Commons talk:Geocoding/Archive 2

Shifting maps

Hi - I've geocoded pretty much all of my images using either Google Maps or Google Earth. Does anyone have any suggestions about what to do when the map images are updated and have shifted slightly? See, for example, these images of Fremantle which now appear slightly offset from where I originally coded them to be. Is the general consensus that the aerial map images are becoming more and more accurate over time (in which case I should redo the locations), or does each successive update have its own margin of error (in which case, any placement will always be approximate). Any advice would be appreciated! - gobeirne 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I've just checked on Google Earth, and the error isn't anywhere near as bad as I'd thought. But why the disparity between the two (Maps and Earth)? - gobeirne 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps hooks the bottom of the icon to the coordinates instead of the centre, so all placemarks are offset 16 pixels to the north. The KML specifications do have a tag for that, but it's only supported in Google Earth, where the icons are shown as expected. Should a disclaimer be added somewhere to the placemark list (if so, how in KML?), or should we start using some other icon without any direction information, or something else? --Para 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Para. Perhaps lobby Google Maps for compliance? - gobeirne 06:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Google have fixed their icon support and now both Maps and Earth show our data correctly. No more yesbuts! --Para (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scale parameter does not work?

Compare scale on Google Maps links (in both cases indicated «scale:2000» at same place):

Camera location	59° 56′ 29.4″ N, 30° 19′ 48.72″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

Camera location	59° 56′ 29.4″ N, 30° 19′ 48.72″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

In {{Location dec}} used proper scale, in {{Location}} scale is invalid. What is the matter? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Most images on Commons can be displayed on a map with the default scale, and in those templates all but the coordinates link have a scale set by the user who added the links to the templates. A limiting factor to making it variable is that MediaWiki can't parse the scale from the combined parameters. We'd need Javascript, or find a way to geocode both the camera location and the object location(s) and have the map services figure out a scale on their own so that they display all the geocoded points. --Para 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Irritation

Camera location	53° 26′ 40.2″ N, 1° 56′ 54.24″ W	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

has a none standard way of representing West! Is this just me? ClemRutter 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The template is broken

If you look at the sample dec template on the article- you will find that the longitude is displayed as -77.602615° E. This should be 77.602615° W, this hardly affects me doing most of my images in Europe, to the east of Greenwich but hasn't anyone else noticed? ClemRutter 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! --Para 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you have fixed it, my example above makes me look pretty stupid. I can handle that! Thanks.

ClemRutter 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some geotagged images are not categorized anymore

I use predominantly Google Earth with the tool for geotagging Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz. That gives the coordinates in the format {{Coor dms|52|9|3.5|N|9|57|3|E}} and can be pasted in the description of the photo. In the past automatically a category was added because of the geotagging. I experienced that this has disappeared for the many images I have uploaded. Apparently now the template Location should be used. I tried the example give with the template {{Location|52|09|03.70|N|9|57|02.79|E|region:DE-NI_heading:SE}}. The coordinates for the camera position gives in Google Maps hybrid not the heading direction.
The link under "This and other geocoded Commons images:" for Google maps gives a number of spots and it is not clear which one is for the camera position. Also the "heading SE" is not indicated.
The link Google Earth gives the kmz so you can see it in Google Earth on your own computer. Also there nothing is mentioned about the heading.
How should I geotag for example the photo on Image:Maleizen_watertoren_B.jpg so that all information mentioned there as well as the scale factor are included? Thanks Wouter 12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Geocoding says that in this project we identify the camera location using the Location templates. The tools and interfaces of the project may or may not use other information. Which image didn't have the heading visible on the maps? It should be indicated as the orientation of the icon. Please note that you will have to save the edit for the information to become visible, as preview only shows it between Commons and your browser. For the scale issue, see #Scale parameter does not work?

The categorisation was dropped from the coor templates since they're not mentioned on the project page. They are still somewhat supported by the tools though, so we could perhaps create a category like "Media with the camera location", have the location templates categorise under that, and make the category a subcategory of Category:Media with locations. Such a change might break some current tools though, if something depends on the categories. --Para 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. For example Image:Sint-Agatha-Rode_church_B.jpg did not show up in Google Earth on my computer. Adding the Location template it does (even 3 times). You said "It should be indicated as the orientation of the icon"; which icon do you mean? Both on the web page of Commons as on Google Earth I see nothing.

