Location Tagging

[Joseph Cermak]

Had a question I wanted to pose to members of the forum. When geotagging a photo of a train, should you tag where you were standing when the photo was taken, or tag where the position of the train was? People I've talked to seem to be pretty evenly split one way or the other. I prefer to tag where the photographer was standing for the purposes of looking where a shot was composed from, as well as that is the location tagged in EXIF when using a camera with that capability. Interested what others have to say. Thanks!

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

Had a question I wanted to pose to members of the forum. When geotagging a photo of a train, should you tag where you were standing when the photo was taken, or tag where the position of the train was? People I've talked to seem to be pretty evenly split one way or the other. I prefer to tag where the photographer was standing for the purposes of looking where a shot was composed from, as well as that is the location tagged in EXIF when using a camera with that capability. Interested what others have to say. Thanks!

This was debated in a thread not so long ago.

Let's consider, say a building rather than a train. Would you rather see the exact spot where the building stands, or the spot where some random person was gazing at the building?

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

This was debated in a thread not so long ago.

I thought there was too but I couldn't seem to find it, not that searching something in the forum is particularly useful

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Let's consider, say a building rather than a train. Would you rather see the exact spot where the building stands, or the spot where some random person was gazing at the building?

I guess the counter-argument to that would be that tagging photog location lets you know which side of a building the photo is of, and in cases of say, a city skyline or something including multiple buildings, the photog location would also be useful to know what view you are looking at in the photo.

[bigbassloyd]

I always tag where I was standing. That's especially useful in a hilly terrain where the train could be 2000 feet below you.

Loyd L.

[RAILROADFANdotCOM]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I always tag where I was standing. That's especially useful in a hilly terrain where the train could be 2000 feet below you.

Loyd L.

Ditto. For instance, on a telesmash shot that a good 1/2 mile is included, there isn't much of a precise point to mark where the photo is. There is always an exact spot the photographer was standing though. I'd rather know where I can go to get a similar photo as well.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I always tag where I was standing. That's especially useful in a hilly terrain where the train could be 2000 feet below you.

Loyd L.

Right. I tag the spot from which I took the photo. This is a railroad photography site and the only real purpose of that feature is to designate the photo location.

Of course, there are folks who appear to be reluctant to either show their photo spots or share their EXIF. For whatever reason, that approach seems to go hand-in-hand with linking every last image to Facebook in order to make their images look more popular than everyone else's. I think that's called "KB syndrome." Fortunately, there are medications for that.

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by KevinM

Right. I tag the spot from which I took the photo. This is a railroad photography site and the only real purpose of that feature is to designate the photo location.

Of course, there are folks who appear to be reluctant to either show their photo spots or share their EXIF. For whatever reason, that approach seems to go hand-in-hand with linking every last image to Facebook in order to make their images look more popular than everyone else's. I think that's called "KB syndrome." Fortunately, there are medications for that.

Yes, definitely was an another discussion, and I also tag where I was standing when I took the photo.

[troy12n]

I do the position of the train. Those maps aren't accurate enough to show where you are standing IMHO

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I do the position of the train. Those maps aren't accurate enough to show where you are standing IMHO

...and for the majority of photos, it really doesn't matter much either way!

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I do the position of the train. Those maps aren't accurate enough to show where you are standing IMHO

It can't work both ways. If the map isn't accurate for one thing, then it's not accurate across the board lol

If you're dropping the pin without zooming in, then it will probably not be accurate.

Loyd L.

[Noct Foamer]

I don't really have a preference, I guess. If I see a photo and what lens was used I can always backward engineer the shot if wanted. What I don't like are people who just say, "Near Bumfukville," without giving any clue where that is or even what state it was.


Kent in SD

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer

What I don't like are people who just say, "Near Bumfukville," without giving any clue where that is or even what state it was.


Kent in SD

LOL! Yes, I think just about every state has a town by that name, and there are surrounding hamlets with the pre-fixes of East, West, North and South.

Although I geo-tag the camera location for all of my postings, I also generally try to accurately describe the location depicted in the image. On railroads that have an obvious milepost system, I try to list the actual milepost location as closely as possible. My favorite, of course, is the old Rio Grande NG System, because some superb guides have been published over the years that enable me to nail some locations down to perhaps 5/100ths of a mile.

