Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
Reason I ask is that there is more and more geographic tagging of pictures starting to happen (e.g. http://www.panoramio.com/ ). If we take a large repository of images like Commons, and add geographic tags (long + lat) to those images (maybe with a bot based on the that articles that include them, and that in turn have geographic tags included), then you could very quickly build a very large and powerful repository of images, that are tied to specific points on the globe .... which could be, y'know, be kinda cool, because then you could potentially search for images on Commons based on location, and it could come back with a whole list of images, in progressively increasing distance from the point that you just specified.
So using London as an example, say you search for a point near Big Ben (by clicking on a map or something), and you'd get back pictures of Big Ben, then the Houses of Parliament, and the Thames River, then the London Eye, and so forth - so you would get an immersive image search, perhaps in some ways more powerful than what we have currently.
But that's just half of it - because then you could do it the other way around too, and you could add a geographic tag to articles, and then it could suggest some pictures that you might want to add to your article, because they're close to the point you just specified. And the best bit: No language or translation problems - because Longitude and Latitude are universal, language-neutral things - so it would help _every_ Wikipedia.
Of course, to do this stuff, it would be nice to have some sort of structure to specifying Long + Lat, possibly something more low-level than just a template, because you'd want it to be readily and quickly searchable & indexable. And if you're going to do it for images, maybe it should be done for articles too - that way you could say "find me other articles that are about somewhere close to the article that I am currently looking at", and it could work automatically, without having to manually add links. _Maybe_ you'd be looking at extra columns in the database, which gets tricky, because it's extra baggage that might not relevant to some wikis or some articles (although it is _very_ relevant to many articles in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, and it's exceedingly relevant to images because every image was taken somewhere on earth, or looking at something on earth, apart from the 0.0001% taken in space exploration).
This starts to get bogged down in some of the questions related to Semantic wikis, but I'm thinking of something much simpler - longitude + latitude only.
Thoughts?
-- All the best, Nick.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I like this idea. Not only does it add more encyclopaedic value to the images we have on Commons - thus boosting all of Wikipedia's primary functions - it could also be useful to other projects. One thing I have in mind is Wikinews, the project I am most involved in, can instead find images of mountains or towns in the vicinity of the news event, rather than just a plain map each time. Longitude and Latitude will make this 100x easier if the files aren't named properly or we don't know the name of a town or whatnot.
~ Paul Williams ~ User:Skenmy
"Paul Williams" paul@skenmy.com wrote in message news:465FE4F1.4030703@skenmy.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I like this idea. Not only does it add more encyclopaedic value to the images we have on Commons - thus boosting all of Wikipedia's primary functions - it could also be useful to other projects. One thing I have in mind is Wikinews, the project I am most involved in, can instead find images of mountains or towns in the vicinity of the news event, rather than just a plain map each time. Longitude and Latitude will make this 100x easier if the files aren't named properly or we don't know the name of a town or whatnot.
However, a single long/lat pair is not enough. For example, [[George W. Bush]] would need (at a minimum) New Haven, Connecticut (birth place), Austin, Texas (state governor) and of course, Washington DC.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
2007/6/1, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk:
However, a single long/lat pair is not enough. For example, [[George W. Bush]] would need (at a minimum) New Haven, Connecticut (birth place), Austin, Texas (state governor) and of course, Washington DC.
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture. Thus, if the picture is taken at a specific place (the UN, his Texas ranch, whatever) it's geotagged for that place. If there is no specific place, it is not geotagged at all.
<snip>
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture. Thus, if the picture is taken at a specific place (the UN, his Texas ranch, whatever) it's geotagged for that place. If there is no specific place, it is not geotagged at all.
Exactly.... it depends on each picture..not adding a pair for every possible place..for instance..how many pairs you will add for .. say a famous dolphin swimming in the ocean? :)
"Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com wrote in message news:6faf39c90706010637v333c7b15tae1b7290fe4ba34a@mail.gmail.com...
2007/6/1, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk:
However, a single long/lat pair is not enough. For example, [[George W. Bush]] would need (at a minimum) New Haven, Connecticut (birth place), Austin, Texas (state governor) and of course, Washington DC.
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture. Thus, if the picture is taken at a specific place (the UN, his Texas ranch, whatever) it's geotagged for that place. If there is no specific place, it is not geotagged at all.
Oops - a bit of confusion here. I was referring to tagging articles on Wikipedia, not images on commons.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Andre Engels wrote:
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture.
