Talk:Google Maps/Archive 2

Talk:Google Maps/Archive1

Indian Cities
TexasAndroid!! why do you think that site you moderate is much more important than others? You have been deleting site I add everytime. This site offers number of maps of Indian cities which are not found on any other site. Could you please tell me why you keep deleting? If you say that you want to keep this list minimal then delete yours too. Unsigned comment by 130.239.192.79.
 * I'll respond to your comments about the Indian link here, and start another section to respond about GG. These are really two toally separate issues.  As for the Indian link, the reason I keep deleting it is exactly as I start in my regular edit comment.  The link has not been discussed.  If you want the link to not be deleted, it needs to be discussed here.  The edit comment says clearly that's what needs to happen.  See the discussion above about Placeopedia for an example of how this can happen.  But you made no effort to come here and persuade us to let the link stay.  You just replaced it, and then came in here angry.  Well, let's start the discussion.  Please let us know why you think the link deserves to be up, when similar sites for England, Switserland, Austrailia, etc. do not.  If we start letting in country specific sites, it's going to be hard to deny any of them, and very quickly we'll be back where we were, and every single link will be removed.  That's why I do the clean-out, because the only way we can avoid rightful removal of the whole list is by limiting it to a very small selection of links.  TexasAndroid 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that the anonymous commenter feels confused, although that doesn't justify his/her behaviour. There is no clear set of criteria set forth at this point for what links are considered to be of value.  Therefore, I would propose the following straightforward framework of criteria:
 * The link has first been discussed on the Talk Page, AND
 * Is a unique application of Google Maps services that meaningfully contributes to the reader's understanding of the technology, OR
 * Offers the best available example of a particular application, that meaningfully contributes to the reader's understanding of the technology and is not already provided for in the list, OR
 * Is deemed, after consultation with the community (that means here on this talk page), to be of particular interest to Wikipedia users and editors beyond that of the community as a whole.
 * This means, necessarily, that the following pages would be inappropriate:
 * A link that has not been discussed on the Talk Page, AND
 * Does not offer a unique application of the services, AND
 * Is not the best example of the application, AND
 * Has no specific connection to Wikipedia to warrant mention.
 * I believe this more or less summarizes the decision-making process we have used thus far, and when applied to the current collection of links on the page makes sense. One could always claim, of course, that under criterion 3 some existing links should be replaced with better ones.  That's fine.  I think TexasAndroid would agree that if a clearly superior GMaps archive site were to spring up, it should take GG's place.  For the time being, however, no such site has been suggested here. -Joshuapaquin 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Aw, crap -- after all that, I just realized we weren't talking about the Applications section. OK, so here's a much simpler rationale:
 * Wikipedia is an international project. When we're trying to keep links to a minimum, it is a sensible limitation to stick to those sites with global reach.
 * The typical Wikipedia user is considerably more likely to get something out of the existing links than one that is India-only. It's not that India isn't interesting.  It's that most Wikipedians are not from India!  (except for here, perhaps, which I think would make a much better location for this link)
 * The three sites already up are well-established as the most prominent collection of international links, as determined when the links section was reorganized from the horrible mess it once was. As for the one that goes to my userspace (hey, it's a conflict of interest party at the GMaps talk page!), that's something with such a unique connection to Wikipedia - it's created by this community - that I think warrants inclusion.
 * -Joshuapaquin 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Further suggested criterion, given an addition today: The link must be in English or have an English version! -Joshuapaquin 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a site showcasing only Indian cities without any review is insufficiently noteworthy for the links section. There are 170+ or so countries in the world; we cannot commit to including a link for one such site per country. Even if the site had review, or expanded its reach beyond India, it would still not be noteworthy -- it would be redundant with other sites already listed and preexisting. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Google Globetrotting
Responding to the comments about GG made in the last section.

Yes, I moderate at Goole Globetrotting. I have tried to be very careful in my handling of the link on the page because of that fact. I was not the one who pared down the list when it became too large, so I was not the one who chose to leave it in there. This morning I saw it deleted by and anon with no edit comments to explain why. So in addition to removing the one undiscussed link, I restored the GG link. I think my restoration has been shown even more justified by your comment. It certainly appears, after your comment, that the only reason the link was removed was because of the connection to me. An action to strike at me for the regular link clearing. I'm sorry, but to me this is very close to a violation of WP:POINT. You deleted the link connected to me because I'm deleting the links connected to you. That's disruption solely to make a point.

