Commons talk:Geocoding/Overlay

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Aerial photo overlays[edit]

Is it appropriate to use this same method to code for aerial photographic overlays that aren't pointed directly downwards also? For example: Waimakariri02 gobeirne.jpg Waimakariri02_gobeirne.jpg, and (less successfully) NewZealandInternationalExhibitionBuildings Aerial EditCurves.jpg NewZealandInternationalExhibitionBuildings_Aerial_EditCurves.jpg? Cheers - gobeirne 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

XML categorization?[edit]

Should XML overlay data files (example) be categorized in Commons? I've noticed that BotMultichill has recently been tagging these XML data as {{uncategorized}}, with a summary saying "Please add categories to this image". Since the file is clearly not an image, nor in fact media of any kind, this seems misleading. Given that the XML serves strictly as an adjunct to a single image, I'm actually not sure of the utility of categorizing them at all. Multichill, though, suggests that they could be categorized into "Geocoding overlays". Thoughts/opinions? Huwmanbeing  21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why use Image pages?[edit]

It's seems kinda like wrong to be using a namespace specifically designed for media files, doesn't it? If they were recognize as subpages, that would be different, but right now they are considered non-existent images. Wouldn't it make more sense to accept KML as a media format? Rocket000(talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course that would make more sense. But then we'd still be waiting for this feature. --Dschwen (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So it's not as simple as deciding to, huh? :) Well, whatever works I guess. I just thought that the more and more of these we get, we should have a proper way to handle them. Rocket000(talk) 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree! In the long run KML upload would be preferable (existing pseudo-subpages can easily be converted by bot). And maybe it is time to seriously pursue this. But back, when the feature was conceived at least I felt that it would be good to have something going to test the capabilities and acceptance of the overlay feature. --Dschwen (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to include this data on the image description page itself, e.g. within a template? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds ideal to me, though I don't know if there are any technical reasons that would stand against that. Huwmanbeing  12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion problems[edit]

I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but for all the time I've been using overlays I've had periodic problems with KMLs getting deleted. Few other editors know that these KML files are used by Template:Overlay, so they mark the source files for speedy deletion, or (if they're admins) just immediately delete the files outright. I then have to go to the editors' talk pages, explain what the files are and why they're there, and ask for them to be undeleted — not a huge deal, but also not something I want to keep doing over and over.

I'm not sure what the best solution to this is, though as Ilmari Karonen suggested earlier, having the overlay data somewhere within the image description page might be a good step (and would stop the source code deletions). Any thoughts? Huwmanbeing  17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No results - empty KML file[edit]

Can anyone figure out what's wrong with the overlay I added to Attack on Harper's Ferrypass5.jpg? Cheers - gobeirne (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The single quote in the filename broke the extraction script. Fixed now. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! - gobeirne (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


New frameworks could solve the transformation in browser:

--Kolossos (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)