I agree. And this also applies in the small. A photo of the Eiffel tower should not be tagged with the location of the tower, but the photographer's location when she took that photo.
2007/6/4, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se:
Andre Engels wrote:
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture.
I agree. And this also applies in the small. A photo of the Eiffel tower should not be tagged with the location of the tower, but the photographer's location when she took that photo.
Well, there I don't agree. In my opinion the geolocation should give the location of the objects that are on the photo, not of where it is taken. Look at it from a usability point of view: I recently was in a Hungary, and from an old castle on a hill next to the Danube River took a picture of the village on the other side of the river. When would someone like to use that picture in Wikipedia or a Wikibook or whatever? When they're talking about the village, I assume. Much more likely than that they would do so if they're talking about the castle.
Why is this discussion taking place on the tech list istead of the appropriate commons project page which I posted a few days ago?! The issues have been discussed by the people who are involved in the project. This seems to be a typical color of the bikeshed discussion...
Again, if you'd like to contribute pease do so at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Geocoding not every one involved at the Geocoding project is reading this list!
Hoi, orange .. as I was told in kindergarten .. the most beautiful colour. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/4/07, Dschwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Why is this discussion taking place on the tech list istead of the appropriate commons project page which I posted a few days ago?! The issues have been discussed by the people who are involved in the project. This seems to be a typical color of the bikeshed discussion...
Again, if you'd like to contribute pease do so at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Geocoding not every one involved at the Geocoding project is reading this list!
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Andre Engels wrote:
When would someone like to use that picture in Wikipedia or a Wikibook or whatever? When they're talking about the village, I assume.
This position is untenable. Have you tried to geotag any significant amount of images that way? You cannot accurately measure the latitude and longitude of the object you are capturing. It might be quite large. Or it might be two different objects at different locations (another building in the foreground and the Eiffel tower far behind). The only sustainable policy is to register the point position of the photographer and, if possible, the pointing direction of the lens. If you want to find photos of the Eiffel tower, you need to search for photos that are tagged in a surrounding region.
There is a discussion and illustration at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocoded_photograph
On 6/4/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
When would someone like to use that picture in Wikipedia or a Wikibook or whatever? When they're talking about the village, I assume.
This position is untenable. Have you tried to geotag any significant amount of images that way? You cannot accurately measure the latitude and longitude of the object you are capturing. It might be quite large. Or it might be two different objects at different locations (another building in the foreground and the Eiffel tower far behind). The only sustainable policy is to register the point position of the photographer and, if possible, the pointing direction of the lens.
If you're going to do that, might as well include some indication of the effective focal length.
But that's far from the *only* sustainable policy. In fact, in some cases it is impossible to know the position of the photographer but it is possible to know the position of the subject. A good geotagging system is going to allow for both - informally if not formally.
If you want to find
photos of the Eiffel tower, you need to search for photos that are tagged in a surrounding region.
So a satellite photo of the Eiffel tower would be tagged with the position of the satellite? Doesn't seem reasonable.
There is a discussion and illustration at
Right, take that photo in the example and pretend we don't know the position of the photographer. Also assume we don't know the focal length, or type of camera, or even whether or not the image has been cropped. There's no easy way to extract the location of the photographer from just that photograph. You can, however, tag the image with the location of one of the two buildings, or even both of the two buildings. If you do know the location of the photographer, you could even tag all three points, hopefully with some metadata saying that one of the three points was the photographer's location.
"Anthony" wikitech@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90706040629s193d5845q277b8233044f3ad4@mail.gmail.com...
Right, take that photo in the example and pretend we don't know the
position
of the photographer. Also assume we don't know the focal length, or type
of
camera, or even whether or not the image has been cropped. There's no
easy
way to extract the location of the photographer from just that photograph. You can, however, tag the image with the location of one of the two buildings, or even both of the two buildings. If you do know the location of the photographer, you could even tag all three points, hopefully with some metadata saying that one of the three points was the photographer's location.
So it appears that my suggestion that the possibilty of adding multiple named tags (rather than just a single co-ordinate pair) would actually be useful on commons after all...
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk:
"Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com wrote
2007/6/1, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk:
However, a single long/lat pair is not enough. For example, [[George
W.
Bush]] would need (at a minimum) New Haven, Connecticut (birth place), Austin, Texas (state governor) and of course, Washington DC.
