Hi Mrkstvns,

I noticed you reverted my edit regarding the map removal. I removed it because I found it very small and barely containing any information. I’d love to understand your perspective. Could you share why you believe the map is useful in its current form?

Looking forward to your thoughts! Best,

Jpolvto (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jpolvto

Although the map in question is small, it embodies a basic design concept that "less is more", so while it's true that if you're looking for a data-rich object, it will appear to have little information, it actually conveys basic conceptual information '''far''' better than dynamic maps or any kind of feature-rich map. It supports the lede paragraph and the Understand section by concisely answering very fundamanatla questions like "what is it?" and "where is it?"

For the purpose of introducing the topic at a glance, any map with more data would appear "cluttered" and actually have ''lower'' information value than a simpler map.

The topic certainly needs a map that can be zoomed and focused and looked at from different viewpoints (where are the campgrounds? scenic overlooks? major landmarks?), so I'm not advocating removing a detailed map....just not taking out the simple static map that focuses on the high-level.

Different maps may be better suited to communicating different info. There's no reason they can't both live in harmony.

Cheersǃ Mrkstvns (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I understand your point about simplicity and clarity, but in this case, I feel the map is too small and lacks enough useful context to meaningfully aid understanding. While minimalism can be effective, this particular map doesn’t seem to add much beyond what’s already conveyed in a single sentence of text.

Rather than enhancing the article, it mostly adds visual clutter. If this were a travel guide for the Pacific Crest Trail, I wouldn’t consider including it, as it doesn’t meet the standard of providing genuinely helpful orientation.

Maps this small are also not a common feature in most articles here, which makes me question whether it’s truly necessary.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Best, Jpolvto (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

A larger, more detailed map could be better, but a map is much better than no map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ikan,

Good point! There’s a wiki map available if you scroll down. I believe digital maps, which can be updated, are more future-proof than fixed image-based maps.

Personally, I see this as a minor issue. I think it would be more valuable to focus on adding a detailed travel itinerary to this page, which I'll focus on next. Jpolvto (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I've already explained, the small map that's free of distracting detail is easily understood at a glance and best communicates the basic essence of the trail. The larger dynamic map you have further down is too cluttered for that purpose. It is also ̈NOT̈ as "future proof" as a very simple static map. Dynamic maps need maintenance to keep them up to date and are more likely to get outdated because points of interest (like campgrounds, etc.) may (and do) change over the years.

Please leave the small static map alone. Mrkstvns (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Right now, there is not a lot of difference between the two maps. The points follow the shape of the trail.

Changing points of interest (or even the trail in general) is good. It keeps the information up to date.

I understand that these two maps can exist together, I do not see why the small map should be included.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that it best captures the basic essence of the trail. I.e.: The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) travels along the western mountain crests of the United States, from Mexico to Canada.

I believe this information is best captured in text. I would consider adding a map if it provided useful information that is not captured elsewhere, or illustrated something that helps understanding of a topic. I.e., a map of resupply points.

I would rather include an image like this here:

Jpolvto (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do '''NOT''' remove the small maps from this topic, nor from Appalachian Trail. I've explained to you why they are useful. The dynamic map is fine for showing landmarks but it does '''NOT''' provide a good encapsulated "at a glance" view of the trail. (The dynamic map is just too cluttered for that.) Your edits are generally very good, but on this point, you really need to respect the work of previous editors. Also see the Wikipedia article for these trails, which also includes the same map, in addition to other maps. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your perspective, but meaningful contributions to the article should focus on improving its clarity and usefulness for readers.

It's my understanding that Wikivoyage is meant as a travel guide, so it should not necessarily be presented in the same way as Wikipedia.

Simply using bold, all-caps statements does not foster productive discussion. If you have specific suggestions on how to enhance the maps or presentation, please jump in and contribute! Jpolvto (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

This was part of a bigger plan I had for these articles. I hope you can see the point now if you have a look at this article, as well as Appalachian Trail and Continental Divide Trail. This was not meant to be disrespectful, mainly doing some exploration in what works when using OSM. Jpolvto (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply