Commons talk:Geocoding/Archive 4

heading: parameter fails for certain headings

I noticed this while viewing File:St Pancras railway station MMB J4 43047.jpg:

For values from 350 to 354 for heading: the compass icon () isn't being displayed. For example, while {{Location|0|0|0|N|0|0|0|W|heading:349}} works fine while {{Location|0|0|0|N|0|0|0|W|heading:350}} displays [[|25px|link=|alt=350°]] instead of an image. Looks suspiciously like the required image is not being found, but as far as I understand File:Compass Card.png, both 349 and 350 should be translated to NbW and File:Compass-icon bb NbW.svg does exist and heading:NbW works fine. Pinging Jarekt, since I suspect that this has to do with Template:Compass rose file in some kind of way. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Test:

• [[{{Compass rose file|351|style=heading}|200px]] gives
• [[{{Compass rose file|355|style=heading}|200px]] gives

You are right. --Jarekt (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--Jarekt (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --El Grafo (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. we had this bug for years and nobody ever noticed. --Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to fix the syntax of the location template of the file mentioned above, but I just couldn't find out what was wrong with it. Took me a while to figure out that the syntax was correct but the template just wouldn't take 350 as a parameter ;-) So I brought out the machete and subst:ed my way through the jungle. Made it all the way to the Compass Rose but didn't understand the secret words the Mighty Ones had engraved, so I headed back to seek council. Great adventure, felt a bit like Indy. (No really: It actually was a very interesting endeavour) Anyway: Always glad if I can make myself useful … --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was the engraver but still did not understand the logic, so I started to experiment at User:Jarekt/a and User:Jarekt/b until I found a formula that worked. In retrospect it seems like the logic was always flawed. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Earth

Is it just my computer, or has it actually been many days since Template:Location was able to bring up Google Earth? Jim.henderson (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but it worked the next day, so someone must have found and repaired the problem. The connection to GE is highly useful when it works. Better if it could work all the time, or nearly so. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewing Geocommons on GoogleMaps won't work after February 2015

I was viewing some geocoded images on google maps through the View this and other nearby images … feature of the location template, when a note popped up that some things might need to be changed in order to have this work after February. It had a link to this page, which links to this page. Looks like KML overlays won't be possible anymore after February – at least not in the way they are now. Just thought I'd give you a heads up – pinging some people who might be interested: @Para, Kolossos, Jarekt, and Dschwen: --El Grafo (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Any guidelines for precision?

Are there recommended practices for when to geocode and how to indicate uncertainty? The section on Precision merely says "If we are aiming to a precision of about 7 m..." (emphasis added). What should we be aiming for? For instance, if a photo was taken in somewhere a public park 500 m wide, would it be appropriate to geocode the center of the park? What about a city or county? (not that Google maps usually centers and drops a pin in the geographic center/centroid of the place). How much error is too much for geocoding? I think there should be explicit (even if loose) guidelines for when not to geocode (e.g. "where the camera location cannot be estimated to within approximately 50 m, the location should be stated in the description but not geocoded"). Animalparty (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There are many cases where a precision much bigger than 50 m cannot be obtained, but where geocoding is still useful, i.e. pictures in the middle of deep jungles or in high mountains (Himalayas, etc.). There, even a precison of 1 km would be useful. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. By coincidence I encountered this question yesterday for Category:John Ericsson monument (Manhattan). This object is in an urban park which is densely photographed and geotagged, so 50m or the center of the park would be entirely unacceptable. Web searching was able to confirm a location within 20m, and I'll probably visit the place next month and locate the best pictures to the usual 5m precision of Google Earth aerials of this island. For a picture in the middle of the nearby Category:Long Island Sound, 500m might be tolerable, depending on the object and circumstances. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Waste_of_ressources

Talk cross link → Category talk: Location not applicable #Waste of ressources Can someone please improve the tool to let non photographic users in peace!? It seems some people think on Commons are 99% of the 25 million files photos. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Agree (although I do not understand the second sentence) --Jarekt (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Agree, and on SVGs in a category with (only) logos or similar I remove this dubious category when I see it. It's not easy for me to imagine any SVG, where a location would make sense, unless it's a map. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized files but having coordinates

Hi all, I was wondering if it would be possible to create a new maintenance category, when we could add any uncategorized file that has location templates. It would be very useful, in order to help categorize, especially when using GeoGroupTemplate in it. Afterwards, maybe it can be filled automatically, or manually, up to you. But before creating this kind of category I would like to get some opinions. The fact is that, even if there are already "All media needing categories as of..." categories, GeoGroup is impossible to use, because of the too big amount of files (and a big majority of them are not localized). That's why I think it would be a major help to have this new kind of cat. Please let me know what you think about it thank you very much! Jeriby (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Remember of course that many coords are in error, including some that are on the wrong continent, but still, yes. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Caveat: In my en-3 DEnglish realms "localized" sounds like "translated", maybe a clumsy "with coordinates" or similar is clearer. If it's only me ignore me, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This CatScan2 query is an example on how to find such files, which might be more reliable than a category. --Jarekt (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks worse than good-riddance-bugzilla. If a bot could populate a hidden tracking category with "has coordinates, but no categories" files, or similar, folks in the mood to ask OSM or Google Maps where on earth it is could fix it. I like the self-destroying "check categories" template, two clicks, and it deleted itself with a "you can help" edit summary. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Catscan can find them, but the result of a Catscan can't be shown on a map directly. The result should be imported in something compatible with GeoGroupTemplate, a category is clearly appropriate for that. Moreover, sometimes Catscan is unable to show results if there is a big amount of data (it results in a "timeout" usually). Anyway if someone has a tip to workaround that it would be great. I haven't found any other idea yet to get the results of a whole "All media needing categories as of..." year category in a OSM map or a KML file... Jeriby (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will fill Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories. --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much Jeriby (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeriby: cool idea! Jarekt: with actually 4.085 files the display on Bing doesn't work anymore, because it's too big (maximum: 2MB). When the category had ~2000 files it was a good way finding the places and there was a good link to the file opening in a new window. On OSM I am not able to come from a pin in the map to the file in question. Can you help? --Emha (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I stopped filling it at the moment and I do not know how many files to expect but there were ~7k files from last 4 months, then there is 2014, 2013, etc. In the end we might get over 50k files. If the tools can not process it than may be I sould not be filling it up. --Jarekt (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone else please test the map tool above the category page? Perhaps it's not the tool but my or my system's fault. And is someone able to click an object on the open street map and can explain to me how it works? Jarekt: If nothing else helps we need smaller sub-categories. Besides this the webservice on tools labs is not running in the moment. regards, --Emha (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed OSM works well, KML export also works well, but not Bing which tells that the file (which file?) must have up to 2 Megabytes of size. Anyway, I also noticed that only a well setup bot can fill this category, I tried on 1 pic with Cat-a-lot and it makes disappear the "Uncategorized" template (not for long I think, when a file has no category but the hidden ones, a bot adds the template again some days later). Then I was wondering if it is possible to improve it, for example in Template:Uncategorized itself, something that tells "if Template:Location or Template:Location dec or Template:Object Location is detected (of if the file is in the Category:Media with Locations), then this category should appear. Then it won't be necessary to fill the category (manually or with a bot), and the category will remove itself when categories are added (by having "Uncategorized" template removed). As it is for "All media needing categories as of..." hidden category. I'm not sure that I'm very good at programming templates then if someone is good at it, moreover the template is read-only protected and I'm not admin^^. Thanks! Jeriby (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea although I do not think it can be done with templates. May be User:McZusatz who adds {{Uncategorized}} with his bot can help. May be his bot could add {{Uncategorized|goe}} template (with extra "geo" parameter if {{Location}} and {{Object location}} is present. And that extra parameter would cause the template to add the category. --Jarekt (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. Though, just like User:CategorizationBot, I am adding {{subst:Unc}} to the files. So this needs to be modified as well. --McZusatz (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