That aside, I do think GG belongs here. It is a massive collection of GMaps links, over 9,000. The largest collection on the net. And it is world-wide, showing links from everywhere they can be found. While I cannot dismiss my personal bias completely, I do beleive I would think it deserved a spot even if I had no connection to it.

Is there anyone who can give reasons, other than the connection to me, that it does not belong here? The only one I can think of is Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and that is the core reason we're fighting to keep the list small. Because if it grows, it can be rightfully argued that the whole list has to go. TexasAndroid 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know you asked for opposing comments, but I'm going to post a supporting one. GG is notable in this list because A. it was an early entry in the field, B. it is almost certainly the most exhaustive collection available, C. it's global (heck, thanks to my prodding, it's even super-global! :) ), D. it's features outshine all other collection sites, E. it encourages and has an active community. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Google Globetrotting has been deleted by an anon. Their edit comment raises three points.  1) No need for two archival sites.  2) GGT running contests.  3) Perljam being more "educational' than GGT.  The first has been discussed here on the talk page, and I beleive we agreed both had their place.  I really cannot argue with the second, because GGT is indeed in the middle of a contest to help drive up participation.  But the last has me totally puzzled.  I have no idea how Perljam can be considered more educational than GGT.  (I would not call GGT more educational than Perljam either)  I just don't get it.  Anyway, given my personal connections to GGT, I'm not gonna revert this deletion.  But if someone else disagrees with the removal from the page, it would be great to see it returned. - TexasAndroid 14:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to sit here and start playing games with GGT's link however I believe GGT's place here needs to be re-evaluated. The fact that users have a financial incentive to "submit maps" means that GGT is essentially quantity over quality. Just because a website has 10000+ maps doesn't make it worthy to be listed here. I have no connect with Perljam's Links, but I feel that their website is superior to GGT. Both website do have link advertising and obviously make money and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Both sites are very similar and there is no need for both to be listed here. There needs to be a compelling reason to keep GGT and so far, I really don't see one, as long as GGT users have a financial incentive to "submit maps". - 68.229.32.7 16:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wheee. Debate time.  I'm glad you returned, because I would really like to know why you say what you say.
 * The "Quantity over quality" argument could be made equally for both sites. That's why I call them "archival" sites.  Both sites will accept just about any submission, high or low quality.  While the contest may be upping the rate a bit for GGT, I really do not see the difference overall between the two sites on this point.
 * First (in your edit summary) you call PJ more "educational" than GGT. Now you say it is superior.  Please explain why you think these things.  What exactly makes PJ more educational than GGT?  In what way is PJ superior to GGT?
 * If you truely think that the GGT link should go, you need to be a good bit more persuasive and detailed in your arguments. While I'm unlikely to change my mind about GGT belonging here, there are several other regulars here who have no direct connections to GGT as I do.  They are who you need to persuade.  In the end, while I want the GGT link to remain, I even more respect the Wiki process.  And if you were to manage to persuade the other regulars that the GGT link should go, then so be it.  And persuade or not, an honest debate on the subject can hopefully be a good thing overall. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Custom map/waypoint sites
I propose that the links include one example of custom waypoint generator sites. Possible examples include MyGMaps (around longest) or MapBuilder (seemingly easier to use and fuller-featured). - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. I went to check out both sites.  MapBuilder looks interesting but doesn't seem to play nicely with my Firefox, so I can't speak for its usefulness.  MyGMaps seems to require an account to use, which I think renders it inappropriate. -Joshuapaquin 02:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MyGmaps accounts are free (just like WP accounts :) ). Incidentally, the site can be used with compliant XMLs from other sites, though I don't think this is documented. The accounts are used to associate stored maps. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Another thought. myGmaps is the work of Follower, who was one of the (if not *the*) first to show how the GMaps .js files could be copied to a local site, and with the help of a small tool, developers could create customer installations of Google Maps with custom waypoints etc. for their own purposes. This is the "standalone server" method which predated (and undoubtedly prompted) the release of the API. myGmaps was one of the proofs-of-concept for that method (another was the Seattle 911 map). - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * myGMaps accounts differ from WP accounts in a very important way - you don't need an account to view Wikipedia content. I'm hesitant to link to anything that requires people to enter personally identifiable information to use.  It's not that I'm a privacy freak; but we should certainly respect those who don't want to do that.  -Joshuapaquin 18:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, MapBuilder has been restored again, without conclusive discussion, so I'm reverting it. I tried MapBuilder, and wasn't exactly clear on what it does or how it works.  Plus it crashed my IE (after doing the same to my Firefox).  So for now, I'm voting against the inclusion of MapBuilder for practical reasons.  If anyone has better experience, do post here. -Joshuapaquin 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Works OK for me in FF1.0.6. You enter coordinates, and a caption, select an icon color, and click Add to add the point to the map. That's the gist of it for as far as I got. Unfortunately even though it provides a section to enter street addresses, it does not use them to find points (like MyGMaps does). - Keith D. Tyler &para; 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * > Unfortunately even though it provides a section to enter street addresses, it does not use them to find points
 * Really? Did you tried an example? Or may be you entered not valid email address...? Andrew Bidochko 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got the first report here that MapBuilder.net hangs in FireFox. Would you like to check this problem again and report the problem using feedback form at http://mapbuilder.net/Contact.php Thanks, Andrew. MapBuilder.net Developer.
 * PS: More than 1,000 users can use MapBuilder in both browsers and map about 7,000 location without any problems. What about you, Joshuapaquin? What's the deal? What your crash looks like?
 * PSS: feel free to email me wiki at abidcom.com. Also would you like to explain the idea of "free encyclopedia"... why some people managed content provided by other people. I'm new to wiki so it will be interesting to know. Thanks.


