The Galactic Mapping Project & Historical Archive of Exploration

[Andrew Gaspurr]

I read my previous two posts again just to be sure, and I didn't suggest that anywhere. Even if you assumed I did, I didn't mean to - sorry, English isn't my first language. I know of course it would be a lot of work, and in the majority of cases, people submit screenshots of their own finds anyway. But since I was already looking at the Deep space outposts anyway, where all the screenshots were posted in response to the GMP requesting pictures and entries of the bases, I thought I'd save you the work and look up their authors as well.

I think the GMP is a big collaborative project and we all work on the same thing. Some in writing, some in graphics, some in both. I don't see the necessity to reference a screenshot's author in another one's POI submission. It would also be nigh impossible to control and enforce with all the publicly available image databanks and the like. Ultimately all screenshots are suject to Frontier ownership or copyright anyway but that's not the point. Everybody should be willing to share his findings with those of others to advance this project.

Including a 'first discovered' credit is something else, though. As far as I can tell, it's always been one of the unwritten laws to give credit to those who came and were there before. So that's where I would draw the line.

As far as the update is concerned: It may take a day I guess for EDSM to sort things out. If not, hit us up on Discord and we will make sure the submissions get included.

[Edit] The nebula entries like Pharona, Kytheros and Blue Mite definitely show up, just double-checked.

 

[marx]

@ Andrew Gaspurr: I included the screenshot authors because you have added some earlier, so I thought that was the new norm. If it's not, and that was just an exemption or a hasty edit done by someone without checking with others (it was done within two hours, after all), then thanks for clearing that up, and I won't include those anymore.

Personally, I've always went with "give credit where credit is due", but that's just my opinion. It's hardly an important matter in this case anyway, otherwise the posters would have asked to be credited after their entries were used. I mean no offense, but I don't know why you talked about ownership and people being willing to share their finds, as of course they were - otherwise, they wouldn't have helped you after the request. That's not what this was about: rather, like I wrote, I just looked up the screenshot authors for you as I was looking through a specific category for typos and errors, since I thought you are crediting them now, after seeing that earlier example. Later edit: found screenshots credited elsewhere as well, so I'll admit I'm slightly confused now. I must have thought wrong then, so if I offended you with this, sorry, that wasn't my intention. Nor was it with me looking through entries for errors, just wanted to help you out with correcting those.

 

[malenfant]

[Edit] The nebula entries like Pharona, Kytheros and Blue Mite definitely show up, just double-checked.

Weird... they still don't show up in EDDiscovery (and don't show up on the search on the 3D map). Though I think that might be because something's not set up right in my EDD, it doesn't seem to be updating to/from EDSM and I can't figure out how to persuade it to.

EDIT: Just persuaded it to do a big EDSM update, and they still don't show up... but they are on the map on EDSM so I dunno what's going on with my EDD.

 

[Flyinspaghetti]

Hi folks,

the Mapping Project has been updated.

Added submissions:
- Acorn Nebula
- Baton's Plantation
- Blue Mite Nebula/Ringhugger Moon (merged into one entry)
- Kytheros Nebula
- Niteo Gigans
- Ogaicy Monde de la Mort
- Pharona Nebula
- Pink Unicorn
- Sisyphos' Rock
- Stella's Source
- Theta Carinae Cluster (IC 2602)
- Twin Gemini (we decided to accept it because of the system composition of a binary NS and a binary WD. Normally, we do not accept binary NS anymore as they are quite common)


Edited/updated submissions:
- Coalsack Dark Region
- Daughter's Reach
- Eorld Grie Nebula (the name was not changed because submitting procgen names in the first place is absolutely okay)
- OGLE-2011-BLG-0251
- OGLE-05-169L 2
- Pandragonis Terrestrials
- Labirinto
- various typos throughout a number of submissions


Not added:
- Midway Depot (not accepting Jumponium systems at the moment)
- The Qingting (not accepting binary NS at the moment)
- Where Silence has a Lease (sorry, we do not take submissions based on superstition or spooky tales, this is the 34th century )


Checking out (work in progress):
- Proserpine's Garden & Hurricane Nebula
- Flamingo Nebula & Shade of Anubis
- Abyss Pool Nebula geysers



Just a kind reminder:
For the map entry overlays we need small versions of your screenshots, otherwise they will be clipped or just look awkward there. We prefer a size of 600 x 338 for all your pictures so please make sure you submit them that way.