McZusatz, If you call {{subst:Unc|geo=1}} than {{Uncategorized}} will add Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories. Counld you verify that your bot can properly remove {{Uncategorized}} with an extra parameter? If so, I can start adding "|geo=1" to {{Uncategorized}} instead of adding Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories directly. --Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal is not an issue at all. The bot functions identically to HotCat and Cat-a-lot. --McZusatz (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just making sure. I do not understand the process and do not want to break it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OMS does not really work for me. Yes, it shows the pins, but clicking on a pin (or hovering over it) only highlights the file name in the left sidebar, clicking on one of those file names only moves the map to that location. --El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good start. OSM of course ought to be fixed so the pins link to files. Perhaps a bigger project would be a bot to divide the category into global gore subcats, north and south of the equator, sliced at intervals of 90 or 15 or 3 or some other number of degrees longitude. Those of us who like to work eastern North America or central Asia, or whatever, could more easily concentrate our efforts. Or if such a bot is difficult, perhaps easier to sort in cat by longitude or latitude. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:GeoPolygon not working

I just noticed that Google Map display of object outlines provided by Template:GeoPolygon and written by @Dschwen: does not work anymore. Same with "geopoly" parameter in {{Institution}}. Probably the same issue that does not allow us to display nearby images in Google Maps, see here and lead to removal of Google Maps link from {{Location}}. For issues with Template:GeoPolygon see for example Category:Place du Bouffay or Institution:Cimetière du Père-Lachaise: Google Maps link does not do much but OSM link works. {{GeoPolygon}} wasn't used much since user:Dschwen wrote it 7 years ago, but I always liked this tool. Is it going to be restored (rewritten?) or should we remove those options from the templates as we did with "nearby location link" in {{Location}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Google decided to remove kml support from Google Maps, it currently doesn't make sense to have a link to Google. From what I've read, re-writing it could take quite some time, so it's probably best to just remove it for now. Unless you want aerial images, OSM is usually superior anyway. --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I often take outdoor photographs and in many cases OSM has nothing about the locations, see for example OSM link in File:Joshua Tree - Room to Shroom.jpg. For such files aerial photograph is the only way to go. --Jarekt (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Totally agree with that. Since KML still works in Google Earth, why not add a link for that? If it works with {{Location}} it should work with {{GeoPolygon}} as well. I dissected the url for the KML from the Google maps link of your example, downloaded it to my HD and opened it in Google Earth – works perfectly. All that needs to be done is to change the link to Google Maps to directly point to the KML file and the name of the link to Google Earth and you should at least have the same functionality as with {{Location}}. Can't seem to figure out how to do this, though … --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, for viewing stuff directly in the browser with aerial images, we could simply switch to Bing maps: Base URL is http://www.bing.com/maps/?mapurl=, just append the url to the KML to that: http://www.bing.com/maps/?mapurl=http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/geo_poly/cache/ce7a9bf1fa48f5b07655adf9ac11f497.kml Would probably work for {{Location}} as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I got it. For example Category:Place du parlement de Bretagne generates link #1 to tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot which is converted to link #2 to google maps, and which is dead. But we could change it to the link #3 to Bing and tht one works. I do not think that is something I can change on this end. I think that is something user:Dschwen would need to change on wmflabs.

1. http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/geo_poly/?t=Place+du+parlement+de+Bretagne&p=48.1124%2C-1.6783%2C0+48.1124%2C-1.6774%2C0+48.1118%2C-1.6774%2C0+48.1118%2C-1.6783%2C0+48.1124%2C-1.6783%2C0
2. https://maps.google.de/maps?f=q&hl=de&q=http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/geo_poly/cache/2ea83caa3eddb7dc6f6cb4dd06e4cdac.kml&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=14&t=k&om=1&output=classic&dg=feature
3. http://www.bing.com/maps/?style=h&mapurl=http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/geo_poly/cache/2ea83caa3eddb7dc6f6cb4dd06e4cdac.kml

--Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Do you think that would be possible without too much of a hassle? --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I just checked and {{Overlay}} template for overlaying images on top of maps using KML format also does not work. Neither Google earth, Google Maps or Bing link. See for example File:Albertstadt Map 1895.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Geotags for non-geographical images

Hi, folks. User:Junkyardsparkle has been doing a lot of "Commenting out geotag for non-geographical image"s for images of celebrities, book signings, etc. I'm not sure that's the best idea. Clearly the most useful use of geotags is for geographical images, landmarks, monuments, landscapes, buildings, etc, but I always thought it could be useful to have geotagged images of book signings, celebrity appearances, and such, to see what happened in such and such a place. In any case, Commons:Geocoding should say, one way or the other. So we've decided to bring it up here. Look well, O Wolves! --GRuban (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I find geotags on images like this or this to be totally useless, because the picture could have been taken anywhere in the world. If the location is embedded in EXIF I would leave it alone. Otherwise I think it is waste of time to either add or remove them, but if someone else wants to do it, it is their time. --Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What I was kind of hoping to propose here, in addition to adding some guidelines as already mentioned, is an additional template that could be used on such images, which would make the data available in a nicer way than just converting it to plain text (which would almost certainly end up getting put back into a location template by "helpful" bot or human anyway), and would make it easier for mapping applications, etc. to stick to geographical images if that's the intention. Any reason why this would be a Bad Idea? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment For the usual user, there are basically two different use cases for location data on images:

1. I'm looking at an image and want to know where it was taken → click on coordinates on file description page to see it on a map
2. I want to see images of a certain place → use the geocommons overlay for GoogleEarth or OSM to see what pictures are available in my area of interest

• From a case 1 user's POV, I don't see any reason for removing geocoding from any image (exception: actually wrong coordinates). Even if it's a studio shot. They may be useless, but they don't hurt. And who knows, maybe some statistics nerd will find an application for data like that.
• From a case 2 user's POV, things may look different. If you're looking for architectural shots of Hollywood, thousands of celebrity pictures on the map will probably annoy you. But where do you draw the line? Take this image for example. It's just two sausages in a bread roll, so at first sight, having this image pop up on the map seems about as useful as having a geocoded image of a BigMac. But when you read the description, you'll see that it's a local specialty and they were shot where they were bought, so it starts to make sense. I think ideally we should have multiple layers for different types of pictures (landscape, architecture, flora, fauna, people …) that the users can switch on and off themselves based on what they'd prefer to see. That would, however, require a major overhaul of our current system on multiple levels and I don't think it would be wise to start working on that before COM:Structured data is finally up and running.

