Talk:Geotagging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microformats
Geotagging is part of, or of interest to, WikiProject Microformats, which encourages the deployment of microformats in Wikipedia, and documents them in the article space. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 
WikiProject Geographical coordinates
WikiProject icon Geotagging is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 

split please[edit]

Geotagging is a process different from geomapping: Tagging is the action of puting tags with GPS information (numbers) in an object for instance a picture, geomapping is the process of displaying the picture or the location on a map, two different things. The articles should not be merged.

Mergers[edit]

There are outstanding merge proposals. Discuss below. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mergefrom Geoblogging[edit]

Approve. Geoblogging is just Geotagging of blog entries. Propose we add a section called "Applications of Geotagging" with a "Geoblogging" subsection and move some of the info from the Geoblogging page there. It doesn't have enough content to be a separate article. --Ishi Gustaedr 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of geotagging. If Geoblogging is geotagging blog entries, then geotagging photos should be equally described in this section, as well as geotagging of other data structures. It is ok to keep these types of geotagging listed here and a small definition associated with them, but further techniques specific to each type should have their own page, such as the geocoded photograph. Planeteye 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom Geotagged[edit]

The geotagged entry in Wikipedia represents a neutral URL that can be used for defining a geotagged tag using the rel=tag microformat. Some tagging systems define tags as simple strings, however Technorati have promoted a microformat for tagging denoted rel=tag. This microformat makes the href of the <a> tag in XHTML the definition of the tag, while the label is just a human readable visual cue.

The Technorati web site provides some examples; for example a tag relating to iPod might be encoded in XHTML as

<a href="http://apple.com/ipod" rel="tag">iPod</a>

whereas a tag relating to gravity might be encoded as

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity" rel="tag">Gravity</a>

If people wish to tag web content so as to indicate that it contains a spatial reference (i.e. that it has been geotagged) then I would propose that they be able to use

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotagged" rel="tag">geotagged</a>

Currently geotagging is mainly restricted to content (e.g. photos and bookmarks) hosted by social sites (e.g. Flickr and del.icio.us). But if it is to be possible to geotag content that is published individually (e.g. a blog entry) then it should be possible to geotag it using the rel=tag microformat. In turn this would benefit from a neutral URL such as could be offered by Wikipedia. -- 212.44.22.81, 15:57, 3 April 2006

Geotagging is however, unique from geoblogging. Geotagging refers in its name geo (location) and tagging (information). Therefore, you are tagging information onto a location. Sites like Flickr do not accomplish this, and should really be referred to as "photo-geoing," or attaching coordinates to a photograph.
Only sites like http://www.grapheety.com allow a location to be tagged, or blogged about. Hence geoblogging, or geotagging, geoblogging being the superset of geotagging including user information onto a geography in addition to tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talkcontribs)
"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotagged" rel="tag">geotagged</a>" will work, even if "geotagged" is redirected elesewhere. Andy Mabbett 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Geocoding vs Geotagging[edit]

Moved the following from the overview section because it is more like original research or a topic for discussion than an encylopedia entry: "But the utility of two terms roughly meaning the same thing can be discussed. In reference to the definitions of both terms, one could propose to call geocoding the global process of assigning geographic information to data, while geotagging would relate to a part of this general process, the action consisting in integrating the geocoding metadata in the basic information (e.g. EXIF metadata). The definition of geotagging should then be modified consequently. Thus, there would be a conceptual hierarchy between both terms, which can only enrich the language." Ishi Gustaedr 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The current overview states "Geotagging, sometimes referred to as Geocoding", which seems to ignore the proposed convention. If we follow the definitions of "code" and "tag", it follows that geocoding should be the practice of creating a code, in this case a geographic one, while geotagging should be the subsequent activity of assigning such code to something. I propose we remove the confusing reference to Geocoding. Planeteye 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is?[edit]

the article fails to spell out the point of geotagging; in what way do users benefit, and what must they do to achieve those benefits?

The article assumes that this commercial development is "a good thing", with zero evidence offered to support that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article that calls Geotagging "good" per se, as there shouldn't be. I assume you mean that by not calling it "a bad thing" it's by default calling it a "good" thing? No Wikipedia article needs to offer up evidence to support something being "good" or "bad." Unless the article is specifically about some controversy with opposing viewpoints that need to be identified, it really has no place here. Besides, the usefulness of Geotagging is described in the second paragraph:

Geotagging can help users find a wide variety of location-specific information. For instance, one can find images taken near a given location by entering latitude and longitude coordinates into a suitable image search engine. Geotagging-enabled information services can also potentially be used to find location-based news, websites, or other resources.[1] Geotagging can tell users the location of the content of a given picture or other media or the point of view, and conversely on some media platforms show media relevant to a given location.

