Problem: Even though the Wikimedia projects now have their own map service, Kartographer, some wikis such as English Wikipedia still use the old GeoHack service hosted on Tool Forge (e.g. in WikiMiniAtlas). This is mostly just because converting the old Lua modules is complicated, not because those projects actually want to keep using GeoHack (see for example, the discussion on English Wikipedia). Additionally, the use of GeoHack (which is essentially a 3rd party service) has privacy and security concerns that would be eliminated by switching to Kartographer.
Who would benefit: Users of Wikipedias that haven't yet migrated from GeoHack
Proposed solution: Migrate en:Module:Coordinates to use Kartographer and make the module available to all wikis by bundling it with the Scribunto extension (or the Kartographer extension).
Switching GeoHack to Kartographer in the Coordinates module is quite simple. We did this in Russian Wikipedia almost two years ago (see ru:Module:Coordinates). There are more social issues. For example, what to do with coordinates for other planets? Or should there be links to external maps? PS: If any projects want to use Kartographer, I’m ready to help with this. — putnik09:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems here: one WMA, which is the map being presented. This is rather easy to replace even when we fully keep using geohack. That is basically what my mobile gadget does already and could be expanded to desktop easily. To replace geohack (which ALSO would replace WMA, as WMA depends on geohack) is a lower level discussion. For this I have created a sandbox version of en:Module_talk:Coordinates/testcases, which uses maplink instead of geohack where possible. I think however that the myriad of problems listed in Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Miscellaneous/Wikimedia Maps Improvements could derail any kind of discussion that would be held on it, which I personally have therfore not kickstarted yet (time and brain drain). I also see a slight problem with that the maplink created doesn't have a proper no-js target link fallback (Do we even have a ticket for that?). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be reluctant to abandon GeoHack mostly due to Kartographer not allowing on-wiki customization for both global and regional map services (T152971, T146534). Pikne11:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you community tech could address these two issues if this wish is successful, or as a part of the maps wish above. Gryllida22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell Kartographer does not have any links to Google or Bing maps, only OSM maps which don't show contours, landscape or any other information on the terrain. I am quite willing to bet that most actual readers - as opposed to editors - want more than just a road map when they go to a coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support this with the way Kartographer's maplink currently works. I hate having to use it because it makes it really slow, annoying and complicated to get to other map services, which is something I do a lot. In GeoHack I can quickly scan the page for the service I want and then click it. Kartographer requires moving the mouse all over the screen, clicking multiple times, reading multiple lists and it even forces me to stop and think about which category the service will be hidden under. Then it forces the links to open in a new tab, instead of letting me choose whether to open them in new tabs or not. - Nikki (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki: If you look at the top right corner of (for example) ru:Россия, you have one-click links for GeoHack, Google, Yandex and OpenStreetMap. Even better, as Kartographer is part of the MediaWiki UI, you can use your own user scripts to do literally anything you want to customize. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support EneaSuper (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose As far as I can tell Kartographer does not have any links to Google or Bing maps, only OSM maps which don't show contours, landscape or any other information on the terrain. I am quite willing to bet that most actual readers - as opposed to editors - want more than just a road map when they go to a coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