TL;DR: I don't think removing geocoding is a good idea unless it's actually wrong. --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The only case where I would advocate the actual removal of coords would be cases like these where the use of a phone has (probably unintentionally) produced a geocoded image where the coords are not only totally unrelated to the image, but may constitute personal information about the uploader. Otherwise, I like the idea of retaining all of the data, but in a finer-grained form than the location template offers in it's current form. The number of GPS-enabled photo-taking devices in circulation is growing every day, and while it's great to be able to say "there are over a bazillion geocoded images on Commons!", that's going to mean less and less without some organization of the data. It's probably better to start thinking about this sooner than later, even if any implementation would have to wait for COM:Structured data (although I don't think that would have to be the case, if implementation involved simply adding a parameter or two to the location template).

To avoid redundancy with the existing category structure, my thought is that distinctions should be based not on type of depicted thing, but the relationship of the geo data to the depicted thing... whether a person could reasonably expect to encounter this same thing at that location at any given time, for instance. This would be very much the case for a mountain, somewhat for a building or tree, somewhat less for the food of a given restaurant or a museum exhibit, and not at all for a photo of a person or object at a one-time event, or a building already demolished. I personally think a classification system of this sort would add greatly to the value of the data, for whatever current and future purposes. There could even be a dropdown menu with choices on the upload wizard for any uploaded photo with coords. Does this interest anybody, or is it just me? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not mind removal of geotags from files like the ones given as examples by jnkyrdsprkl, but I see it as a pointless exercise if it is done without removal of the information from EXIF, because a bot will come and add it again. We can add parameter to {{Location}} template that will keep the metadata but will hide the coordinates. We did have a case when some guy uploaded iPhone pictures of his wife private parts and was understandably distress when they show up hovering over his house in Google Maps. He tried deletion of the tags and they were re-added by the bot and he tried deletion request but it was not granted, before he come asking for help. Yes such geotags occasionally "constitute personal information about the uploader".

If I understand it correctly jnkyrdsprkl is proposing creation of category tree within Category:Media with locations. I think it would be usefull to have additional category for historical images like this there we know the location but the city does not look anything lite the image, but such images might be hard to identify. I do not see much use for other categories. --Jarekt (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything to work with Template:Location withheld ? Some improvement regarding this? If we add this template to a picture, it would be interesting that bots detect the template for not adding geotags again? Jeriby (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Location withheld}} is strange. At the moment it is used very rarely and all the files using it are either geocodded (and probably meant to use {{Rare species location}}) or do not need geocodding. I see the need for {{Rare species location}} but not for {{Location withheld}} and I would rather see nothing on images that do not need it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the coords aren't actually stripped from the exif info in the file, it could still end up being used by any outside harvester which ignored the tag. Right now, the Upload Wizard does nothing to indicate to a user that an uploaded image contains coords, unless they manually uncollapse the section for adding the info and see that it's already there... this should probably be changed. If it instead displayed a notice that the image contained coords, it could also ask about the nature of the image ("Is this an image of a fixed geographical feature?") for classification. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was imagining that the category structure would simply mirror whatever the hypothetical parameter was set to in {{Location}}, but maybe just having manually sorted subcategories would be enough. I don't know what the implications for machine-readability are for one method vs. the other. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Earth not working today

Template:Location not working

Fourteen hours ago, it was working properly. In the past two hours, clicking on Google Earth for this picture or others does nothing. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/ is down, so none of the tools are working. See phab:T102925. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the outage lasted all day. Anyway it works now; thanks. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Broken template

The "Location" template with coordinates in it has links for openmaps and google but the Google link doesn't work anymore. Should be updated? Also the geolocate helper tool is completely broken now too, is it going to be fixed? Nesnad (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Google maps doesn't support KML files anymore, so it seems there won't be a quick fix for this. See also archive & above. The link for Google Maps could probably be replaced by Bing Maps, but as Jarekt pointed out above, that would probably require Dschwen to make some changes on wmflabs. --El Grafo (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The Google Earth link in {{Location}} seems to work fine for me. The Google Maps link has already been removed, but Bing Maps should probably be added so we have aerial image overlay in the browser. --El Grafo (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Agree --Jarekt (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be done by editing the template (just look at how the GoogleMaps link looked like). --Dschwen (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Yes, sorry, I got confused: It should work like this http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?mapurl=https://tools.wmflabs.org/geocommons/web.kml but I get a message that the file is either broken or doesn't contain a supported data type ("Der Dateiinhalt ist entweder beschädigt, oder er enthält keine unterstützten Datentypen.") plus an endlessly spinning loading wheel in the left sidebar. Neither zooming in nor changing https to http seems to change that. The polygon kmls mentioned above do work, however (example). Any ideas, anyone? --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the web.kml document is a meta document that should tell Bing where to pull the actual KML data for the current viewport. It is quite possible that this functionality is not implemented in Bing. --Dschwen (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps works like this: implementation on dewiki. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

тнояsтеn, you are right German articles like de:Jura has in top right corner links to KML like file displayed in Bing and Google using following links

• https://www.bing.com/maps/?mapurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.wmflabs.org%2Fkmlexport%2F%3Farticle%3DJura%26project%3Dde%26linksfrom%3D1%26usecache%3D1
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/wp-world/googlmaps-proxy.php?page=http://tools.wmflabs.org/kmlexport/%3Farticle%3DJura%26project%3Dde%26linksfrom%3D1%26usecache%3D1&output=classic

I wonder if any of them can be reused to show our KML on aerial image. The Bing link looks like Bing links we already tried--Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

Backlog at Category:Media with GPS EXIF

Is there a problem with DSchwenBot? I see that it is processing some files but not others...File:Bude Memorial.jpg is one example. I, and others, have left a message with Dschwen but they seems to be on an extended break. I'm just wondering if I should start adding the locations manually. Kelly (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories cleanup

Hello,

This category works well, as we have more than 40000 pictures categorized in it. But also, it seems that there are about 8000 pictures being categorized now, which are still in this category. Sometimes when users add manually a category, they don't delete this one. And when using tools like Cat-a-lot, the category doesn't remove itself, whereas "Uncategorized" template does. Then, if it is possible, could a bot check this and remove automatically categorized pictures? For example, by detecting that there is not more Template:Uncategorized in there?