Further I experienced that some photos with geo-info as for example Image:Arnhem_station.jpg but NOT using the Location template show up in Google Earth (twice), whereas other photos such as Image:Arnhem_Rijnkade_1963.jpg don't. Wouter 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz tool supports also the location template I play a little bit with your image [1] and replace the seperator "|" by "_". Now it works. The difference between the two Arnhem images I also don't understand. --Kolossos 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kolossos fixed the use of the template with the first image so that problem is solved, and you can't miss the icon since it's the only one in that area. With the other two, the reason for the discrepancy is again that the tools visualising the work of the project behave as expected when used following the documentation, but in other cases may or may not work. More specifically, the instant update ignores new images with coordinates in formats other than Location, because support of undocumented notations might indicate that they're ok. If the editor checks the visibility of the image on the provided map services and doesn't see anything, we can assume that he will either seek documentation and examples and do the geocoding correctly, or forget about the whole thing. If he doesn't do anything, the information is parsed from the database dump at some later date and shown anyway. This is what has happened with the image geocoded in early 2007. There is of course the risk that someone takes example from a badly geocoded image from a long time ago, but there are currently about 2600 images with coordinates without a Location template, so I'm reluctant to drop that seemingly haphazard support. Some of them are because of bad geocoding, some for other odd reasons, and hopefully the rest just uses of coor templates that we can convert to something once object location geocoding and image annotation is implemented. --Para 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear to me now. I have to change now for about 180 images the coordinates in the Location template. I have now also seen the icon with the tail showing the heading. It may be good to explain somewhere the meaning of the tail. The icon in front of the URL is the same icon with tail (direction north) and the user may not understand the meaning of the tail of the icon in Google Earth. Wouter 08:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding, google maps and accuracy

Certainly I do like to provide location info with my images, and for the moment use Method2 for Google Maps as described. But I find that zooming in and out in the maps makes the point moving quite significantly, have a look at Image:Astoria-Megler Bridge01 2008-02-26.jpg, click on the link for Google Maps there, and observe on how on zooming out the point moves from the South river bank to the North river bank.

I have to say I am hesitating as geotagging does take some time, I do like to do it accurately, but I do not like the feeling that my current efforts might be wasted and I might need to do the locating job a second time in future. -- Klaus with K 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. You won't have to redo the geocoding, this is a Google bug, or ours for wanting to use a broken service in the first place. See above at #Shifting maps. Google just needs some more persuasion to do a more complete implementation of their own specs. --Para 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So if I use Method2 for Google Maps on the satellite image, usually as much zoomed in as possible, the coordinate should be ok? If it is only the display, that can be rectified later, or preferably sooner. -- Klaus with K 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can also check them on Google Earth, it places the center of the icon to the coordinates, instead of the bottom. --Para 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate templates

Are {{Coor d}}, {{Coor dm}}, and {{Coor dms}} deprecated in favor of {{Location}}, {{Location dec}}, and {{Location dec min}}? Should a note to that effect be added to each Coor template page? Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Information template

It seems to me that with ~50,000 images now geocoded, perhaps a location field should be added to {{Information}} (see Image:Commons_geocoding_graph.svg). Related discussions have occurred at Template_talk:Information#Location and Information#Edit_Protected.

If not, I think it would be helpful to suggest a location for {{Location}}, e.g., immediately after {{Information}}. I think {{Information}} should appear first because readers will most often be looking for the information contained in that template. Placing {{Location}} in the "Description" field of {{Information}} looks messy to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. A fantastic suggestion. I assume all of the bugs have been ironed out of the geocoding templates, and so the time is right for its inclusion in the mainstream template. It would look superficially like this then?...

Description	Description of the image
Camera location Geocoding/Archive 2	Unknown format. in {{Inline coordinates}} 0;0	Template:Commons:Geocoding visualized	(Info)
Source	Own work
Date	15th April 2008, 6.57 pm.
Author	Photograph by Greg O'Beirne [gallery]
Permission	GFDL / Creative Commons.

