File talk:Rif Damashq.svg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tadamon

Following AlMasdar there are advances in southern Damascus on al-Tadamon district taken by SAA. To be confirmed.192.135.12.144 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional advance reported in TadamonAlMasdar.Paolowalter (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And renewed map! AlMasdar 95.73.169.229 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC) This map and [1] should be used to update our map, even is they are not in full agreement. They are the only detailed info I have seen since quite some time. On the other hand, Hajar Aswad should be green (or green/black?) not in truce. Paolowalter (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A pro-opp map is different https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/status/584037471035457536. It seems that the truce areas are uncorrectly reported under rebel control.95.249.7.246 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Another pro-opposition source, this is the most accurate source based on a three-year record - stark contrast to Masdar's mappers, who frequently exaggerate control and misrepresent colours to imply a siege situation when there is none. Wait for more confirmation before changing Taqaddom, the rebels right now are freaking out about ISIS but not about Taqaddom, which means it's likely still the way it was. https://twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/584355807250219008 NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This source too biased. Here map from the the less biased the pro opposition source.Conflict Reported Hanibal911 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional info on Tadamon http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-and-palestinian-resistance-advance-in-al-tadamon/Paolowalter (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Map from Peto Lucem [2]. Hajar al Aswad is Nusra-ISIS no truce.Paolowalter (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yarmouk

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-begins-withdrawal-from-yarmouk-camp/ most of the camp is under control of palestinian forces fighting with the government.Paolowalter (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Khan al-Shih

ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. They should not be used as a source. In fact, there is a good reason why “Copying from maps is now strictly prohibited” on the Syria war map (see Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Important message from creator of map: Please read). So the April 2015 ISW map shows the rebels in control of only the town of Khan al-Shih?! Clearly in the past, they had a large area around it including the towns of al-Dirkabiya, Zakiyah, al- Mqelabiyya, al-Taybeh. So did the gov recapture those towns back? There is no such news anywhere on the internet (not even from pro-gov media)! A check like this needs to be done before changing our map. This is not the first mistake from ISW map (and likely not the last). In fact, on June 13, 2015, SOHR reported “The regime forces opened fire on areas in the road between the towns of Khan al-Shih, Zakya and al- Mqelabiyya in west of Rif Dimashq and on areas in al- Mqelabiyya town, information about injuring of some people in al- Mqelabiyya town.” So our map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from an approximate map! Please stop copying maps and stick to real sources (news reports). We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse… Tradedia^talk 10:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-cut-water-supplies-feeding-damascus/ it seems that the area north west of the map is actually on truce, in particular Ain Al-Fijah but it should apply to all the valley. It should be turned violet.Paolowalter (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter: The article says: "Ain Al-Fihah is a small town located 25 km to the SOUTHwest of Damascus" Tradedia^talk 20:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a mistake. It means northwest. You can see in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=33.615191&lon=36.178837&z=14&m=b. In the past it was mentioned that this place hosts water spring supplying water to Damascus.Paolowalter (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree. Tradedia^talk 02:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

From main page talk page it appears that the Badi Warada is on truce, as mentioned before. Furthermore from the pro-opp map https://archicivilians.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/damascuscity.jpg in the southe west corner only Khan al-Shih appears to be under rebel control. Therefore the previous version of the map seems more correct than the current one. I propose to revert.Paolowalter (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How can you say "only Khan al-Shih appears to be under rebel control" when the area of interest is outside of the map (to the south of it)? Tradedia^talk 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me try to seal the deal with respect to this Khan al-Shih issue:

The new Al Masdar map shows the Khan al-Shih area as our map is showing it now, and not like ISW map is showing it. You can notice at the top of the Al Masdar map the town of Zakyah (which is right to the east of Khan al-Shih) marked as rebel-held. If you look at their map of the whole of Syria you can also see that the pocket is similar to the one on our map.

Also, Desyracuse map from 1-june-2015 shows the rebel-held pocket as our map is showing it. And if you click on the purple information dot to the east end of the green pocket, you can read that the map maker wrote a note saying: “On May 23, rebels captured Tayyibah farms, advancing toward Al Kiswah”. So it seems like the pocket has expanded lately and not shrunk…

Concerning the map that you linked on the module talk page (https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/612116542134730753) and that was dated June 20, they now came out with a more up-to-date version (dated June 29) that shows the rebel-held pocket as our map is showing it! So it seems that they had copied the ISW map, but then read our talk page and corrected their mistake! Tradedia^talk 16:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And the best for last: here is the latest ISW map released July 2. Do this look correct? Now Khan al-Shih is shown gov-held! And Hadar rebel-held! What a joke… Tradedia^talk 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Marj al Sultan

Can somebody update it? I can not work with *.svg. --62.24.83.195 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Qudsiyah

The suburb should become red. Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/qudsiyah-suburb-fully-under-the-control-of-the-syrian-army-as-the-remaining-110-rebels-withdraw/MesmerMe (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

SAA offensive around Marj al Sultan

almasdar reports SAA advancing in Al-Nishabiyah and west of the base.Paolowalter (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems Insurgent (Green) presence is too exaggerated in Darayya (Damascus map)

This is the previously version (See Darayya zone) http://s15.postimg.org/pl6negvaj/3234223423.jpg

In fact during November were reported Army progress in this place http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-imposes-control-over-several-building-blocks-in-the-strategic-city-of-darayya/

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-delivers-hell-from-above-while-the-syrian-army-advances-in-darayya/

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-marj-al-sultan-douma-and-darayya-in-rural-damascus/

Why now the map is showing huge insurgent presence into Darayya ?

In base of what are these changes? --LogFTW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, no source for expanding rebels' presence in Daraya.Paolowalter (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Darayya should be reverted to the old version. An unreliable map was copied. Tradedia^talk 04:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)