[tbelton]

I tag the location of the lead locomotive. To me, since the train is generally the subject of the photo I prefer to tag it. I'm ok with either the train or the location of the photo though. I just wish more contrbutors would utilize this feature.

Trey

[Mberry]

Ignore my previous comment, I realized I tag the location of the lead engine as well.

[ATSF666]

I just shoot the same locations over and over and over...

[Noct Foamer]

Originally Posted by ATSF666

I just shoot the same locations over and over and over...

The ancient Greek philosopher (c.500 BC) Heraclitus of Ephesus is famous for saying, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”


Kent in SD

[wds]

I tag where I was standing but I only use the map to get close, then switch to satellite view so I can identify the tree/rock/patch of weeds I was standing beside/on/in. I also try to use the mileboards to pinpoint the train position as closely as possible. Gee, I'm agreeing with BOTH Loyd and Kent today, must be something I smoked!

[Chris Kilroy]

My intention when I programmed the feature was for folks to tag where the photographer was standing since, as Loyd already stated, a map doesn't really do a tremendous amount of good when the tagged subject (in this case, the train) could be several thousand feet below (and a mile or more away from) the vantage point from which the image was captured.

Either way, though, the tagged locations on here more often than not give at least a good starting point for figuring out where the photographer was.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Chris Kilroy

Either way, though, the tagged locations on here more often than not give at least a good starting point for figuring out where the photographer was.

And the actual TIME that was once, but no more, shared within the EXIF further assisted in determining "when" the photographer was.

I always thought of RP.net as a photographer's site, as much as railfan's site and there are still a few of us that are more than happy to share that information vs offer their - "figure it out yourself" attitude as they live in their moment. So - why not add the "time" information back and, in regards to the location markers, note the site's preference more prominently at the point of input?

/Mitch

PS: Good to see you back in the Forums, Chris!

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

And the actual TIME that was once, but no more, shared within the EXIF further assisted in determining "when" the photographer was.

I always thought of RP.net as a photographer's site, as much as railfan's site and there are still a few of us that are more than happy to share that information vs offer their - "figure it out yourself" attitude as they live in their moment.

Yes, everyone is free to write better captions! Time, location, which way the train is going, and train frequency are all nice to know.

[ShortlinesUSA]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Yes, everyone is free to write better captions! Time, location, which way the train is going, and train frequency are all nice to know.

I am amazed how many photos are posted with no caption whatsoever. Please, just tell us a little something about the photo. I would like to see functionality added to not allow the photo to be submitted with a blank caption, such as a web form required field. A photo alone rarely "says it all" especially when the viewer is not familiar with the operation.

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

I am amazed how many photos are posted with no caption whatsoever. Please, just tell us a little something about the photo. I would like to see functionality added to not allow the photo to be submitted with a blank caption, such as a web form required field. A photo alone rarely "says it all" especially when the viewer is not familiar with the operation.

The only time I think its okay to have no caption is because some people submit a photo without a caption so they don't waste time writing it if the photo gets rejected, and then go back and add it to accepted photos later. I've seen this a few times if I'm one of the first views on a photo and it has no caption, but if I go back and look later, it has been added.

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

I am amazed how many photos are posted with no caption whatsoever. Please, just tell us a little something about the photo. I would like to see functionality added to not allow the photo to be submitted with a blank caption, such as a web form required field. A photo alone rarely "says it all" especially when the viewer is not familiar with the operation.

I agree, this is a pet peeve of mine as well. I also sometimes see photos uploaded from the current year, but with no actual date (i.e. 'August, 2017). Is it that hard to put an actual date for a contemporary photo?

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by Mberry

I agree, this is a pet peeve of mine as well. I also sometimes see photos uploaded from the current year, but with no actual date (i.e. 'August, 2017). Is it that hard to put an actual date for a contemporary photo?

I've noticed the same thing with dates and it doesn't make sense to me. All contemporary photos should have the date right in the exif so it's not like the photographer needs to remember it.