Can't wait! - gobeirne 06:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people moving it both above and below the information template, and there's even some who don't use Commonist but still prefer it inside the description field. Consistency would be good, it'll just take some discussion. There were similar thoughts at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Feb#Information on image pages as well though geocoding wasn't mentioned yet. --Para 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a card carrying Commonist, I like the idea but want to be sure of the implications. At the moment I Google map, and use a Bookmark to obtain a complete location tag both for Commonist and to add locations to existing photos using edit. Is the proposed template intelligent enough to allow me to continue? I think I know the answer- but would like a SO. Commonist is a very stable tool, and there is little evidence that any further development is taking place. There is a list of outstanding fixes and improvements. (on the side:can anyone link me to the source code?). Further if the template is being changed could the prompt Date: be clarified:- Date of Upload/last modification/exposure or what?. Just a thought. ClemRutter 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I heartily second this request that the prompt Date: be clarified! per my comments at Please date all maps.... - Martha (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a very important improvement to me. I just geotagged my first image and I made an effort to do it in as standard a way as possible but every image I looked at did it a little differently. This change would 1: impose consistency, 2: encourage the use of geotags. I would like to see an item added to the standard template that included space for the location using words like los angeles, CA, USA.

Precision

I would like to geocode my images, but for most of them the precision of 14 decimals is highly deceptive. Since 1 degree is about 100 km, 14 decimals means it's precise to the nm, which is absurd. Very precise by human standards would be to the m, which would mean only 5 decimals. Of course one can in general simply ignore the remaining 9 decimals. But there's a bigger problem. How do I indicate how precisely I know the location? Qiute often, either I can't remember exactly where I stood or the Google Maps images just aren't precise enough. For example, I just tagged a first image, taken inside a fort, but I can't remember in which court of the fort I took it. So I picked one. Of course that won't do. The precision here would be about 100 m, so it should be tagged with only 3 decimals. Or, for easier use, an extra tag or parameter could be used to indicate precision in metres in multiples of 10. So 'precision:10m' or 'precision:1km' and such.
Oh, and how do I indicate the direction? just adding |heading:SE or heading:210 to the parameters in the template doesn't have any effect.

Btw, I've added my name to the list at the bottom of the article, even though I only intend to geocode my own images (some 150 or so). Is that ok? DirkvdM 08:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section about precision to the article. It needs to be there. However it can be improved, I am sure.ClemRutter 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time I have added to the section called Geodesy. It always annoys me when a term like this, unknown to 99% of our readers is used to demonstrate our extensive vocabulary- to hide rather than illucidate.ClemRutter 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DirkvdM welcome to the group. Geotagging is addictive- while doing your own images you find others that you 'simply' must tag... that's how it starts. ClemRutter 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the same kind of problems as DirkvdM. I really think we need to have an additional parameter stating explicitly the precision. The current procedure to implicitly state the precision based on how digits is used is very inelegant in my opinion.

Say, if I use the cross hair tool in GE to geocode my images, I take my very best guess at the most probable coordinate for the camera location. To that I want to add an uncertainty or precision of measurement, say 10m, or 50m or 1km, but if I do that by truncating the best estimated position to a lower number of digits, it will lead to data degradation. I may be generating an outlier as my best guess simply by truncating. Also, it is rather ackward to go edit the {{Location}} template afterwards, removing information instead of consciously adding a deliberate precision as an extra argument. Only a few will be able to remember how many digits a position shall be truncated to acheive a given precision, it is error prone and also depends on the latitude, which is a complicating aspect. Having to do a lookup to COM:GEO#Precision and do the intermediate calculations yourself is not very stimulating.

One of the reasons why I am raising this issue is due to ongoing discussion about the geocoding requirement in COM:VIC. Here, the users are often faced with the task of trying to geocode something like a historic aerial shot, the position of a curling arena in a town and what not. Something which canot normally be done with the default presumed precision of about 7m. It would be very helpful for that debate (and for arguments to keep the geocoding requirement) if such a precision parameter was supported. As a start it could just be an added optional precision_m= parameter, which, when used would actively display the precision in the template. This is also helpful for geolocating images of rare/endangered species as here you deliberate want to be imprecise by, say 5 km. Having imprecise geodata in machine-writeable form in an image for an endangered species is certainly more valuable than having it described in vague words in the image description.

-- Slaunger 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think it would be of the greatest value to have a precision parameter. Slaunger sets out the case very well. --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Padraic 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new geocoding addict, and would absolutely love that parameter! My current practical strategy is to chop most of the digits based on a guesstimate, and then chop one by one and map the result in Google Maps, and keep chopping while the dot looks right. Ideally, though, I'd imagine being able to point to a location and then visually indicate an uncertainty radius with the mouse, and automagically get the coords.Specious (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall geocoding be removed as a requirement for relevant image classes when nominating for valued image?