I saw that when the Template:Uncategorized is added, the category "Media needing categories as of ..." is automatically added. Ideally, it would be great that "Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories is added automatically when Template:Uncategorized is added AND this template "detects" presence of Template:Location, or Template:Location dec or Template:Object location. Everything will be managed by Template:Uncategorized code, and it would mean less bot maintenance needed. But I don't know if it's possible, because I don't know anything in programming that kind of code^^ . If the bot can make the "cleanup" it would be a great start anyway.

Thank you . Jeriby (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I have seen the parameter "geo=1" in Template:Uncategorized ! That's just great! Then we just need to do the cleanup, and if possible replacing the category by the "geo=1" parameters in the files when the category have been added "fully spelled out". Thank you! Jeriby (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. I have started to do the cleanup manually, but could not finish it (too much files when not bot-flagged it seems^^). Then if someone with a bot could do these two operations:

• Adding |geo=1 at the end of any Uncategorized template in the Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories
• And then, removing any [[Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories]] plain text on any file of the category. This will remove all the files which are now categorized, and the |geo=1 will keep the other files here . Just like here on this example. Thank you very much for your help! Jeriby (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Working on it(see Special:Contributions/JarektBot). I already removed Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories from all the files that do not have {{Uncategorized}}. --Jarekt (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you very much Jeriby (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeriby, I think I am  Done. Can you spot check and let me know if something more is needed. --Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Great thank you very much! I have checked, there is no more categorized file in the cat, then it should be ok. It seems also that YaCBot is able to add the |geo=1 itself when it discovers uncategorized files without the Template:Uncategorized. I don't know if other bots run to add the template, if it is the case, we should notify the authors of the bots. But also, I have seen that newer uploaded files have automatically the Template:Uncategorized added, but not the |geo=1. It seems to be a new functionality of the upload wizard? I don't know it this can be updated, so that any file with location gets the |auto=1 automatically too, but for the moment if it's possible could you use your bot to add this to the concerned files? With this search:

-incategory:"Media with geo-coordinates needing categories" hastemplate:uncategorized hastemplate:location

I found more than 10000 concerned files. Thank you very much for your help anyway Jeriby (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeriby I added over 10k files to Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories

Just perfect! Thank you! I will try to see how we can resolve this new automation of adding the template when uploading (because there are already 585 new files concerned for 1 week). If anybody knows which users or admin we should contact about this, please tell me, thanks! Jeriby (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing some important trick. Hoping to find pictures of places I know and can easily categorize, I click to see a Google or OSM map of all coordinates, and don't get a map of any coordinates. Is there a way to make it work?

I tried Google Earth and it took a while to create 24MB file but it worked. --Jarekt (talk) 21

05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me, not after many minutes. Perhaps it's my slow DSL connection. Anyway I'm sure it would be easier for all if a bot could break out geographical subcategories, for example by Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system or finer MGRS or, if a geographical breakout bot is not practical, chronological subcats. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems to work only with Google Earth. If we are able to create subcats, it would be easier to have geographical subcats, because chronological would mean that for the same region we would have do load several different categories (in Google Earth for example), instead of having just "one category by region". Jeriby (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a good idea. We might even be able to sort it by the country. --Jarekt (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Even a few hundred arbitrary lat-long boxes would be far more digestible than what we've got. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T118875

I proposed this task for Google-Code-In-2015. Please see the phabricator task and comment if something is not clear. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Media with erroneous locations needs attention

I just discovered that some of the error checking in {{Location}} and Module:Coordinates were not working for a while and I fix them. As a result Category:Media with erroneous locations is filling up with images with incorrect template parameters and possibly wrong coordinates. Help would be appreciated in cleaning them up. --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Prevent geocoding?

Hi there,

A new user uploaded File:Imag0544w.jpg the other day, a screenshot of a deep web black market. Today, I see DschwenBot extracted geocoordinates from EXIF data. I have to assume, given the nature of the subject, that the uploaded did not intend to include this information. It further seems unnecessary given it's just a picture of a screen. Whether this should've been uploaded with a fair use rationale to Wikipedia directly is a separate issue, of course, but my question is how to prevent automatic posting of geocoordinates, and would it be inappropriate for me to download the image, remove the metadata, and reupload it (if the uploader does not respond)? I'm leaving a message for the uploader, Sulphuric12 immediately following this. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There exists the Template:Location withheld, but I don't know if the bot detects it. It would be interesting that when this template is on a file, no bot extracts the coordinates from EXIF. Jeriby (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha. Ok. I went ahead and added that. We'll see I guess :) I'll wait a couple days to see if the creator/uploader responds before doing anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Geotagging: Open street map- overlays and right click -- Cross posting from village pump

I am cross posting from village pump where this problem has attracted little interest

Geotagging: Open street map- overlays and right click

We support Open Street Map- there is a cross over between volunteering on WP and OSM- so it should be our tool of choice for geotagging. I help a lot of very talented newbies who have limited computer skills- so my direction of travel is that technically we should strive to make common tasks easy, so our new volunteers can immediately start to contribute.

An OSM of Leicester courtesy of the WMflabs. This is a wonderful tool- but it lacks one facility, that I hope someone will add- when you right click the menu lacks the Where am I? link to give you a geotag.

It I select an image, and go to the file description and click on the lat/long link (not the Open street map link) then select Open street map- I get This Open Streen Map without the helpful roundels but with the Where am I? tool.

Yes I had noticed that one was a php file on our server and the second is an index file in a directory on there server but the task is to add a few geotags not do a http appreciatioin course.

There are many things we could do to improve this.

• improve the wording- View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap is too similar to the link on the Geohack page which is OpenStreetMap. Then again, if you are on the Geohack page- there could be an adjacent link to map with roundels
• Modify the map with roundels to allow a What links here overlay in the same way that we already have the zoom bar. This is my preferred option.
• On that page, when you hover over the roundel, a thumbnail appears- clicking on the thumbnail links to the commons file. This thumbnail could have a caption with a geotag link that called the other Open Streen Map

I am sure this is harder to describe than it is to do. Or, possibly it is so important that it has already been done but not adequately documented.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) --ClemRutter (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why some images are banned from being shown on commons on osm and in Google Earth ?