I disagree. The geotagging, in my opinion, should show the location of the photograph, not all location corresponding with the subjects on the picture. Thus, if the picture is taken at a specific place (the UN, his Texas ranch, whatever) it's geotagged for that place. If there is no specific place, it is not geotagged at all.
Oops - a bit of confusion here. I was referring to tagging articles on Wikipedia, not images on commons.
On 6/4/07, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
"Anthony" wikitech@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90706040629s193d5845q277b8233044f3ad4@mail.gmail.com ...
Right, take that photo in the example and pretend we don't know the
position
of the photographer. Also assume we don't know the focal length, or
type of
camera, or even whether or not the image has been cropped. There's no
easy
way to extract the location of the photographer from just that
photograph.
You can, however, tag the image with the location of one of the two buildings, or even both of the two buildings. If you do know the
location
of the photographer, you could even tag all three points, hopefully with some metadata saying that one of the three points was the photographer's location.
So it appears that my suggestion that the possibilty of adding multiple named tags (rather than just a single co-ordinate pair) would actually be useful on commons after all...
IMO, yes. [[Image:Nationalmuseum.jpg]] for instance is tagged with two locations, that of the photographer, and that of the subject.
I also noticed something - [[Image:Nationalmuseum.jpg]] gives a "Subject distance" of 65.535 metres, which is significantly closer than the museum, at 270 meters. So using that figure probably doesn't make a lot of sense, as a photographer is often going to focus in front of the actual subject of a picture (see [[hyperfocal distance]], for instance).
On 01/06/07, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
Probably not, but there are lots of features that don't seem likely to exist in MW any time soon that would be useful for image management.
You will probably be interested in this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_with_locations
for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AT_Hoher_Ifen_pano360.jpg click on the "earth" icon before the co-ordinates for a cool surprise... it's called the WikiMiniAtlas and was created by User:Dschwen.
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
With such an interface you can easily choose the photos where the camera was pointing towards the object you're interested of, and additionally choose which side of the object to see without knowing anything else about the photos yet. If they were tagged with the object location only, like Wikipedia articles are, you would have to go through all of them. This method is far superior to browsing a gallery with views sorted by each side of the object.
And as was mentioned a few times already, please read up on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Geocoding.
<small>the Commons data in the screenshot doesn't reflect the present state of our geocoding</small>
On 6/4/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in
Commons to maximum advantage?
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
With such an interface you can easily choose the photos where the camera was pointing towards the object you're interested of, and additionally choose which side of the object to see without knowing anything else about the photos yet. If they were tagged with the object location only, like Wikipedia articles are, you would have to go through all of them.
Location and direction is much better than location only, but one can provide direction information along with the subject location as well. There are some situations where this could be quite useful - if one was looking for a photograph of the top of the Empire State Building, for instance, they would have a difficult time using a system where photos were only tagged with a two-dimensional photographer location and a one-dimensional direction (three dimensional photographer location and two-dimensional direction might help if you have a good search system). (OTOH, if one were looking for a photo taken *from* the top of the Empire State Building, tagging photographer location would be a far superior tagging system. Having both tags available would be best.)
And then, of course, there's the problem with aerial/satellite photography, in which the photographer can be incredibly far from the subject location; and the problem where the photographer location can't be easily determined.
para wrote:
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
With such an interface you can easily choose the photos where the camera was pointing towards the object you're interested of, and additionally choose which side of the object to see without knowing anything else
I think you should start with the center point, the Tower, select all nearby photos where the lens points in its general direction, enumerate these photos in a counter-clockwise direction, and display thumbnails of the photos:
Tower ^ | <---D A--> B C | V
Here, photo B is not selected because the lens points away from the target. But A, C and D are included in that order, CCW as seen from the target. Thumbnails are presented almost like a panorama:
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | A | | C | | D | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
That is very cool. It's very close to what I was imagining as the best-case scenario.
Showing both the heading, as well as the position that the image was taken from, is great.
I also really like that's displaying live data. For example, I uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taronga-Zoo-before-bird-show-pano.jp... with co-ordinates, then 60 seconds later went to the specified co-ordinates in Google Earth, and there it was!