Xwerdna (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" section[edit]

This isn't writing about Wikipedia; it's howto information on actually working with Wikipedia which belongs on the Wikipedia namespace. It should either be significantly reworked or removed. Given that there's little to be salvaged from it other than the line "Wikipedia can include geotagging information", I think the latter is the sensible course of action. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here, following WP:ASR and keeping it in Wikipedia namespace has the advantage of less maintenance and more centralized discussions as WP:CCC, its helpfull but for maintenance reasons, remove. Mion (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Its even a bit overdone to mention it on Geotagging, in every place where Template:Coord is used, Coordinates: is linked to Geographic_coordinate_system with on top "For the use of coordinates on Wikipedia pages see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates". Mion (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I do think it's WAWI - specifically as an illustrative of the subject. The more different approaches to the use and result of geotagging, the more width the article gains. I personally don't see much howto in the current five lines, but more an way of doing the actual tagging, just as with the machinetag example. Remember this is just an illustration with geotagging as the entry-point, not the opposite. --Hebster (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GeoTagging or Geotagging[edit]

I am have a bit trouble weither it is GeoTagging or Geotagging? Wikipedia seems a little inconsistent about this and from what i can see this article was originally named GeoTagging? Why was it changed? Also the main community about this issue using the term GeoTagging (http://www.flickr.com/groups/geotagging/) rather than Geotagging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.158.101 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of religion more than anything else i think. One of the problems with Wikipedia, is that it's most seasoned users typically are computernerds or similar, and thus they view everything from that perspective. In that perspective the CamelCasing is a bad thing and they'll do everything possible to fight it. A suggestion to move it was turned down earlier this year, because a googlefight indicated Geotagging is more common than GeoTagging. Anyway - i think that GeoTagging is more a traditional way of writing it, than the most common Geotagging these days... --Hebster (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


GPS Formats?[edit]

Are we sure this graph is right? On the fist line of the graph, it says that Western coordinates are notated with a minus sign. In the example we see "-98.76." Then the next line shows the reader how to use degrees and decimal minutes along with the abbreviation for North, South, East, and West. And then in the example we see "98° 76.54′ E." If the previous example showed "-98.76," shouldn't the second example show "98° 76.54′ W?" I've never edited a Widipedia page and I have too much respect for this site to just jump in. I guess I'm pointing this out so that those who are far more experienced with this site might make the corrections (if they are necessary; if not, please explain...). Thanks! ~~Skip

Example[edit]

Can we find a suitable, and decorative, geo-tagged image to use in this article,? We could even then use its geodata in the example hex dump. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How about File:Jan_Joubert's_Gat_Bridge.jpg, which I used as an example in File:Geotagging_gThumb.png when looking for an image with the same criteria (decorative+geotagged) --nandhp (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Geotagging in tag-based systems - Unsure of meaning[edit]

I'm unsure what the following text is trying to say?

Both Panoramio (which is focused on showing geotagged pictures of the world) and Flickr, has the generated and place a picture from JPEG-metadata coordinates (as described above).

--ThoughtCloud (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Geotagging video[edit]

It would be nice with some examples of the technologies behind geotagging video. As in, which formats supports this meta-information, is the information restricted to just one point (as opposed to several locations or a path for a recording in motion). -- Penguin (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Geotagging is possible for more than pictures and videos[edit]

Geotagging is a general thing in earth sciences and sometimes called georeferencing. According to this the articles should be merged and the possible examples of geotagging should be subsections of this merged articles section 'Examples'. Examples I face every day are:

  1. Speciments / Samples (Geology, Biology, Ocean Sciences, Geophysics, etc.) from everywhere in the world
  2. Litrature or to be more precise scientific articles (since these articles are based on the samples mentioned above they can be geotagged as well)
  3. Pictures
  4. Video

Cheers Dirk fleischer (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Low value links[edit]