 * I'm not terribly cut up about the problem with Firefox. I mention it to explain that I haven't been able to give MapBuilder a proper evaluation.


 * As for Wikipedia's shared-editing policy, a summary of the way things work can be found at The Five pillars. The idea is that even though you have contributed content, others may edit or even remove that content in the interests of building a better encyclopedia.  You are more than welcome, for example, to change any of my 500 edits if it makes the encyclopedia better.  In this particular case, we're dealing with a problem on this page of excessive link clutter.  We're trying to keep the number of external links to a bare minimum for stylistic and readability purposes.  That means that new links will be subject to a review process.  It's nothing elitist, but those who have paid particular interest to this article are keeping a close and activist eye on it. -Joshuapaquin 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Err, I see it has been restored again. Let me explain:  MapBuilder's link will be mercilessly removed on sight until there has been a discussion here, in which there is a significant consensus (usually interpreted as something around 3/4 of interested users).  Please, let's be civil and talk.  "Edit wars" are a waste of time. -Joshuapaquin 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks for explanation of the Wikipedia's shared-editing policy. I deeply understand consensus idea and whould like to know who are the "interest users" and what selection criteria do they apply to sites published in "Examples of web tools employing Google Maps" chapter. I would like you to make those criteria available for the entire community. Thanks Andrew Bidochko 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The users who have been monitoring this site primarily have been (and I hope I'm not missing anyone) myself, TexasAndroid, and Keith Tyler. There is no 'secret cabal' here; all communication is done on this page.