Thanks for the hard work to make the galaxy a more lively place.


Fly safe out there and may the winds be at your backs, CMDRs!

There looks like 100 or so posts may have been skipped, last update ended at 2871.

 

[Frang]

Hi

Quick question - I'm in a nebula which doesn't appear to be listed as a nebula on EDSM (currently at Pha Flee MS-B b33-6).

I'm clearly not the first to come here, it's not far from the Beagle Point Expedition route and many of the systems are tagged.

I'm just curious as to why it's not listed. Is it just that nobody has submitted it?

 

[malenfant]

I'm just curious as to why it's not listed. Is it just that nobody has submitted it?

Most likely. I submitted a few that other discovered earlier and they got included at that point, so it wouldn't hurt to submit it yourself. (EDIT: suggestion to include discoverer's name removed due to harrassment).

 

[DVHeld]

it wouldn't hurt to submit it yourself (and give credit to the person who found it first in the description)

It's pretty unusual for anyone's name to be included in the description, be it the submitter, original discoverer, tag holder, etc., JIC. Including names is not at all necessary.

 

[malenfant]

It's pretty unusual for anyone's name to be included in the description, be it the submitter, original discoverer, tag holder, etc., JIC. Including names is not at all necessary.

It may not be necessary but I consider it the polite thing to do.

 

[DVHeld]

It may not be necessary but I consider it the polite thing to do.

It's not even that, it has been said before by the GMP staff that the focus of the GMP is not on explorers/discoverers, but exploration itself and the discoveries. As far as I understand, the idea is not for the GMP to be a place for people to "claim" the discovery of stuff. Using players' names is discouraged AFAIK, especially in POI names. "Not for personal glory", as it were. That way it becomes kinda irrelevant who did what, the polite gesture you suggest (which I have no problem with, really) becomes kinda moot, and the discussion over "who first discovered what POI" becomes unnecessary -even frivolous snobbery- in this context.

 

[malenfant]

It's not even that, it has been said before by the GMP staff that the focus of the GMP is not on explorers/discoverers, but exploration itself and the discoveries. As far as I understand, the idea is not for the GMP to be a place for people to "claim" the discovery of stuff. Using players' names is discouraged AFAIK, especially in POI names. "Not for personal glory", as it were. That way it becomes kinda irrelevant who did what, the polite gesture you suggest (which I have no problem with, really) becomes kinda moot, and the discussion over "who first discovered what POI" becomes unnecessary -even frivolous snobbery- in this context.

For someone who supposedly has no problem with it, you seem to be making a pretty big deal of it.

If people want to credit the original discoverer then that's fine - if they don't, that's up to them too. Either way, it's really nobody else's business whether they do or don't. Personally I'd prefer to do it and that's what I have done.

 

[DVHeld]

For someone who supposedly has no problem with it, you seem to be making a pretty big deal of it.

As I said, it's not me. Maybe you misread:

it has been said before by the GMP staff that the focus of the GMP is not on explorers/discoverers, but exploration itself and the discoveries. As far as I understand, the idea is not for the GMP to be a place for people to "claim" the discovery of stuff. Using players' names is discouraged AFAIK, especially in POI names. "Not for personal glory", as it were.

 

[Frang]

Most likely. I submitted a few that other discovered earlier and they got included at that point, so it wouldn't hurt to submit it yourself (and give credit to the person who found it first in the description)

It's a nebula containing many systems, not sure I could name a discoverer without checking them all out. Was surprised it wasn't named already given the size and location.

I'll have a look and see if a name springs to mind!

Regarding credit for stuff, I'm not bothered - it's just nice to contribute and forever leave my mark.

 

[malenfant]

It's a nebula containing many systems, not sure I could name a discoverer without checking them all out.

Obviously it'd only be possible to do it for individual objects that can have "First Discovered by" tags (i.e. stars, planets and moons).

 

[marx]

It's not even that, it has been said before by the GMP staff that the focus of the GMP is not on explorers/discoverers, but exploration itself and the discoveries. As far as I understand, the idea is not for the GMP to be a place for people to "claim" the discovery of stuff. Using players' names is discouraged AFAIK, especially in POI names. "Not for personal glory", as it were. That way it becomes kinda irrelevant who did what, the polite gesture you suggest (which I have no problem with, really) becomes kinda moot, and the discussion over "who first discovered what POI" becomes unnecessary -even frivolous snobbery- in this context.