Hi, Some of you may be familiar with the Valued images (VI) project, which is currently in test review mode. It has been a requirement all along that images nominated for VI should be geocoding (with some exceptions). A purpose with the requirement has been to encourage and motivate users interested in VI to geocode their images. However, based on the test reviews so far I am now inclined to remove geocoding as a requirement, as it is too exclusionist for existing media (less than 2% of images are geocoded). See the discussion here and do voice your opinion, if you like to. -- Slaunger 05:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Keep I would keep the requirement. It's the single best way to encourage authors to geocode both existing and future images. It is happening already, even though the VI project is still in test mode. --MichaelMaggs 06:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Keep I can't imagine a situation where an image not fulfilling the proposed criteria could be considered as valued. If you are editing a GA/FA page you wouldn't seriously include an reference without checking its citation- or an image without verifying the accuracy of its description and that includes its geotag. In most cases you would want sub 7m accuracy though distance shots of towns or villages may be sub 70m accuracy may suffice. The criteria gives examples of situations where a reason in the description, would be a necessary alternative. I suggest the location tag could be modified to allow dec/dms/withheld/studio- so we could make it mandatory even in these cases.ClemRutter 07:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Keep Sure less than 2% is geocoded now, but it is not like this is exclusionist as geocoding can easily be added to images. Removing the requirement would be a step in the wrong direction. --Dschwen 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure geocoding can in principle be added to more than 2 million images already here, but quite frankly I do not think that is going to happen. Many infrequent uploaders on Commons would not see the real benefit as compared to the effort. In the reviews I have tried to contact a few contributors asking them to add geocoding if possible to competing superior images, such that they could win with a superior value image in a Most valued review. So far with no successs. I have also tried to encourage EN users to upload and geocode valuable images on Commons such that they could become available and visible to other Wikimedia projects. So far no success. So, although I would wish all this geocoding would be possible on media already here, I just do not think it is going to happen. -- Slaunger 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is irreleevant for the criteria whether all 2millon pics are geocoded. The geocoding can be added in the nomination process. --Dschwen 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my experience so far that many potentially competing contributors are either inactive or uses Commons so seldom that they do not discover request for added information while the nomination is still active, thus making it challenging to add geocoding in the nomination process. -- Slaunger 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly- your home page images are beautiful. I would see the issue above as a problem with 'request for added information' rather than geotagging. I do now spend some time putting geotags on other peoples images, when I am trawlling through the various categories I am using or tidying. If an unanswered RfAI is encountered, just tag it as lacking geocoding, and when provided, automatically resubmit.ClemRutter 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) You are right that when it is possible to unravel where the image is actually from, it makes sense to tag it as lacking geocoding. How do I do that by the way? Is there a template to use or shall I just add it to the category Category:Location possible? -- Slaunger 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Keep It helps to distinguish VI from FP and QI. It would be easier to delete the geocoding requirement later, should it prove desirable, than to add it. I endorse ClemRutter's proposal to allow dec/dms/withheld/studio. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It may actually be deceptive: it's the subject coordinates that matter (if they do) not the camera location. NVO 10:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Subject coordinates are available in the respective wikipedia articles on the subjects. --Dschwen 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is mixing two arguments. Should all VI images have a geotag? Should we geotag the subject or camera? User:NVO gives his images a description in two languages, but some have no geotag. His images are excellent- but they do need to be geotagged before they can be VI. When they are being geocoded then the convention is to geocode the position of the camera so they can be replicated, that is not what we are discussing here.ClemRutter 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

geocoding all images in a single category

Hi,

I was wondering if there is a way to geocode all images in a single cat once you got the location. In the case of a bridge for instance, well, it's location is the same on every photography. Thanks, Malta 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it. We've had the same question before. Also, please. read Commons:Geocoding, we do not geocode the object position, but the camera position! And that certainly is not an invariant across the category. --Dschwen 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I had just realised that my question was stupid given the first paragraph of Commons:Geocoding that I read a bit quickly. Malta 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is great that you asked! :-) --Dschwen 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GPS EXIF Read-Out-Bot