 * It may be rather tiresome to go through the entire page to find out what our selection criteria have been. As you can see, it's been a tricky business.  However, in response to another proposed addition, I presented a summary of these criteria in the section entitled "Indian Cities".  Just scroll up and look for the bullet points.  It would seem sensible to use those points as a basis for discussion of your proposed new link. -Joshuapaquin 03:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I respect all you guys (Joshuapaquin, TexasAndroid, and Keith Tyler) and see that Joshuapaquin and TexasAndroid manage sites whichh collect aerial views and both of you put links to your sites under "Websites collecting Google Maps aerial views". So here's the couple questions:
 * 1. How much do you know about "unique application", "best available example of a particular application"? How do you make your conclusions? Why real open source and open content community should trust your decisions?
 * 2. I would like to suggest to the following statement "after consultation with the community ... to be of particular interest to Wikipedia users). 3 people is a very small community.
 * 3. Finally I think removing posted links is completely wrong method. As far as I understood this page belongs to the real community - not only to 3 people. !!!Before!!! removing the links I suggest to discuss among you why you need to remove it. And I personally do not want to discuss why we should add the link. It's users right to add free content to free encyclopedia.
 * 4. Month ago, before submitting MapBuilder.net link to this page after its disappearing I found information that it's necessary to contact TexasAndroid before submitting the link. can you tell people how to contact this guy? Where is his email, ICQ, phone, PO, etc??? It was impossible to find TexasAndroids contactinfo even through Google.
 * 5. Do you (Joshuapaquin, TexasAndroid, and Keith Tyler) have exclusive rights to update content on this page?
 * 6. Personally I would like to know explanation(except link was not discussed) why link and text about MapBuilder.net was removed (I will feel myself free and add "Usefull Tools" section to this page along with your "Websites collecting Google Maps aerial views").
 * 7. Did you noticed that you publish 4 links for sites with IDENTICAL idea in the "Websites collecting Google Maps aerial views" section? You broke your own "unique application of Google Maps services" statement.
 * Andrew Bidochko 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC).


 * Abidcom, I'm going to try to answer your questions. Maybe we'll understand each other a little better afterward.  I respect and appreciate your good faith and intention in editing here at Wikipedia, and hope that you'll consider contributing your knowledge to some more of the  articles in our encyclopedia.