For the record, quite a number of entries list mention the first discoverer (usually if it was submitted by someone else), or relevant Commanders, especially when it comes to events. Some entries are also named after Commanders. The guidelines aren't rules that the GMP adheres to, they are simply guidelines for making your submissions.
In my opinion, it's best to include all the information you think is relevant, and then they'll remove what they see fit anyway.

It's a nebula containing many systems, not sure I could name a discoverer without checking them all out.

Ah, if it's not a planetary nebula, so a single system, then AFAIK it's impossible to tell who was there first. Don't forget to take a picture that shows that you actually were there, and you should be good to go. Also, you can name the nebula after its in-game name as well. It's easier to find in-game if it's called "Greeroi Veil", since you can just search for Greeroi, whereas if it's something like "Teal Nebula", you'd have to look up the actual name (Eorl Auwsy) to be able to find it.

 

[Andrew Gaspurr]

Two things here:

1) We do not generally accept Commander names in the namesgiving of a POI or in its description, that is correct. We did so in the past, sometimes because we unanimously agreed the circumstances would allow an exception. And sometimes it just slipped past us and afterwards we thought 'well...'

2) Giving the "first discovered" tag when submitting a POI is not mandatory but it's polite and honors the travels of those who came there before. It's a courtesy, really, and everybody has to decide for himself. There have been occasions where people asked for credits (for discoveries and for screenshots by the way) and in general we left it to the submitter to either comply or not.

With a communal, collaborative project that comes into it's fifth year soon, I think that's a viable course of action.


Fly safe!
Andrew

 

[malenfant]

Two things here:

1) We do not generally accept Commander names in the namesgiving of a POI or in its description, that is correct. We did so in the past, sometimes because we unanimously agreed the circumstances would allow an exception. And sometimes it just slipped past us and afterwards we thought 'well...'

So do you want another name that isn't "Tylar's Trove" for the one I submitted on the previous page? I thought it had a nice ring to it (and there are plenty of real nebulae etc that have discoverer names in them. Heck, the entire Messier catalogue for one...)

 

[Frang]

OK I'm looking at it now... thinking up a name, the dark shape resembles a flower with a head and stem, so I'm thinking "The dark flower nebula"

I'm wondering how original that is, so since it's oddly symmetrical, perhaps "The mirror nebula" - take your pick

Location: various systems including PHA FLEE MS-B B33-6

[/IMG]

 

[DVHeld]

OK I'm looking at it now... thinking up a name, the dark shape resembles a flower with a head and stem, so I'm thinking "The dark flower nebula"

I'm wondering how original that is, so since it's oddly symmetrical, perhaps "The mirror nebula" - take your pick

Location: various systems including PHA FLEE MS-B B33-6

Is it just me or from that perspective it kinda looks like a face or a mask? The mask nebula maybe?

EDIT: It makes me think of the Mario 2 mask enemy

Also, drama:

Spoiler

For the record, quite a number of entries list mention the first discoverer (usually if it was submitted by someone else), or relevant Commanders, especially when it comes to events. Some entries are also named after Commanders.

Please don't be dense, "unusual" refers to proportion, not amount. It's a relative term. 100 out of 100 million is a small proportion, even if you think 100 is a large amount.

Also, why the emotional manipulation? It's pretty explicit that the GMP's focus is intentionally away from individual players and contributors. If you don't like that, then ask the GMP team for that policy to be changed, instead of trying to manipulate people into surreptitiously subverting the values of the project. Or simply don't bother participating. I know you marx are all about crediting people for their individual achievements, and that's great... in the places where that is the idea. The GMP's not one of those (and I am not the one who said that, as I already explained and as Andrew also said), you should respect that choice on the part of the GMP team. Please don't go around making people feel bad because they did not check if there were tags or whatever. That's no sin, it's not rude.

 

[Frang]

I was just thinking, loads of them look like flowers and are symmetrical, so OK, I'll go with the Mask Nebula.

Or it looks a bit like a radio telescope dish. The Jodrell Nebula sounds cool.

Or since I can't make up my frickin mind, how about Frang's Dilemma

 

[malenfant]

Or since I can't make up my frickin mind, how about Frang's Dilemma

Now now, we can't be naming things after commanders, apparently...