View source for Template talk:BorehamwoodDangerMap

== To scale or not to scale, that is the question ==

I noticed that ever since the limits of Borehamwood were defined, people have been trying to keep its dangermap to scale, which makes the map looks awful. So, i would like to ask the opinion of others: should the map be kept [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:BorehamwoodDangerMap&direction=next&oldid=1319735 on scale] - which makes it unnecessarily tall, or [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:BorehamwoodDangerMap&direction=next&oldid=1319725 not to scale], which looks better (imho) ? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
: on scale --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[User:Duke Garland/BHW|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
::On scale, although overall a bit smaller than it currently is would be good too. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

i actually want to nuke danger map and make a plain toscale city region highlighted map for separeate regions, quite like i did for monroeville regions, but more beautiful and leave to-scale colourful that already is for my map --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[User:Duke Garland/BHW|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:hows not to scale danger map and sexy fully accurate and scaled map sound? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize my opinion is probably already known, as I'm the one who changed it to be to scale, but I think, as a schematic map, it ought to be as close to scale as possible.  Actually, I didn't realize you had intentionally changed it for aesthetic reasons.  I assumed the code had been changed from % to pixels for some reason, and you neglected to keep it to scale.  Had I known it was intentional, I would have posted here first, before altering it.  I should also mention that I'm working on coding it to be precisely to scale (including the irregular shapes of NE and SE Borehamwood.)  As for the Duke's idea, I think it'd be great to have a Monroeville style map, but I also think the dangermap can continue to exist along side it.  --[[User:Zarneverfike|Zarneverfike]] 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:But why? Why do we need this dangermap? it's not kept updated now, not to tell that "danger level of west/east coutryside" is quite stupid thing. Danger level for a land that barely has 4 enterable blocks? --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[User:Duke Garland/BHW|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
::I do agree that the danger level of the countryside is probably useless.  I'd say both should be classified as ghost towns, btw.  I also concede that any info regarding the danger for survivors is available on individual suburb pages.  I also concede that at the moment it is not perfectly up to date.  However, I think the danger map serves a couple purposes.  First, it informs casual users of the wiki (ie. those who are likely not to read deeply into the individual suburb pages.)  Secondly, (and this is a personal / aesthetic reason) I think it makes the Borehamwood page look more official / up to Malton standards.  --[[User:Zarneverfike|Zarneverfike]] 08:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:::i see... --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[User:Duke Garland/BHW|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)