 * First off I'd address your concern over the fact that TexasAndroid and I have 'our sites' on the page. TexasAndroid has always been completely forthcoming about his connection to his site, and I think we can all appreciate that.  As for the page in my User space, to be honest I've barely touched it.  I simply volunteered to host that collection of links in my userpage when it had grown too large to be included in the original Google Maps page.  To say I "manage" it isn't quite the case.
 * We must also be clear on the page history. The Gmaps page was once an enormous and unacceptable list of links to anything even remotely connected to the service.  We cut alot, and TexasAndroid has patiently gone through the repetitive task of clearing links that anonymous users replaced.  Most of these links, you must understand, were little more than spam for the websites in question.  That's unacceptable.  It's also unencyclopedic to assign point-of-view assertions to a link, e.g. your description of MapBuilder as "an excellent tool".  I'm sure it very well may be, but that's not the style of this encyclopedia.
 * I don't think any of us would profess to be the ultimate authority on online applications of the Google Maps service. Wikipedia operates on the premise that the personal experience and background of the contributor is irrelevant to the usefulness of the contribution.  The term 'contribution', it should be mentioned, would refer to any modification to an article (whether or not new substantive content is provided).  This in fact was a major reason for Wikipedia to split off from its parent project, Nupedia.  Now, as for how the conclusion is reached, it's a matter of discussion.  Obviously some application sites use the service in a more comprehensive and eye-opening fashion.  It's preferable to showcase such sites over those who use only basic Gmaps functionality as a peripheral body of content.  The proper process would be to come and introduce a new link here at the talk page before adding it.  Anyone interested is welcome to participate.
 * Your third question raises the issue of what might be considered a wiki form of reverse onus. It is impractical for there to be a formal discussion of every link that's added.  If that were the case, we'd have to be online several hours a day to keep up with all the links that get added - and there would be 300 links on the page in the meantime!  The Gmaps page presents a problem for editors because there are just so many attempts to add links that - whether or not they are deserving - they would together make the article way too long and link-heavy.  Therefore we've established a process, and so far it's been working fairly well.
 * As for the user's right to add content, that's absolutely the case. We all want to make the encyclopedia better.  So that means your right to add content is not superior to my right to remove it, or vice-versa.  So what happens when we disagree?  We go with the community consensus and expect people to have the decency to stick by it.  At the moment, the editors who have chosen to make their feelings known on the issue are the same three we discussed before.  So, plus you, we are at four.  So let's chat about the link and see if we can agree on the proposed change.
 * The easiest way to contact any Wikipedia user is through his/her Talk Page. When you click on a username, you'll proceed to that user's personal page, then click "discuss" at the top of that page.  For example, my Talk Page is User talk:Joshuapaquin.  When you add a note there, I will receive a message telling me that you have done so.
 * Some users also allow you to e-mail them. To do that, go to their user page and look for the link on the left hand side that says "E-mail this user".  Test it on me if you'd like.  You won't get their e-mail address, but you'll get a form that will let Wikipedia send them mail on your behalf.  It's a nifty feature!
 * No editor has exclusive rights to edit the content of this or most Wikipedia pages (protected pages are a special case that doesn't apply here). Anyone at all can come and join the discussion about new links.  There are even ways to ask the general Wikipedia community to drop by, read the differing sides in a dispute, and leave comments.  Nobody has seniority - if twenty people who have never before edited this page drop by tomorrow and say, "We think that you should add any site that anyone submits", then that position will have sufficient numbers to be considered a consensus opinion.  It's a very open process (do avoid the temptation to Sockpuppetry!).  The only reason that Keith Tyler, TexasAndroid and I have set the consensus opinion thus far is that we are the only editors who have consistently come back to speak our minds when things come up on this page.
 * I don't have any specific reason for MapBuilder.net to have been removed except for the fact that it wasn't discussed. The consensus opinion has been that no further reason is necessary!  MapBuilder may be very useful... I don't really know, because my computer doesn't seem to like it.  Although, I do remember, it didn't seem very clear to me what exactly MapBuilder does.  The explanation on the home page was not terribly clear to me, and I think that that is something to bear in mind before we link to any page.
 * The "Unique applications" statement was written for the Examples of Websites using Google Maps section, not really for the Aerial Imagery section. But I do see your point.  Personally I think that those four links, being recognized as the definitive collections of such imagery, are fine, though if someone proposed we whittle it down to one or two, I doubt that I'd object.  Four links in a section is not too bad.  The older situation where we were seeing dozens of links, however, was not OK.
 * Whew! I think that's everything.  I feel like I just finished a master's thesis in WikiPolicy!  Let me know if there's anything else I can answer... -Joshuapaquin 06:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hah, I will try thoroughly read the statement above sometime tomorrow. To late for tonight.
 * Meantime I'm waiting for the discussion and classification for MapBuilder.net from the community which is responsible for this page maintenance.
 * BTW, slogan on MapBuilder.net (top right side) says "MapBuilder lets you tag locations on a map and publish it on your own site. Mapping is now easier than ever. It's free.". I thinks it's clear enough to explain MapBuilder functionality.
 * Andrew Bidochko.


 * Your questions indicate that you are not listening, and I for one do not have a lot of patience

for non-contributors who do not listen. You should read this entire page. Read it until you understand it. Then you should go to the Wikipedia home page and find information on what Wikipedia is and how it works. Again, read it until you understand it. So far, I do not see that you understand what is going on, but all of what you ask for has been stated or is readily available. MapBuilder.net may or may not be added depending on how the ongoing discussion assesses its suitability. That discussion had already been going on before you disrupted it with irrelevant questions and arrogant presuppositions and insistences. The discussion and review process is one that is strongly supported within Wikipedia, and I advise you not to continue to try and override or disrupt it. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Collection sites
Andrew Bidochko made a point about the four links being similar to each other. He has a point, but I beleive there are some distinct differences.

First is the list maintained in Joshuapaquin's user space. This one is listed for one key reason. The fact tht it is controlled by Wikipedia users. It is thus a showcase of what maps Wikipedians beleive are most worthy of tracking. Since this is Wikipedia, I think that alone qualifies it for inclusion. OTOH, that's really the only reason for it's inclusion. As a link repository it pales in comparison to the other three.

Next is GS, Google Sightseeing. To me this is the most unique of the four. Quite a while back I labeled it a "Showcase" site to distinguish it from GG/Perljam. GS only shows the most interesting links. Not the mundane. This means that most every link they show should have a high interest factor. Also, they have much more active users in the comments sections than any of the other sites. Just look back at the hundreds of comments/analysis left on the Florida/LA UFOs a few months back.