For example images from:
category:Jezioro Powsinkowskie on this map:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=15&lat=52.157692&lon=21.097784
category:Jezioro Zgorzała on this map:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=15&lat=52.119357&lon=20.998701

The same is in Google Earth.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T146845

And second issue, maybe related. On the map centered like this:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=15&lat=52.21398&lon=21.08041&layers=B00TFT
Wikimedia markers on the river on the left are visible. But after moving them to the center:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=15&lat=52.22011&lon=21.06136&layers=B00TFT
they disappear. This is strange, because they should be better visible when centered.

Thank you. Darekk2 (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darekk2: As declared, the maps linked from "location" templates links "camera location" only, "object location" are not displaed. I.e. category pages are generally not displayed.

As I can see, the main reason why the icons disappear with shift of the map is that the number of the icons is limited and the icons which appears on the left are preferred (maybe they have a better position in the database index). Unfortunately, the limit number of displayed icons is very low which obstruct a proper functioning of the maps. Maybe, a developer of the tool could say more to it? --ŠJů (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

All those images contain both templates - Object location and camera location. For example File:Jezioro Powsinkowskie 3.jpg. Why this image is not visible on the map of this lake, even on very large zoom:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=16&lat=52.157692&lon=21.097784
And there are other images of that lake, not shown on the map ! Moreover they are the only images of Jezioro Powsinkowskie [Powsinek Lake) and Jezioro Zgorzała (Zgorzała Lake). So they are apparently somehow banned, maybe someone manually changed something in sort of database what is causing this ban. And that second issue looks still strange to me, maybe this is error. Darekk2 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darekk2: As regards photos I uploaded, recently i noticed a substantial delay in indexing for maps. The last my photo displayed in the maps was uploaded ca. 2016-09-12 03:55. All images uploaded since 2016-09-12 04:00 are not displayed yet. The images from the last two week are not banned, but the indexing of all new photos seems to fail. But such a delay is quite usual here, regrettably. --ŠJů (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T146844

I reported the problem as a bug to Phabricator. However, I have not good experiences with it. --ŠJů (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@ŠJů: I reported the problem as a bug
So lets wait. May maybe there are other ideas regarding this issue. Darekk2 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@ŠJů: @Darekk2: Same here. I noticed the problem on 16 September 2016 when I uploaded an image. Even though I entered the "Camera location" information, it hasn't been properly updated in OSM since then. It worked well before that. Now I have three images that are not updated in OSM. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narrow-Gauge-Railway_Ostbahn_Station-Uvac.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narrow-Gauge-Railway_Ostbahn_River-Lim.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narrow-Gauge-Railway_Ostbahn_Tunnels-No-76-75-74_North-of-Strmica-na-Limu.jpg My-wiki-photos (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos and Darekk2: I have a sense that I spotted somewhere something about critically exhausted memory capacity somewhere, but I cennot it find now... --ŠJů (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@ŠJů: It might be. My first thought was that they had been doing some changes/upgrades, and this was a negative side effect of that. Now that you said it, there may be a resource issue. My-wiki-photos (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I try to bring this item to Village Pump also. Phabricator seems to be a bit slow, dead and inefficient generally. --ŠJů (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Next set of banned images: category:Biały Ług (obszar bagienny w Warszawie)
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/commons-on-osm.php?zoom=16&lat=52.184462&lon=21.248995
Darekk2 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Two previous sets of images have appeared on the map (in Google Earth only second one), third one (the link above) is still invisible. Such images are sometimes very useful if they are not put into category associated with location, sometimes in addition don't have appropriate description like name of location. But they they can be find on the map. Unfortunately, most of images don't have coordinates. Darekk2 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@ŠJů and Darekk2: Just as a follow-up, I can see that my images are now correctly updated in OpenStreetMap (OSM). My-wiki-photos (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed also that all images from the last weeks are displayd and new images are displayed immediately. --ŠJů (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Powsinek Lake is still blocked in Wikimedia on Google Earth. Darekk2 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Images from this directory:
category:Kanał Sobieskiego
are banned on Wikimedia Commons in Google Earth probably manually by someone from very long time. They are not visible even at largest zoom. Darekk2 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Correcting bad coordinates

New Category:Pages with local coordinates and mismatching wikidata coordinates lists pages that have coordinates and Wikidata with coordinates and the 2 do not match. I tried several of such pages and in each case one of the 2 sets of coordinates was wrong. Sometimes it was wrong hemisphere, sometimes just wrong location either here or on Wikidata (usually imported from somewhere else). We could use some more people correcting those. Please purge each page before diving into reconciling them. --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Geolocation of all the images within a category

I remember in the past a tool that can show geolacation of all the images within a category. Is that still around? --Jarekt (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I use this. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I thought it was a gadget that adds a link, but it was a template instead that I have to add to a category before I can use it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I add it when diffusing an overburdened geographical category. Sometimes I use the single level version; sometimes the two level. I don't remove the template when I'm finished, as it may be useful to others. It would be more pleasant with an ability to click for one or two levels, but still it's very handy. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I need it sometimes when fixing pages in Category:Pages with local coordinates and mismatching wikidata coordinates, as sometimes I do not know if our or wikidata location is correct. Than geolocated images might be handy. --Jarekt (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Commons on OSM" not updated

@Dschwen and Jarekt: The tool "Commons on OSM" linked from the {{Location}} template have again not updated data. Last displayed photos are ca from 16 November 2016, the newer photos are not visible in the map. Such failures are not rare.

Is there any way how to make this tool more reliable? Could someone create an explanation page which should be linked from the template? The linked Commons:Geocoding page says nothing factual about these failures and delays. --ŠJů (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

ŠJů I do not know any facts about those tools. That are very mysterious to me as well. Years ago User:Dispenser was updating the coordinate database, but I do not know if he is still doing it. I do not know of any documentation of the process. --Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Now, new images appear in the map immediately, the older images seem to get processed gradually. However, there is no information about the previous problems and about the operator of the tool here. --ŠJů (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Corrupted links to files with diacritics in title

@Para, Simon04, Retsam, and Kolossos: The OSM map linked from Location template has a new problem with files which contain diacritics in their names. The letters with diacritics are wrongly interpreted and thubmnails and links are non-functioning. --ŠJů (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone at Labs must've changed a default charset setting somewhere. I've forced it in the script now. Ok? --Para (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Para: The problem continues. --ŠJů (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Banned images

• Category:Biały Ług (torfowisko) - map
• Category:Biały Ług (staw w Warszawie) - map
• Category:Macierowe Bagno - map
• Category:Zielony Ług - map

Probably manually by someone. All imgaes have coordinates, but only fife ones added today to Category:Zielony Ług are visible. So it seems that two older from Category:Zielony Ług have been banned in the past, five newer have not been noticed yet. All of them in the same area, only with different upload times.
Darekk2 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Error with geo-coordinated

