Talk:Geotagging/Archives/2012

split please

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

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

Mergefrom Geoblogging

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

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 (talk • contribs)

"<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

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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)