My two "... and a pony" blue-sky wishlist items would be:
* Running in Google Maps as well, not only Google Earth. (Don't get me wrong - I think Google Earth is fantastic, but it is a barrier to entry - almost everyone has a browser installed that'll run Google Maps, but far fewer people have Google Earth installed, plus want to fire-up a separate app). I'm not certain, but I'm guessing that http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dschwen/commons_geo/map.html is not using Google Maps (e.g. double-clicking doesn't zoom in or centre the map, rolling the mouse wheel does zoom in or out, and the tile set doesn't look familiar)
* Ability to write, not just read: ** Use-case #1: Ability to drag an image from some list of thumbnail images (e.g. "all photos I have uploaded that don't have geotags"), and drop it straight onto the map, at the correct position, and have it place a Commons marker at the drop point. Maybe the marker could then be twisted / reoriented somehow to indicate the direction that camera was facing when the picture was taken. Changes get written back to Commons. ** Use-case #2: See an image that someone else has placed, and think it's close, but not exactly in the right place. Click on it, drag it, drop it in correct place, changes get written back to Commons.
If both of the above existed, then it might be feasible to give people the option of marking where their photo was taken on a map, straight after they have uploaded them - which has got to be the ideal, because the best person to know where a photo was taken is the person who took it.
Anyway, there's a trivial canned mock-up, very crude and totally non-dynamic, which does nothing, apart from having a single hard-coded clickable & draggable image, at http://maps.nickj.org/
-- All the best, Nick.
Nick Jenkins wrote:
Anyway, there's a trivial canned mock-up, very crude and totally non-dynamic, which does nothing, apart from having a single hard-coded clickable & draggable image, at http://maps.nickj.org/
Simple, but hot. Any chance you could enable mixing in the satellite photographs as well, to provide a temporary tool while we wait for the real thing? ;-)
Nick Jenkins wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
That is very cool. It's very close to what I was imagining as the best-case scenario.
[...]
My two "... and a pony" blue-sky wishlist items would be:
[...]
All these technologies have their limitations: Google Maps doesn't support dynamic retrieval of data, Google Earth doesn't support client side programming or real user interaction with the server, and MediaWiki doesn't support easy contributions by proxy. Someone on [[Commons:Geocoding]] suggested using Google's new "mapplets", which might help with some items on the wish list. Same goes for Google Earth COM API. Google Maps sort of reads KML and showing the images there works already*, though only partially. It needs work, but for the reasons mentioned above I haven't started. Also as the WikiMiniAtlas is already embedded on Commons, I'm sure it can and will be developed in such a way that it'll interest more people in geocoding their images.
For tagging images there's a number of tools listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates, and with a quick look at least http://perso.orange.fr/universimmedia/geo/loc.htm and http://www.giswiki.org/hjl_get_CoorE.htm work through Google Maps. Nick's version looks more attractive for some reason though, I'm not sure why. Maybe I've grown a liking to the Commons logo.
The suggestions are good and having all that in one place would be great, but as far as I can see, it's not doable today.
On 6/5/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Jenkins wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in
Commons to maximum advantage?
User:Para has also created something that works with Google Earth, which I haven't yet tried out: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/
People, take a look at the screenshot at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/GeoCommons/GeoCommons.jpg to see what's available right now.
That is very cool. It's very close to what I was imagining as the
best-case scenario.
[...]
My two "... and a pony" blue-sky wishlist items would be:
[...]
All these technologies have their limitations: Google Maps doesn't support dynamic retrieval of data, Google Earth doesn't support client side programming or real user interaction with the server
And neither of them are free content. OSM, on the other hand, is under by-sa 2.0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=51.5051631373556&mlon=-0.07...
Anthony
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikitech@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
All these technologies have their limitations: Google Maps doesn't support dynamic retrieval of data, Google Earth doesn't support client side programming or real user interaction with the server
And neither of them are free content. OSM, on the other hand, is under by-sa 2.0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=51.5051631373556&mlon=-0.07...
Another free content map site based on the OSM data - this one includes photos from Geograph (may have to move the map around a little to see them): http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php?lat=51.51244327818918&lon=-...
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikitech@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikitech@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
All these technologies have their limitations: Google Maps doesn't support dynamic retrieval of data, Google Earth doesn't support client side programming or real user interaction with the server
And neither of them are free content. OSM, on the other hand, is under by-sa 2.0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=51.5051631373556&mlon=-0.07...
Another free content map site based on the OSM data - this one includes photos from Geograph (may have to move the map around a little to see them): http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php?lat=51.51244327818918&lon=-...