I wanted to know why some of my own images with geo-coordinated don't appear on maps. This file appears (1), but this other, in the same city, doesn't (2). 1 and 2 are examples that have the same problem. What can it be? --HVL talk 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt, ClemRutter, Rodhullandemu, and Jim.henderson, @Igor22121976, Senator2029, Kelly, and Enock4seth, @Almondega, Darekk2, and ŠJů: somebody to help me? --HVL talk 21:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

HVL I am sorry I do not realy know why and do not know who to ask. I write templates but someone else is maintaining the database of coordinates. User:Dispenser was doing it (and my still be), but other might as well. I do not know whose tool is using which database. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

HVL I am having similar problems- and just waiting till it resolves its self. It is frustrating. I have uploaded a couple of hundred over the last two weeks and they are generally not displaying on Open Street Map - osm link. ClemRutter (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what might be happening here is that when a display for OSM is generated, a KML/KMZ file is created and cached somewhere. When the map is accessed again, the cached version is used rather than a new one is generated- so no updates are displayed. I think if the file is overwritten or marked as stale, a new one is then generated, which will include any updates, but I don't know a way of making this happen. Of course, I might be utterly wrong here! Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Can you see any of the files in the examples I gave? I uploaded them from Nimes, on this laptop. Back in Rochester I still can't see them- so, on your response, I changed laptops and tried both Chrome and Firefox, they are not there. I am just waiting for the facility to reappear, but include the data to help anyone else debug. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I only see one file. I think we send the KMZ to OSM and it is cached there, so changing laptops and browsers wouldn't have any effect. Sorry, I don't have any idea how OSM handles updating its caches. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Low-precision co-ordinates

Are co-ordinates with 1km precision of any value? I ask because my Geograph Update Bot is correcting the co-ordinates of images copied from Geograph Britain and Ireland, and I'm not sure what it should do when the source co-ordinates only have precision of 1km. The simple approach is to generate {{Location}} and {{Object Location}} with prec=1000, and this is what the bot did originally. This seems to have been unpopular, though, so maybe the bot should remove all 1km-precision locations derived from Geograph, or maybe it should do something more subtle. As an indication of scale, there are about 100,000 images where both object and camera locations have 1km precision, and another 150,000 where the camera location is only recorded to 1km precision but the subject location precision is 100m or better. --bjh21 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Since "At the moment this parameter only affects the display of the coordinates.", I think it could be ditched altogether. As to whether we need geocoordinates to the level of the third quark on the left in the 13th atom of the left leg of the third ant on the right on the mantelpiece of the cottage, I find 5 decimal points to be adequate to about a metre. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that I don't have locations accurate to a metre; I have locations accurate to a kilometre and I'd like to know what people think I should do with them. Omitting "prec=1000" might hide the problem, but the locations would still be up to 700m adrift. --bjh21 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would use {{Object Location}} as oppose to Camera {{Location}}, so both do not try to place them on a map, and I would keep "prec=1000" parameter so people can see that locations are not very precise. --Jarekt (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I like that plan, at least for those images where the camera and object locations are in the same gridsquare (which will be the vast majority). --bjh21 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Pass object location to Extension:GeoData

Currently, only the (camera) {{Location}} is passed to mw:Extension:GeoData (search for #coordinates:primary on Module:Coordinates). As a result, files only specifying {{Object location}} cannot be queried using the GeoData API.

I wrote Commons:Locator-tool and due to this restriction, I cannot treat {{Object location}} in a similar manner as {{Location}}. In order to obtain the {{Object location}}, I need to fetch the entire wiktext and parse it for a {{Object location}}, see [1] for the code.

Therefore, I propose to also pass the {{Object location}} to mw:Extension:GeoData!

I simulated an invocation of mw:Extension:GeoData for the {{Object location}} of one picture: Special:Diff/284920290 (not marking it as primary). The API calls nicely distinguish between returning the primary coordinate only (by default) and returning all coordinates. Maybe we could think of an adequate type for the object location (e.g., landmark?).

(This is a follow-up discussion of Template talk:Location#Object location as secondary coordinate.) Thanks! –Simon04 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dschwen, Kolossos, and Para: , @Dispenser, Yurik, and MaxSem: I believe everyone I am pinging worked on some sort of map related tools or extensions, and If I missed someone please ping them. For several years now I was maintaining the {{Location}} templates, however my main focus is on the template look, not machine-readability. I told Simon04 that I am fine with any changes to the template that do not affect the look (unless there is more extensive discussion) and do not break existing tools. So yes at the moment {{Location}} templates add string.format('{{#coordinates:primary|%10.6f|%11.6f|%s}}', lat, lon, args.attributes) tag to each file with location tagged as "primary". Args.attributes also has type: attribute which keeps track of which template called it (See Module:Coordinates, lines 503-520). So we could add {{#coordinates:primary}} tag to other templates as long as mw:Extension:GeoData can sort them out based on type: attribute. --Jarekt (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Max Semenik (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Let's only add a {{#coordinates:}} (w/o primary) with an adequate type: (as done here Special:Diff/284920290). This way nothing will change for users of mw:Extension:GeoData#API unless they explicitly request all coordinates (overriding the default primary only). –Simon04 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaxSem and Simon04: , Ok how about this change to Module:Coordinates (tested using Special:Diff/290859231)? Also does anybody know if I can add {{#coordinates:}} tag using frame:expandTemplate function instead of frame:preprocess? --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt and MaxSem: I tested setting type:object in Special:Diff/290964994. This nicely shows up in the API, allowing to unambiguously extract the camera location (type:camera) and object location (type:object). What do you think? Shall we include that in Module:Coordinates? Concerning Lua, frame:expandTemplate does not sound right, since {{#coordinates:}} is no template, but a parser function (source: mw:Extension:GeoData#Usage). frame:callParserFunction could do the trick. –Simon04 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I switched to frame:callParserFunction. If it still works and there are no objections to the change, I will deploy tomorrow. (someone ping me if I forget) --Jarekt (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! I added type:object for object locations, Special:Diff/291066366. It shows up in the API correctly. –Simon04 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Tomorrow is yesterday ;-). Thank you a lot for your efforts! –Simon04 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt and MaxSem: Thank you for applying the change! Interestingly, the API does not return the object location for the file File:Potsdamer Hütte 2015.jpg (although the {{Object location}} template has been added a long time ago). Only after a minor change to File:Alpengasthof Bergheim.jpg, Special:Diff/291392439, also the object location is returned via the API. Besides changing Module:Coordinates, does it require a further step (maybe a tiny change to {{Object location}}) in order to send all present {{Object location}}s to mw:Extension:GeoData and make them available through the API? –Simon04 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It takes some time for changes to propagate after a template is edited, so this is normal. Max Semenik (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaxSem: How long does this usually take? Is there a way to track the progress? –Simon04 (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

On a wiki as big as Commons, this can be as long as a couple weeks. Now way to track this, sorry. Max Semenik (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Commons on OSM" not updated

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T201111

@Simon04, Retsam, and Kolossos: @Dispenser, Dschwen, and Jarekt: The tool "Commons on OSM" linked from the {{Location}} template (data of WIWOSM?) has not updated data about half of year again.

