Er, why don't we fix the template or just "park" the altitude as an advisory string within the template? Introducing elements of 3D to maps are not science fiction, and one can imagine over the next couple of years far more cameras will have accurate altitude data that would be quite handy for detailed mapping. Particularly where the height of the camera would benefit automatic creation of stitched models from multiple photographs. Fae

On 3 June 2012 12:45, Kolossos &lt;tim.alder(a)s2002.tu-chemnitz.de&gt; wrote: reason on with I agree, noise and also lag are a big issue (my camera often adds old GPS data to new photos before the GPS has had time to update itself, which can take several minutes from switching on). However we should consider design and metadata coping for future cameras with better accuracy. Perhaps on batch upload a user can have some options to ignore parts of the EXIF data that may be inaccurate or might be felt to be invading their privacy. As an example of the heading data, my photo here < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shop_window_with_mini_couture_manneq… has compass data unused in the EXIF (from a Sony HXV5). I always find the altitude data fails to be correctly interpreted (I have to delete what I think is the direction in degrees from the altitude string). It may be that the system might benefit from partially parsing with a bit more intelligence based on knowing the camera model rather than assuming standardization that may not be pragmatic. This may be especially useful in adding some estimate of camera accuracy for EXIF GPS information. Fae _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Example: {{Location|42|15.75|0|N|42|39.56|0|E|alt:153_source:exif_heading:122.141343}}