I've been working on an EXIF read-out bot. It does not yet modify pages, but that's just a formality. Current output looks like this:

dschwen@hemlock:~/qic_bot$ ./gps_exif_bot2.py
/home/dschwen
Checked for running processes. 2 processes currently running, including the current process.
downloading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Filepath/0-4-2_Hawthorne_Leslie_Blackie.jpg ...
analyzing GPS EXIF data ...
{{Location|33|55|16.75|S|18|25|33.6|E|alt:0_source:exif_heading:?}}
Getting page [[Image:0-4-2 Hawthorne Leslie Blackie.jpg]]
OK, just inserting hidden suggestion
downloading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Filepath/01-Rundflug_29._August_2007_(1355643347).jpg ...
analyzing GPS EXIF data ...
{{Location|49|56|20.843988|N|9|3|20.556|E|alt:156_source:exif_heading:?}}
Getting page [[Image:01-Rundflug 29. August 2007 (1355643347).jpg]]
OK, just inserting hidden suggestion
downloading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Filepath/01_Boyne_Viaduct_Drogheda_2007-10-5.JPG ...
analyzing GPS EXIF data ...
{{Location|53|42|52.0344|N|6|20|45.1824|W|alt:36.297_source:exif_heading:?}}
Getting page [[Image:01 Boyne Viaduct Drogheda 2007-10-5.JPG]]
YAY! tagging...
downloading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Filepath/01_de_Lacy_bridge_Drogheda_2007-10-5.JPG ...
analyzing GPS EXIF data ...
{{Location|53|42|52.0344|N|6|20|45.1824|W|alt:36.297_source:exif_heading:?}}
Getting page [[Image:01 de Lacy bridge Drogheda 2007-10-5.JPG]]
YAY! tagging...
downloading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Filepath/01a-Clarkestown_mast_2007-09-06.JPG ...
analyzing GPS EXIF data ...
{{Location|53|27|43.038|N|6|40|25.68|W|alt:106.386_source:exif_heading:?}}
Getting page [[Image:01a-Clarkestown mast 2007-09-06.JPG]]
OK, just inserting hidden suggestion

There are three things to note: it reads out altitude and puts it in the extra parameters, it adds a source tag, and it adds a heading:? tag. The heading:? might be controversial. I added it for now, as it might encourage people to quickly add a heading, and it saves typing. Will it cause any problems during data extraction? Oh yeah, and the trailing decimal zeroes are annoying, I know... --Dschwen 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Send it to work! --Padraic 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: The decimals are cleaned up, and the bot checks if a Location template is already present. If so, the the bot adds a hidden Location template commented out and a human should compare them. I'll probably be (ab)using User:QICbot to run this taks. But I'll wait a while to give other people the opportunity to comment and make suggestions. --Dschwen 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. The heading placeholder isn't a problem for the parser, Image:MountainHemlock_0965.jpg has one already and it seems to be ignored.[2] Wonder how accurate the camera GPS devices are? --Para 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I just ‎requested a bot-flag for a new user to run the bot. --Dschwen 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the bot is at work now. Source can be inspected here. --Dschwen 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked my images, and it looks like the bot worked flawlessly. Thank you so much for automating this process! My faith in the wiki community has been justified. --Padraic 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons uploader

Magnus' tool does not retain or translate the data when moving images from the en.wiki. Evrik 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• the problem is because it doesn't recognize the templates there or can't translate them. Evrik 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding aerial shots?

I uploaded a picture of Bothell High from Terraserver/USGS data, and I was wondering if I should geocode it by the center of the image, or leave it out since we don't know exactly where the camera was? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. For consistency, I've geocoded my aerial shots by estimating where the camera would have to have been to take the photo. For example: . Similarly ,people take photos of distant objects from tall buildings and use the coordinates of the building rather than the object - you could do the same with the photo you're talking about, the altitude is just higher. Cheers - gobeirne 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just to avoid any misunderstandings, commons geocoding should only represent the camera location. But in case of aerial shots taken pretty much vertically downwards the image center coincides with the location of the camera. Unfortunately we don't have a heading value for downward, do we?--Dschwen 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• So instead of "heading", we could use an azimuth and an elevation (which could be positive if we're looking up at something or negative if we're looking down on it)? - gobeirne 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take also a look to subproject Commons:Geocoding/overlay. Perhaps could this be a way. --Kolossos 09:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz

