User:Mandruss/sandbox2

Proposal: Rethinking WP:OPCOORD
The page WikiProject Geographical coordinates suggests and describes a method for choosing the precision of coordinates based on the estimated "object size". The smaller the object, the greater the precision. This guidance has been present on the page in some form since November 2005. It is now in the section WP:OPCOORD, where it states: The section includes tables that describe the relationship between precision and object size, at four different latitudes. It also includes mathematical formulae, including trigonometric functions, for editors who are capable of using them.

In my opinion perhaps 5% to 10% of articles have implemented the guidance in their coordinates in the 12 years since its inception. I have no way to substantiate that number, but I do pay attention to coordinates precision as an editor, and as a reader across a wide range of topic areas.

Had I been around in 2005 with the knowledge I have now, I would have strongly opposed the addition of the OPCOORD guidance. As I see things today, it's a clear cost-benefit fail.

First, even if the guidance were widely implemented, the whole concept would be largely opaque to readers. There is no message that says, "Higher coordinates precisions indicate smaller objects," let alone anything more specific about the relationship. How many readers would look at precision and deduce that it is derived from object size? To see the pattern, a reader would have to pay attention to precision and object size across dozens or hundreds of articles. To a large extent, the whole scheme seems to require that readers can read our minds.

Even if a few readers would do that, would it be significantly "misleading" to "imply", say, a 1-meter object size for a country or city, or even a small building?

Regardless, if most coordinates had the same precision, precision could not imply anything at all, and could not be misleading. That is one of my alternative options here.

Questions: ''What future reader benefit will justify the substantial cost of this methodology? And how long do we have to wait to start reaping it?''

I think the guidance was "a solution in search of a problem" from the start, and it has survived this long only because very few editors care about the arcane art of coordinates precision.


 * OPTION 1

Change the guidance to recommend the same precision for all cases except where there is a good reason to use a different precision. There would be one "default" precision for decimal-degrees format and another for degrees-minutes-seconds format.

I'm going to suggest d.dddddd and d° m' s.ss", which would yield maximum resolutions of 11 cm and 31 cm respectively. (The next steps down are d.ddddd and d° m' s.s", with maximum resolutions of 1.1 m and 3.1 m.) As shown in the tables at WP:OPCOORD, maximum resolutions are at the Equator and drop significantly as latitude increases, roughly halving at 60°.

No changes required to any templates. There are one or two places in template doc where it refers to precision vs object size and links to OPCOORD, and those would need to be revised.

If you agree with this option except for the chosen defaults, please "Support 1 amended" and indicate what defaults you would prefer, and why.

This guidance would be no more prescriptive than what it replaces.


 * OPTION 2:

Drop guidance on coordinates precision, removing OPCOORD. Precision to be chosen on a case-by-case basis using whatever method seems appropriate.

No changes required to any templates. There are one or two places in template doc where it refers to precision vs object size and links to OPCOORD, and those would need to be removed.


 * SUGGESTED !VOTING

Please avoid vague I just don't like it / I just like it !votes. Be specific, preferably with real-world example cases.

Support 1 Support OPTION 1 with the suggested default precisions

Support 1 amended Support OPTION 1 with different default precisions or other tweaks

Support 2 Support OPTION 2

Oppose Oppose any change

Survey: Rethinking WP:OPCOORD
I fully understand the reasoning that, for example, "d° m' s" works fine for many or most cases, so why use more space by adding .s?" I simply feel that d° m' s.s" "works" equally well for those cases, and the saving of those 2 characters does not justify the overall cost of this guidance. The only way to get a fixed precision for most cases is to use a high precision for most cases. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 1 as proposer. The current guidance is a cost-benefit fail. Whatever small reader benefit there is would not be realized for at least another decade, and that's only if precision gets considerably more editor attention than it has to date. Fixed precision cannot be misleading. Barring compelling arguments that a "default" high precision would be unacceptable for a large number of cases (more than 5% site-wide), I think Option 2 provides more "freedom" than we need, as Option 1 already provides for exception cases. Having one less thing to think about and debate is not a Bad Thing, as it frees editors to think about and debate more important things.