This contribution (and the following ones) in which Loki racer repeatedly adds external links to the article is not welcome. Firstly he/she deletes a reference, which is a well written magazine article that discusses a number of products relevant to the subject of the article. Secondly he/she adds several software products with embedded external links. I don't have issues with the products themselves, although Wikipedia is not a directory, but I do object strongly to external links. These are governed by WP:ELNO and in this case simply don't add any value to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a problem with the article on directionsmag.com either. Right now the links are removed, but I don't see the relevance of this statement: " Examples include GPS-Photo Link, Alta4, EveryTrail, or EasyGPS." either. There are a bunch of other programmes out there as well that could be put in as examples - why these? I think it is better to remove them all together to avoid WP:NOTDIR. --Heb (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully and if you want to remove the examples go ahead. I put them in (minus external links) as a compromise because Loki racer seems quite passionate that they should be listed, but ultimately WP:NOTDIR dictates they are redundant/unnecessary. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Biker Biker added talks about one product only, and that product is produced by the writer of the "article". It's also over 2 years old, which is like a decade in technology years. How is this more valuable than actually listing a few of the applications (I only added a link to the freeware software) that actually correspond with what is being talked about. Nothing in the WP:ELNO says that website that offer services or products that do exactly what is being talked about in the article can't be mentioned or linked. The links don't degrade from the article and make it easier for someone unfamiliar with geotagging photos to begin finding applications that can help them. Obviously if each of these applications / services had a Wikipedia page, I would link to those, which would have reference links in the footer, but these applications don't have their own pages and probably never will, so I link directly to the websites. --Loki racer (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the applications you mention do not have articles should be an indication of why they shouldn't also be linked to. Wikipedia is not a directory, so listing a number of applications like you did is unnecessary. As for the magazine article, have you read it beyond the introduction? It seems well written and is balanced, not giving preference to any particular vendor even though it is written by somebody from the industry. I can't see what your objections are. If you can find a suitable category in the DMOZ Open Directory - http://dmoz.org - then you could list that in the article using the {{dmoz}} template in the external links section of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the article? It's written by an employee of the only geotagging application mentioned. It's titled "Camera Options" which has nothing to do with geotagging applications, which is what you have been removing. The article is also over 2 years old. These cameras mentioned aren't even for sale anymore. You keep saying Wikipedia isn't a directory. Says who? There are hundreds of pages that are directories for this; OS pages, modchips, wireless routers, on and on. Keep saying I added the list of applications / services. I listed one, the freeware one, which I did so that people interested in seeing what geotagging application options are available would be aware of a freeware option. Remove them if you want, but they clearly add to the article, while your linked article is either a paid ad by you or you finding a random article to link to. --Loki racer (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So if a person works at company, he/she can't be used as a reliable source for general information in that field? That's not gonna fly. It's not about the specific software (which is only mentioned once or twice I think), but the general principles, which I think the article covers fine. There are probably alternatives that does that as well. Regarding the "Wikipedia isn't a directory" question, it's a policy - and has been for quite some time: WP:NOTDIR. --Heb (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said the author wasn't reliable. Please leave your strawman arguments at the door. I said that the article is 2 years old and not relevant to this part of the page. This part of the page is talking about options for people that don't have GPS integrated in their cameras. The linked article that Biker Biker linked to talked about one software (the writer's software) and then moves to talking about camera hardware. You and Biker Biker need to stop being internet trolls. I've shut down every argument you've made for keeping these links and not using Biker Biker's, and instead of admitting that the software I linked to adds value to the article, you move to other arguments. Show me a Wikipedia rule that says relevant software or services that lack their own Wikipedia page can't be linked to or mentioned. --Loki racer (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Having been a regular user of the Internet since 1996, that is in fact the first time anybody has named me a troll. I guess there really is a first for everything... @User:Loki racer, did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't write that the author wasn't reliable. You wrote "It's written by an employee of the only geotagging application mentioned" and the only reason to write that, is that you believe that, that is a disqualifying parameter for a source. If you had another intention with that statement, please bring it forward, and accept my apologies. I doubt you'll find a Wikipedia-rule/-guideline/-policy, that specifically prohibits linking to "relevant software or services that lack their own Wikipedia page", as these are in mostly of a rather general nature. WP:NOTDIR still comes to mind though - did you read that? On a side-note, I find your language slightly agressive and not really respectful and civil mannered. As per the 5 pillars (the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates), this should be strived for along with Wikipedia:Consensus, which I don't feel you are looking much towards either :( V/R Heb (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you drunk? First you claim that I called the article unreliable. Which I didn't. Then you say that I claim you said the article was unreliable. Which I didn't. The article is biased by the fact that it's written by an employee of a geotagging software company. Plus the fact that it's over 2 years old. Plus the fact that it's about hardware not software, which is what the link I recommended is about. So, since there's no rule about linking to applications/software that are relevant to the subject, you can kindly put my links back in. I'm sorry you're sensitive about my language. I don't take kindly to people telling me to check the rules about something, when no said rule exists. --Loki racer (talk) 20:45, 02 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Are you drunk" - please cease personal attacks like this or you will be blocked from further editing. If you want to be taken seriously then behave appropriately. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We have heard your arguments but disagree. As Heb points out, it looks like you have not read WP:NOTDIR and it seems to me that you have not read WP:ELNO. As for your argument about two year old articles - what is wrong with that? It is useful to have a reference that shows what rapidly-chaning technology was like at a specific point in time - and this would be ideally complemented by a recently published source setting out how things are now. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's called a question, not an attack. An attack would be calling someone a tool for quoting rules that don't exist. I'm sorry you disagree, but you Heb already admitted there's no rule saying people can't link to software. You'll block me? Over what? Dude, get a grip. Your talk page history is full of people complaining about your tactics. --Loki racer (talk) 22:39, 02 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misread me a bit. I never wrote that you claimed the article where unreliable nor that I said it was reliable. I merely quetions that just because, the author might or might not have an economical interrest in a given written piece, doesn't mean it can't be used as a unreliable source. The authors affiliation with said company is clearly stated, so I don't think the bias is a problem in regards to WP:IRS. This of course may be discussed on WP:RSN. And for reference wasn't drunk then and isn't now. --Heb (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)