This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 29 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:39, 29 May 2007 by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Midpoint co-ordinates?
I'm not convinced that giving the co-ordinates of a tunnel's mid-point is ideal. It is not easy to objectively source this information and it's not that useful. By comparison, citing the co-ordinates of the two endpoints is more verifiable and useful in my opinion. --VinceBowdren 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's the best way to label the article with a single set of coordinates; in fact that's aleady done on the tunnel articles I've seen. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any compelling need for a single set of co-ordinates though? --VinceBowdren 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, if we want the article to appear in the Google Earth layer for Misplaced Pages. Andy Mabbett 10:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the google earth's wikipedia layer is not up to the job of reading two co-ordinates in a single article, I think that's google earth's problem. Including verifiable and useful information for wikipedia's primary audience (human readers using web browsers) trumps google earth. --VinceBowdren 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- While you may, in general, have a point, how is any system supposed to know which of two (or more) coordinates in an article relate to the whole article, and not just a point mentioned in it? Perhaps the answer is to make sure that the article-specific coordinates, in this case a tunnel mid-point, are the first to occur. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)