Who maintains Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz? I'd like to request that the current heading be included in the code. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's my staff, who do you want include the heading (camera direction) into the code manual or automatic? -- I will try to public the code today or tommorow. --Kolossos 12:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can watch the source code of the serverside php script. Or you modified the kmz-file and post it to my as kml on my disc-page. --Kolossos 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the new Google Earth version is that it is difficult to see what my heading is. Therefore, I would dearly love for the outputted location code to include the current heading: {{Location|dd|mm|ss.s|NS|dd|mm|ss.s|EW|heading:dd}}, where heading:dd is the degrees which correspond to this chart. This would necessitate that you define which direction is "forward". Personally, I would recommend that "forward" be the top of the screen.

The result would be that I can rotate Google Earth's view to align with the view of the photo -- the direction that the camera was facing would be pointed directed toward the top of the screen. One problem, however, is that not everyone may rotate their view to get a heading: so I would keep the existing output and, below that, add the output with the heading. Otherwise we may get a lot of people who upload photos which are all tagged as pointing north. Did that all make sense? Vielen Dank! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the KML-Tutorial i believe you will see that there is no way submit the oriention to the server. Google Earth transmite only the boundary box (BBOX) to the server. Perhaps you have an other idea. The same script runs also in Google Maps, the solution should also work there. --Kolossos 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture Title

I notice that Google Earth displays the file name which, most of the time, would be good enough, but occasionally there is a strange filename. For example, Image:Broadway tower edit2.jpg. Just wondering if there is a way to override this default such as a title parameter. Or should we be giving pictures human readable titles such as Broadway tower, view from the nearby hill. ++ MortimerCat 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

geocoding error?

I tried to geocode this and this image usig [3] but the template is giving me an error! I think the template can't deal with all the formats on offer at the hjl_geocoding. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inkscape schematic maps

I have just spent a happy few hours producing a much needed map. Now, here are the questions-(perhaps you have already guessed): Does one geotag? How? Where? Why not? This is straining the logic to its utmost- there is no camera position- but if there were, it would be several thousand metres above the centre point of the map- which is known. If I go onto Google earth looking for illustrations- I would want to find it. Could I ask for opinions please. ClemRutter (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out Commons:Geocoding/overlay! --Dschwen (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Overlays from the description,Commons:Geocoding/overlay, won't accept a svg, and only seem appropriate for scaled maps not schematics. You over estimate my map making skills! Thanks for the suggestion.ClemRutter (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Try it with PNG as URL, it's the image which you see in browser: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Aqueduct-de-nimes.svg/1280px-Aqueduct-de-nimes.svg.png --Kolossos (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Version of location dec that converts to DMS

I created a version of {{Location dec}} that converts decimal to DMS and invokes {{Location}}. See Template talk:Location dec#Version that converts to DMS for more info. – flamurai 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Direction of shot?

Geocoding includes latitude and longitude, but what about the direction the image camera was pointing? Would it be good to allow this information to be included too? I suppose you could also throw in altitude, but photos are generally taken on the ground so that wouldn't be much use. Richard001 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding does allow include that information to be included, see Commons:Geocoding#Parameters. As an example {{location|37|30|40.9|N|77|36|9.41|W|Heading:W}} would encode a west facing image.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Thought I had come up with something original; should have read the page! Richard001 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

I have created a userbox for geocoders. Richard001 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! I signed up, and I also put in a globe icon 'cause we definitely need a globe! --Specious (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That globe is nice, but for brand consistency I'd suggest . --Dschwen (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding yourself

Is it okay to geocode your user page to show where you live? This might go well with Category:Users by location. Are there any potential problems with this? Richard001 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out my proposal below. --Dschwen (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Map tagging?

I've uploaded a number of historical maps to Commons, mostly for the towns and cities in my area. (Example) I'd like to geocode them, but I was wondering if there's anything I should do differently when tagging a map, as opposed to tagging a photo. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ++ 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:Geocoding/overlay. That should be the most appropriate form of geocoding maps (at least that's what it was designed for :-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, that's just what I was looking for. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I've started a thread (in Commons_talk:Geocoding/Overlay) concerning the XML files used in geocoding overlays, if anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Source parameter

I use either Google Earth or my GPS handset to aid in geotagging my photograph. What I want to know is how to format the "source" parameter. Can anyone give me the valid options? Thanks! Nichalp (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)