The two that are the most similar are GG and Perljam. Both are "Archival" sites, where almost any map of even marginal interest will be kept. It is here that the argument for duplication is strongest. If we had to trim the list even further, one or the other of these could likely go. If it came to it, I do believe that GG is the better of the two sites, but for obvious reasons I cannot be totally neutral on the subject. TexasAndroid 18:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not support removing any of them:
 * Wikipedia content is a no-brainer. The content is already in WP, and the Wiki principle fails if we start refusing to link it together.
 * Google Sightseeing is probably the most popular / hyped. It comes with a fair amount of pomp, and special consideration and attention is given to each entry by the maintainers.
 * PerlJam, I believe, is the oldest.
 * GG is, I believe, the most open, the easiest to contribute to, and probably the largest collection.
 * Each of these are inclusion-worthy standards. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument, I disagree that age of site is in itself an inclusion-worthy standard. But I still agree that all three should be on the list. -Joshuapaquin 07:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Google Maps & Google Local merger
I just noticed today, October 6 at about 6:00 PM EDT, that Google Maps and Google Local have effectively merged their functionalities, umbrellaing both services under the Google Local name, thus also bringing Google Maps out of beta. How long ago did this occur? Gus 22:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This happened within the past 2 or 3 days, I believe - but I didn't notice until you pointed it out that they now have been consolidated as Google Local. I think we're going to need to move this page to Google Local, which currently redirects to List of Google services and tools.  And it will also have to be updated to make sense with the new name.  Who's with me? -Joshuapaquin 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno. There is now a lot of Maps-specific content here that doesn't necessarily belong under Google Local. FWIW, http://maps.google.com still works; and the API is still called the Google Maps API. Based on these, I'm not sure I even support a merge and redirect. It seems to me that Google Local is one application which has been combined with another application (Google Maps) which is technically distinct. I could see maybe moving the capital M to a small m.... - Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a good point about the API. I doubt websites that use it will follow the rebranding.  However, while maps.google.com still works, the page it points to is called "Google Local" and is identical to the page at local.google.com.


 * Google Maps left "beta" on October 6, http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/local_merge.html, I think the wiki page should be updated as such. (And I think the Google Map wiki page should remain seperate from "Local"). Bjornman 11 October 2005

Andrew
You've been asked multiple times to stop putting your link on the article. You are more than welcome to discuss the merits of your site for addition. The regular contributors of this article have agreed that there must be some review of links to prevent the link section from growing too long. Please respect the process we have built. Your attempts to force your link on the page are preventing any productive discussions to take place, plus you are only making yourself look bad by not respecting our agreed-upon process, or that of Wikipedia. Please take a look at Vandalism and Spam. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not discussing here, I'm only proposing. You (main contibutors, community) make discussion. If you have some questions - feel free to ask. Whatever is best for you. Take care. -(unsigned comment presumably from User:Abidcom)


 * Fair enough, then. I went to the site today and found the publishing functionality I couldn't see before; it can only be accessed by signing up for an account (whether or not this is OK by wiki standards is unknown to me).  So the question is, does this link allow the user to improve their understanding of the technology in a way the others don't?


 * I'd have to say no, unfortunately. The idea of user-created markers placed on the map is found in the existent Google Maps Route Planner link.  And the (really really clever!) Geobloggers link is similar too.  So I would say that Mapbuilder provides a basic user-plotting demonstration, while the other two sites offer much more applied ones. -Joshuapaquin 04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not simply a demonstration though, it's an active tool by which a non-programmer can create custom maps. Your other examples don't really provide that. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The main idea of map builder is to GENERATE SOURCE CODE for created map and not just map locations. I hope this helps not-tech users to build&publish their own maps very much. And sure this "improve their understanding of the technology". User:Abidcom


