Talk:Real-time geotagging

Wireless data transfer is essential

Eh? Why is "Wireless data transfer is essential for auto-geotagging because it allows for real-time mapping of media." Why can't a camera tag its photos without such transfer? My Nikon P-6000 has been doing it for more than a year. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I explained in my edit comment, what you're doing with card swapping is geotagging. It's not auto-geotagging as it's described in this article. It's not real-time, and it doesn't relay the information back to an application as you take the photo. It's the real-time nature and the automatic reporting of the information to the central server which makes the "Auto-" part of Auto-geotagging. Essentially, if you want to relay the information in real-time, then you really do need wireless data transfer, because relaying the information immediately via a cable generally isn't possible in the field (where you have GPS signal). Thrapper (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so your saying, autogeotagging doesn't mean automatic geotagging. It means instantly sending the tag elsewhere. The nature of the name as a misnomer, not to be taken in its most obvious, literal sense, ought to be cited and explained early and explicitly. Thus far, the only citation we have is a CNET article using the term in the literal and obvious sense, with no mention of either instantly using or instantly sending either the picture or its metadata anywhere. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding, yes. I thought the explanation of the meaning was made clear in the very first sentence of this article, although I agree that a citation would be useful. But if auto-geotagging did just mean automatic geotagging (or even just semi-automatic as you imply) then it certainly wouldn't deserve its own page on wikipedia, it should all go in the geotagging page. Thrapper (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confident someone somewhere is doing or wishes to do the kind of real time interaction with geotagging you're discussing. I just haven't been able to find a hint of it in a little casual Googling. I did find a few mentions of plain automatic geotagging under that name, including both the in-camera kind and this one that predicts that the tagging will happen on upload, perhaps hours or months after the picture is snapped. Instantaneous wireless interaction sounds like fun, if it actually starts happening, and seems to me as much a location-based service as a geotagging one, which may be a good reason for preserving this article separate from the general geotag one. That is, if we can find good citations that such a thing exists, or is seriously in preparation, thus justifying a paragraph or at least a sentence in this auto-geotagging article. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See for example MapWith.Us. I'm not sure if they invented the term or not. Thrapper (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

All righty, we've got an example even if it is relatively recently born, and even if it is capable of waiting until I get home and plug in to upload the pictures of Nancy's trail that my camera automatically geotagged hours or months ago. If this service doesn't grow, probably another example will, and it should get a mention and a link, though not in the first paragraph. This does not make such a service into a part of the definition or essence of autogeotagging, since the term is already in fairly widespread use where such a service is not implied. So, after the definition and discussion of methods, there should be a paragraph for applications, which should include a sentence pointing out that autogeotagging is used for some purposes which are ineffective or inconvenient without a live, wireless upload.

I'll be busy the next couple days due to handling a bunch of autotagged June pix and some not yet tagged, and spending tomorrow bicycling with my favorite biker gang to Lookout Inn on the Palisades to snap new autogeotagged pictures, so please see what you can do along approximately these lines. That is, along these lines unless I'm wrong about what's essential to what.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me. If you want to talk about geotagging, why not do it in the Geotagging article? This article is about real-time, immediate, publishing of automatically-uploaded, automatically geotagged information. Do you have any objection to me undoing your undo of my undo, or do you want to divert this article to discussing geotagging in general as well as the geotagging article (and thereby duplicating content)? Thrapper (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; been busy chasing photographic opportunities and didn't make myself clear. No, I'm not suggesting that this article be diverted to a general discussion of geotagging including the manual geotagging on which I spent most of this morning. What I am suggesting is to follow the usual Wikipedia:Article titles idea of using the common and obvious names of things. Far as I can see with a little Google searching, the term Auto-Geotagging is most commonly used in the broad and obvious sense of automatic geotagging. Yes, surely it is also used in a narrower sense, and this narrow sense with its corresponding application activities should also be discussed here. Perhaps such usage should even take up the majority of text. However, the usual, broad usage of the term should not be denied on grounds that some people also use it in a narrower sense. Real-time, automatic uploading is essential to certain auto-geotagging applications, and not to others, and as far as I see that's what the article should make clear, unless someone sees a reason why it should deny the existence of ordinary autogeotagging. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me then, that your only complaint is the title of the page, and I'd definitely agree with you there. How about moving this page to Real-time geotagging then? And keeping the requirement for wireless comms? Again, both manual and automatic geotagging (without real-time publishing) are already covered by geotagging and (in my opinion) don't require separate pages of their own. Thrapper (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. I take it as highly important that the encyclopedia not say things that aren't true. The question of survival or extinction for this separate article, and under what name, may also matter but it definitely matters less. If a name change is what is needed to include a discussion of the needs of a particular case without saying something more general that isn't true, it's a surprise but not a great disappointment. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your flowery language indicates dissatisfaction, but I think we're in agreement. Of course we're trying to say things which are true, and we're also trying to say them clearly. Renaming the article does (I hope) make clearer the distinction between automatic and real-time. So yes, I think the name of the rose does matter. Please read through my changes and see if you still think that it contains things which are too general or untrue. Thrapper (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Flowery? How flattering. I still don't see why the change had to be in the article's name rather than merely in the words of the intro, but that's among the many mysteries in Wikipedia and the world that are protected from solution by their lack of importance. What's good is, the article still discusses auto-geotagging in general, and clearly distinguishes the specific case designated by the new name. Perhaps some of the geotagging article, or of geocoded photograph, should be moved into here. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)