Is there any way how to make this tool more reliable? Could someone create an explanation page which should be linked from the {{Location}} template? The linked Commons:Geocoding page says nothing factual about these failures and delays.

Similar problem occured also in the past: November 2016 – January 2017. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Examples:

• This photo and the whole set of my uploads from 2018-04-02 – 2018-04-09 are not in the database.
• This photo and the whole set of Juandev's uploads from Dezember 2017 are in the database, but recent corrections of their coordinates are not updated in the database. --ŠJů (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

ŠJů I maintain the {{Location}} template code but I have no information about which of the tools called by the template are still maintained. I always found lack of information about it quite frustrating. Maybe we need to create a page listing all those tools, what they do and who maintains them. We can start with what we know and live blank parts we do not know, in hopes that some will fill them. --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Info @Para: is the maintainer of GeoCommons, which is responsible for providing the locations of images, afair. --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the relevant Phabricator ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105593 – Some geolocated photos not shown --Simon04 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt and ŠJů: I resumed development on my osm-gadget-leaflet project. It allows to display spatial objects from OpenStreetMap, and Wikipedia articles and Commons photos on a map. I'm happy to incorporate feedback and bring it to production… It only relies on the mw:Extension:GeoData#list.3Dgeosearch API. --Simon04 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simon04: Isn't any bug in this map? All photos seem to have identical heading. The previous versions can display heading and distinguish images without heading. --ŠJů (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simon04, that looks great. We seem to have several OSM based map tools:

• mw:Extension:Kartographer by user:Yurik
• commons-on-osm which does not show as many images as your Wikipedia tool
• osm4wiki used to show images from a single category.
• There is also https://tools.wmflabs.org/wiwosm/osm-on-ol/kml-on-ol.php?lang=wikidata&title=Q40 which seems to be identical to your https://tools.wmflabs.org/osm-gadget-leaflet/#/?lang=wikidata&article=Q40

I am having a hard time with how to differentiate them in the template. I think we could either add yours or swap it with commons-on-osm. If we add it then what should we call it? --Jarekt (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: The rotating Commons icon is not (yet) implemented in osm-gadget-leaflet. --Simon04 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: The tool osm-gadget-leaflet is meant as a modernized re-implementation of commons-on-osm/osm-on-ol. So both tools provide geometries from OSM, and geolocated items from Wikipedia/Commons. --Simon04 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Use decimal degrees

We often see e.g., "Camera location 24° 11′ 31.38″ N, 120° 52′ 22.95″ E "

Camera location	24° 10′ 49.83″ N, 120° 51′ 51.35″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

Can the template please just say 24.192050... and drop that arduous old fashioned stuff. Jidanni (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Support Agree, it's nearly impossible to do maths with deg, min & sec. I don't believe anyone on land really uses them any more. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Support +1 --El Grafo (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The outpout of templates can use both formats paralelly or alternatively. Some Wikipedias as well as paper maps use the minute format still. The input should be enabled in both formats, even though the simpler format should be advised as the preferred. --ŠJů (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Partly support - Both DMS and decimal degrees should be displayed, at least as long as one can find both variants on Wikipedia. It would make it much easier to match images on Commons to articles in Wikipedia. There is also the issue of precision - an arc second corresponds to 30 m in latitude which is probably good enough to find most objects (OK, for single houses 1/10 arc second may be justifiable), and fractional arc seconds do not make sense at all for larger objects like whole villages or even districts. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't drop the old-fashioned DMS format. Both it and DD should be acceptable for input and both should be available as display. Many old sources use the old format, and many contain transcription errors that are much easier to correct if we can see their original format. Preserve the original format in the Wikicode, and display the location in the format set in preferences. As default, show the original format. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I guess by now I am more used to DMS notation but in practice I always work with decimal notation. Both versions are available if you click on the link and go to geohack page. However since all wikipedias still mostly use DMS, I would stick with it for consistency. --Jarekt (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Object_location should not zap item from map

Nowhere on Template:Object location do innocent users of it realize that it will cause their point to not appear on the map.

They think "well gosh, I'll provide the exact location of the object, instead of just the lazy Template: location of the camera, and shazam, they have unwittingly wiped their point from the map.

And OK, what if some of the pictures in question are indeed also on OpenStreetMaps? So some massive Center of the World obelisk shall not appear on the map, just because it happens to have a precise location? And yes, still on OpenStreetMap but here on commons with merely a camera location, so gets on the map!

Jidanni (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jidanni, Hedaja: Had pinged Para over at Special:Diff/349868320/356093997. No response yet; and had not worked out the precise situation that causes most images to disappear. —Sladen (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons on OSM not working

Right now no photos get displayed on the commons on OSM Website. The KML download is also not working. Someone know if the services are still getting maintained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedaja (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been talks about a replacement here – @Simon04: any news from your side? --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El Grafo and Hedaja: My tool is still up and running. I have no time to spare for a discussion which tool is better and might replace a previously used one. It also does not help that there are hundreds of tools on Toolforge related to Commons and maps. –Simon04 (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

One more just in case: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikimap/?lat=40.5&lon=-74.4&zoom=16&wp=false --DB111 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

EXIF geotagging

Why geo tagging is not done automatically based on EXIF data? If I upload pictures I usually add GPS to images from my phone (flickr grab the GPS automatically), it take lot of time to extract GPS in format for Wikimedia Commons (if you have more then one picture) there is this page en:Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates (to extract GPS you need to use second JS script - modified a bit - the fastest is to create template, preview Wikipedia page and copy/paste GPS string (output from template), it take lot of time. Why don't add extracting of GPS from EXIF in upload wizard (where this should be requested?) Jcubic (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