 * The purpose of the article is not to promote use of Gmaps, it is to inform. And the information that users gain from use of the MapBuilder site - specifically, how it uses HTML - is readily available from the existing link to the API, and with detailed explanations at that.  Also, this functionality requires registration with both MapBuilder and Google Maps API.  To me, that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia link (and why I also oppose a link to MyGmaps).  -Joshuapaquin 15:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, FWIW, it is a rather heavy method of making custom maps -- repeated use of  and , which is directly taken from the examples already available at Google's Google Maps API guide -- rather than the more flexible method of a custom XML or points fed into a generic engine, as MyGMaps does. I'd have to say your method of generating maps creates a further dependency on MapBuilder.net to generate new maps -- or at least, the method you are teaching users is one which requires wholesale code changes to create different maps. Compared with the XML method, it's harder to make flexible. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree about purpose - to inform. But for my personal opinion mapbuilder easily feets into "Examples of web tools employing Google Maps" category, specially as "Web Tool". User:Abidcom


 * Any chance to see some follow up on the community discussion if it worth to include MapBuilder.net? User:Abidcom


 * Well, it seems to me that the discussion - such as it is - currently leans toward the exclusion of the link from the list. -Joshuapaquin 07:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not see any discussion here as well. I wanted to see real discussion and thoughts about "include" or "do not include". But looks like no one want's to start discussion. User:Abidcom


 * Please do not act on this yet, but my inclination is that, with no real strong objections being raised to it's inclusion, and given that we have nothing else quite like it in the current set, that maybe it should be included. TexasAndroid 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am a little concerned about the fact that a user must register both with MapBuilder.net and the Google Maps API in order to gain access to the functionality we want to add. I'm not sure that that's OK, in terms of Wikipedia principles (or even practicality's sake).  What do you think?  -Joshuapaquin 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say we should include both (MB.n and MyGM). They are both about equally noteworthy to the article topic for reasons stated earlier. I don't quite follow Joshua's aversion to user accounts. Actually, I'd say it is necessary in a web-based tool of this nature. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mobile GMaps
Do you think it's worth mentioning Mobile GMaps on the Google Maps page? Or maybe adding an external link? Cristian Streng 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly looks to me like it meets criteria for mention on the page -- extension to other platforms is a big deal I think! -Joshuapaquin 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that, if it has it's own Wiki page, then that page can go in the See Also section instead of adding a direct link. That way we are sending people to the Wiki page on the subject, with additional information, and they can jump to the external page from the Wiki page if they want to do so. This is how we ended up handling Placopedia, for instance.  - TexasAndroid 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, though I fear that the Wiki page in question may not be long for this world. It wouldn't shock me to see it up for VfD unless new content gets added... but yeah, why don't we link to the wiki page for now.  I'd think though that maybe it should go under "examples of web tools" where it fits in better?  It's not an external link, but it's about an external link.  -Joshuapaquin 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I added it for now in the See Also section. New content will be added soon to the Wiki page, so I hope it won't get to VfD. - Cristian Streng 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO an article on Mobile GMaps should be merged into an article on GMaps. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Polls: Addition of custom map-making sites
I think we need to move on this matter; this is a particular category of Google Maps related links that are noteworthy but which the article lacks. Disruptive activities by the owner of one of the sites (which seem to have dissipated) notwithstanding, the links have been in question for months and deserve a decision. I propose the following votes.

If you think the site in question should be added to the External Links section, vote under YES, else vote under NO. You know the drill.

Include MyGmaps?

YES:

NO:
 * -Joshuapaquin 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Include MapBuilder?

YES: -Joshuapaquin 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NO:

Discussion

I'm voting against MyGmaps -- it seems to have been cited for relevance only because it was the first to do such-and-such, not because of its inherent value today. As for MapBuilder... eeeeeeee.... I'll vote Yes for now, because it seems that there is some demand for a custom-map site. But of course, if a better example is found, let's go with that. -Joshuapaquin 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, another difference is that MyGMaps creates maps that are exportable in XML format. I dunno if that is very important to most people, but it was to me when I was dabbling in GMaps. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Annnddd speaking of better examples, has anyone had a look at Wayfaring.com? Pretty darn impressive. -Joshuapaquin 22:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm here! I'm working on additional features for MapBuilder.net and follow your discussion. I like to see the poll and related discussion. Here's my 2 cents regards Wayfaring.com. It's pretty neat site but I've found it almost the same as [tagzania.com]. Andrew.