz registration requirement pissed me off while trying it out. ;-) Well, there is one thing: I could not download a map from your webservice: the "download" button just showed a " forbidden" mouse cursor when I hovered it. What do you think about a feature comparison table (nearly like you did in your 18:37, 11 February 2017 post). However, that would be some extra initial and maintenance effort. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for looking at this again! Yes, mapz.com makes you register and enter everything... your blood type, eye colour. ;) A comparison table is a good idea, I'll try to make a nice MediaWiki table for this. On Inkatlas, the download button is "forbidden" until you select an area for your map (using the rectangle or shape tool). There are instructions about this, but maybe I should make it more clear for users. Let me know if you are still having problems! The system should be much more reliable than it was last summer, when you noticed that it was offline for a few days. :(

Ah, "instructions" - no. I just clicked them away :D They were in my way. This is the human popup-reflexive-action. Haha - yes, I know, RTFM. And when I needed them, they were not there anymore. Okay, I see - I need to use one of those two tiny buttons on the left! :) I was focussing on the right panel and I though I get the current viewport as map. What about just changing the text from " Please select an area to map. " to " You need to select an area for your map. Use one of the buttons [images here] on the left." And maybe a hover text on the "Continue" button? Hopefully this would make less other people stuck like me on inkscape.

Regarding the table: have a look at the Software/Desktop or List_of_OSM-based_services#Export tables for inspiration and coding.

Please could you use for example this in the PDFs footer: © OpenStreetMap contributors - https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . Currently you do not specify the license and provide no way to read it.

Thank you! :) Maybe some others find the time one day to comment here. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think most people close the intructions without reading. :) I did not want to use the current viewport for selection because this can make it very hard to select a precise area for your map. I have to think of a way to make this more user-friendly though, and changing the text can help. The OSM copyright is included on all maps. It is at the bottom of every page in the PDF (except for the first index page). I can add it there too. Thanks for your feedback! I've now replaced the list with a table. I did my best to evaluate and compare all the "top" services. Maybe there are too many columns? Feel free to make improvements.

Just a quick partial reply: The current copyright footer is "Copyright inkatlas.com, OpenStreetMap contributors." Which is not conforming to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright because ... see above. First glance on the table - wow, awesome! Good night! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've changed the copyright text now. Example: "OpenStreetMap contributors (openstreetmap.org), inkatlas.com". The second part (inkatlas.com) depends on which map style is used (my own, OpenTopoMap, etc). I also made things more clear with the disabled "Continue" button.

It really should not be the pure domain. It should be /copyright (see my suggestion) - otherwise it is to hard to find the license (and not confirming to our copyright requirements). Otherwise please mention "Open Database License" in addition. Button: that's better now! Well done! Still, I think a quickinfo/bubble popup when hovering or pressing (touch devices) the button would be best because the user has their eye focus down there and possibly not up at the glowing blue text. Anyway, thumb users like me will get it at the end and some point. :-) I will reply more at the weekend. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hebstreits

I do agree with the addition of the Hebstreits web service under the Simple web interfaces for printing OSM maps section, but I have serious doubts on whether it fits the sections Desktop programs, libraries and scripts and Styles suitable for black & white printing. In my opinion the libraries section is a list of software libraries, while user Hebstreits added an image library. Under the style section I would expect mapnik styles you can use to generate your own maps, not a webservice selling printable maps.
Also, I do not see much added value in the Hebstreits wiki page, apart from a commercial one.
Any thoughts?
--Pakezel (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)