Template talk:GeoTemplate

Splitting Global/Trans-national services
I've reverted an edit by - diff which split the Global/Trans-national services table into two, based on the editor's perception of which maps are proprietary and which are not. I did not find the change useful, and it seemed ideological in nature. As a user, I'm interested in selecting the Global/Trans-national map of my choice, and am not interested in the commercial status of the map provided. My preference is to see all maps in a specific domain listed in a single table. I note that no other tables in the template are spit based on commercial status. I have asked the user to gain consensus before remaking such a change; I do not expect that such consensus will materialise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tagishsimon ideological in nature. It is really perplexing that you object to separating proprietary maps from those not proprietary. I don't know if you have noticed but Wikipedia is a project with the principle of freely shareable and modifiable content. It is one of the Five Pillars of the project and being non-commercial is a main principle.
 * And mainly,
 * Proprietary maps many times have legal conditions of use that restrict their sharing, use and modification. Therefore, I believe it is important to make a differentiation between proprietary services and non-proprietary services with proper commons licenses. This is the reason why I split the table to make such differentiation. I have to add that I sometimes also make maps that I upload to Commons and I use in Wikipedia's articles. Using non-proprietary maps is a must in order to do that. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Edited 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|
 * Proprietary maps many times have legal conditions of use that restrict their sharing, use and modification. Therefore, I believe it is important to make a differentiation between proprietary services and non-proprietary services with proper commons licenses. This is the reason why I split the table to make such differentiation. I have to add that I sometimes also make maps that I upload to Commons and I use in Wikipedia's articles. Using non-proprietary maps is a must in order to do that. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Edited 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|
 * Proprietary maps many times have legal conditions of use that restrict their sharing, use and modification. Therefore, I believe it is important to make a differentiation between proprietary services and non-proprietary services with proper commons licenses. This is the reason why I split the table to make such differentiation. I have to add that I sometimes also make maps that I upload to Commons and I use in Wikipedia's articles. Using non-proprietary maps is a must in order to do that. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Edited 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|


 * Please do not repeat the change without consensus. See WP:BRD I am aware of wikipedia's principles. Equally, I have explained why I think it was a poor decision which ill serves users. Thank you for your confirmation that the change is ideological in nature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the relevant policies I shared with you. Wikipedia is a non-commercial, non-proprietary project based on the principles of using material freely shareable. The change I had made was to help editors find free alternatives first. Again, as I stated I sometimes make and upload maps to Commons and it is a requirement that said maps use material with a commons or similar license, not proprietary copyrighted material, which is what some of the services in the table are. Therefore, it is better to have the table of map services split according as to whether they are proprietary or not, or whether they are copyrighted or have a commons licenses or similar. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2024
The photograph of the entrance to the William Hobart Vacation Home is wrong. The address has been corrected from 905 Polecat Road to 995 Polecat Road on the National Register of Historic Places. Please remove the existing photograph as it is the entrance to the wrong property. Thank you. AHBravo (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an exact citation for a reliable source, so that the information can be verified? I have found the address given as 905 on a copy of the National Register of Historic Places, but it may not be up to date. JBW (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with GeoTemplate. But I found address and location here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/71985903 . There seems to be no house anymore? --тнояsтеn &hArr; 19:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the link to the Ohio Historic Inventory that shows the correct address of 995 Polecat Road. The house is still here. The family used the house as a "vacation" house until we moved into it in 2010. AHBravo (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the site plan in the linked PDF (no. 8) is wrong/inaccurate. --тнояsтеn &hArr; 14:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please post your comment at the talk page for the article concerned. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can UK UPRN be added to the geohack page?
Unique numbered list of property locations from UK government for administrative purposes

Used by e.,g. OpenReach in thier wholesale broadband checking tool

https://www.geoplace.co.uk/addresses-streets/location-data/the-uprn

Lookup by postcode (and then pick from map) https://uprn.uk/

or also here https://www.findmyaddress.co.uk/search which is "first address line" based. 87.80.251.223 (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)