Maybe we could convince openstreetmap.org to support kml. http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html
All data is cc-by-sa, software is GFDL (they're using MediaWiki for docs!:-). No satellite images, though.
Magnus
On 6/5/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikitech@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, Anthony wikitech@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/5/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
All these technologies have their limitations: Google Maps doesn't support dynamic retrieval of data, Google Earth doesn't support
client
side programming or real user interaction with the server
And neither of them are free content. OSM, on the other hand, is
under
by-sa 2.0:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=51.5051631373556&mlon=-0.07...
Another free content map site based on the OSM data - this one includes photos from Geograph (may have to move the map around a little to see
them):
http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php?lat=51.51244327818918&lon=-...
Maybe we could convince openstreetmap.org to support kml. http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html
All data is cc-by-sa, software is GFDL (they're using MediaWiki for docs!:-). No satellite images, though.
That'd be GPL, not GFDL :)
Maybe we could convince openstreetmap.org to support kml. http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html
Yeah, or create a more detailed basemap for the WikiMiniAtlas... ...which incidentely I'm working on!
May I suggest again that you guys hold your horses on this list.
It is fairly discouraging for someone who spent _months_ of work to develop an add-on to Wikipedia/Commons to see people on some mailing list who have just spent a few minutes with the material make suggestions to toss all the work out the window.
Please please try to inform yourself about the current status of the Geocoding projects _before_ you start a parallel discussion about how to make everything "way" better. This is very unproductive. Especially as some conclusions from the list have been reached months ago on the project page already, making this thread seem like - sorry - a show off for whippersnappers.
On 6/6/07, Dschwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Maybe we could convince openstreetmap.org to support kml. http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html
Yeah, or create a more detailed basemap for the WikiMiniAtlas... ...which incidentely I'm working on!
May I suggest again that you guys hold your horses on this list.
It is fairly discouraging for someone who spent _months_ of work to develop an add-on to Wikipedia/Commons to see people on some mailing list who have just spent a few minutes with the material make suggestions to toss all the work out the window.
Please please try to inform yourself about the current status of the Geocoding projects _before_ you start a parallel discussion about how to make everything "way" better. This is very unproductive. Especially as some conclusions from the list have been reached months ago on the project page already, making this thread seem like - sorry - a show off for whippersnappers.
Anything based around Google Maps and Google Earth is not going to be interesting to me, as they are both proprietary systems, with both proprietary maps and proprietary software. Useful as a proof of concept, perhaps, but if these systems can't be adapted to the world outside the Google Empire, then as far as I'm concerned they might as well be tossed out the window. (Incidentally, I doubt it's the case that the work can't at all be adapted to other systems.)
I thought it might be interesting to some people on this list to know that there are people out there working on open source systems to rival the proprietary Google ones. [[NASA World Wind]] (which includes a plugin to load .kml files BTW) and [[OpenStreetMap]] are two of the most promising projects in this area, though World Wind (free software similar to Google Earth) is currently Windows-only.
If anyone else knows of some other free projects to be aware of please do post them on this list.
Anthony
On 6/5/07, para wikipara@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki doesn't support easy contributions by proxy.
Can't you use the bot API for that?
Hoi, Obviously the person you would blame now as well; the bot operator. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
On 6/5/07, para wrote:
MediaWiki doesn't support easy contributions by proxy.
Can't you use the bot API for that?
Nice, but who should we blame when the bot starts putting (dragging) the Big Ben on Paris and the Eiffel Tower on Washington? ;-)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 6/6/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
On 6/5/07, para wrote:
MediaWiki doesn't support easy contributions by proxy.
Can't you use the bot API for that?
Nice, but who should we blame when the bot starts putting (dragging) the Big Ben on Paris and the Eiffel Tower on Washington? ;-)
Whatever IP actually did the action. It should be possible to add the bot's IP to the trusted XFF list so the IP that makes the edit isn't the bot, it's the real IP. Of course you'll need policy framework, etc., etc.
You also have such a thing as reversion.
starting to happen (e.g. http://www.panoramio.com/ ). If we take a large repository of images like Commons, and add geographic tags (long + lat) to those images (maybe with a bot based on the that articles that include
Please have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Geocoding
On 6/1/07, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
Just thinking out loud here, but are we using our photographs in Commons to maximum advantage?
Hell no. Not even close. Poor category tagging, poor category design, poor article design, poor image naming...lack of geotags is the least of our worries.
Steve
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org