When I upload my geotagged photos via Wizard, or my phone pictures via WikiShootMe, it extracts and shows the coordinates. For WSM, it shows both the camera location and the object location, automatically. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can me a fanatic but both my cameras auto geotag to exif. Upload wizard works fine when the camera has had time to make the GPS fix- but there are a lot of important instant shots where I am left with no geotag or a nonsense reading. 177deg N, etc. What would be useful is for the Wizard to allow for bulk changes of the geotag, from the image below, or even from a keyword in the description. For instance I have images to upload of Owen Jones in Park Lane, caught by chance. If we could pull the geotag of Park Lane from Wikidata that would be accurate enough for me.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The copy down function of the wizard, I use every time. A simple improvement would be to add it to every image, so one can copy down the basic details first, then half way down the list add more specific information and copy that down to the images below for example. Basic information: The architecture of Manchester. 2: The architecture of Manchester, streets around St Peters Square 3:Central Library, St Peters Square. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikishootme is awesome- but its UI needs working on! Its amazing what you can do with right click and hover.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We can geotag when shooting, when processing, when uploading, and after uploading. Tagging while shooting is most convenient, but lacks reliability or accuracy. During Wikimania 2019 and the day after, I walked in central Stockholm, shooting with my Nikon P610, and with my Nexus 6P phone with WSM upload. The advantage of the Nikon is it gets better pictures, especially when light is poor or target is distant. Its GPS only works after power has been on for a long fraction of a minute, however. The phone usually knows its location, and can upload instantly by WikiShootMe or by Commons App. Commons App has advantages, including it allows editing the filename and suggests categories. Unfortunately the app crashes frequently or says it has uploaded when it hasn't. So, the phone mostly uses WSM even though it fails to date the picture or do those other nice things that the App does when it works. For photos from the real camera, I think adding or adjusting geotags while processing is my best bet. At Wikimania someone suggested "darktable", an open source imitator of Adobe Lightroom. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Conversion

Is there any template which accepts data in the format 45°11′20.5″N 04°38′06.8″E, as it comes from map tools? -- sarang♥사랑 06:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Map

{{Map}} is used to display additional metadata about maps, including geocoding information. The template accepts location data either as a single point at the center of the map, four points at the corners of the bounding box, or the latitude and longitude of the bounding box sides. The first two methods use {{Inline coordinates}} and the third uses only plain text. When maps are warped using Wikimaps Warper, it adds the location of the map's bounding box to the description page using the third form, so it is pretty common. None of the three methods expose the coordinates to mw:Extension:GeoData, and only the first two include links to map services. When the map has been warped, a link to the warped map is also included. I think it would be useful to have maps appear in the dataset of geocoded images, but I was wondering what the best way to do that would be. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

GeoData issue

If someone has a clue:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Location#GeoData_extension_empty
• and also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Coordinates#Breaking_bug_after_patch

Thank you --DB111 (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe found --DB111 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Geo-coordinates and structured data

The Structured Data team is making progress wrapping up geo-coordinates support, and would like your feedback (if you have any) on the proposed designs. Please check out the Phabricator task for mockups, rationale, and other input. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No excuse for leading 0 in longitude links

I notice links look like &lat=024.181696&lon=0120.865277. lat=024.181696 I can sympathize with, but lon=0120.865277? No excuse whatsoever for that leading 0. Jidanni (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Jidanni, where you found this link? --Arnd (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

E.g., on File:P 20200411 090034 vHDR On.jpg. Jidanni (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"No excuse" is mighty strong language to be filing the most minor of minor bug reports with. Anyway: the issue comes from these string.format() lines in p._LocationTemplateCore from Module:Coordinates:

[...]
	args.lat = string.format('%010.6f', lat or 0)
	args.lon = string.format('%011.6f', lon or 0)
[...]

The format specifier there is saying "output the first parameter, which is a number, with up to 6 decimal places and at least 10 or 11 digits, adding zeros to the beginning and end as necessary". That specific code was added by User:Jarekt in Special:Diff/194799688. They removed the leading zeroes in their next edit, but had to re-add it in the edit after that, presumably because not having them broke something. As such, unless you've got a patch to fix this without needlessly overcomplicating the code or breaking functionality, this isn't really a bug that needs fixing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Iy is a good point '%010.6f' suggest 3 digit number (plus decimals) and '%011.6f' encodes 4 digit number, while lat and lon are usually 2 and 3 digit numbers. The URL without those zeros seem to work just fine, so I will try to add this to the next update. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap updated

OpenStreetMap has been updated for some time. It's easier now: Right-click on the exact location the media was recorded. A little pop-up menu opens there. From the pop-up menu, select Show address.

I will therefore edit and put under comment, the old part so that someone more skilled can easily adjust as needed. I think that step 4. should be omitted or possibly adjusted, while everything after that should be much more edited and checked, which makes me a big problem. --Vhorvat (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps don't say Camera Location for pure audio files

We see the template makes:

Camera location	24° 10′ 54.08″ N, 120° 51′ 58.21″ E 	View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap

but there was no camera. We uploaded a .oga file! Jidanni (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Geosetter is broken

As of 2022-02-20, geosetter is broken - no one can load maps anymore. Given there have been no updates since 2019, I'm not convinced we'll see any fixes. Does anyone know of other software which allows geocoding via a map? I tried the two tools suggested: Microsoft Photo Pro just crashed, and Darktable seems very poor for mass-editing. Either way, it should probably be removed from the list.-mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

GeoSetter uses a map script that is hosted on geosetter.de and that has been adapted in the meantime. So, GeoSetter works again. PHolzwarth (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Find geotagged images without categories

Hello! Is there a simple solution to find images with coordinates (for a special area), but without categories? Maybe even a tool? Many thanks! j.budissin^+/- 14:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories Jim.henderson (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

404 - Not Found

"Things to do" mentions this tool (https://geocommons.toolforge.org/geocodingtodo) but seems like isn't working anymore. Ivanbranco (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't tell which pin is current image in dense photo areas

Please test "View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap" in an area with a dense amount of pictures. We can't tell which pin is the current image, as they are all buried together. Jidanni (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this scaling problem is buried fairly deep in the mapping parts of Commons and not just in the Geogroup template. I snap many pictures in the density of the New York metro area, and use WikiShootMe even though in some places it shows a sea of red or green rather than individual red or green dots for the various data points. This problem is not quite as severe in Geogroup, which uses small pins rather than wide dots. Probably the best way to improve it would be to allow a deeper zoom. Maybe there would be a small help if the current image were a different color. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Continental drift problem?

Example Australia has moved 1.5 metres since 1994: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-28/aust-latitude-longitude-coordinates-out-by-1-5m-scientists/7666858 Will there in Commons be problems about image geocoding in future? --Zunter (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Far as I know, nobody's worrying about it. I've been geotagging pictures in North America three centuries old or more, with the assumption that Broad Street Manhattan was where it is now, despite knowing that it was then a canal and few meters closer to Greenwich, so the coords I've been giving for a building on its eastern shore actually pointed at the middle of the canal in those days. People back then didn't know that the Atlantic was becoming wider but they knew their estimates of its width were likely to be off by a mile and they didn't worry as long as they had the correct distance from Broad Street to Broadway. In another century or three, the obsolescence of WGS-84, now forty years old, will be a real concern but currently nobody seems to be worrying. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)