"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.