Talk:Geograph Britain and Ireland

Untitled

I've created a template at Template:Geograph to mark geograph images in Wikipedia... any comments? Ojw 16:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As one of the project creators, I should point out that the real "full" name of the site is "Geograph British Isles" and so this page might be better named "Geograph British Isles Project" Lordelph 09:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Geograph image quality

This might better belong under commons:Template:geograph, but has anyone noticed a problem with some geograph images? Take this for example - the brickwork appears to display a Moiré pattern. Are these images being anti-aliased before downsizing? - Crosbiesmith 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Discussion continued at Geograph and from there to Geograph general discussion. -- RHaworth 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Geographing

As the activity of geographing has no significance outside the context of the Geograph project, shouldn't the two be merged? -- Blisco 11:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

After a month of silence I've assumed tacit approval and carried out the merger. Blisco 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Is there any particular reason why "project" is part of the article name? The project's website is headed simply: "Welcome to Geograph British Isles", and the title bar has the same phrase: the word "project" is only used lower down on the page. I've put a redirect at Geograph British Isles so that either link will work, but shouldn't this article really be there and not here? Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody? Well then, would there be any objection to moving the article to Geograph British Isles? Looking at the what links here page shows only a handful of double redirects would need to be fixed. I just can't see the point in having "project" as part of this article's name given that the word is not part of GBI's official name and that Geograph British Isles is not being used for anything else nor likely to be. Loganberry (Talk) 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "project" is redundant. There might be a case for going the whole hog and moving it to just "Geograph", but as Lordelph points out above, "Geograph British Isles" is the official name. I think "project" is just a hangover from the article's original title, "British Geograph Project". Go ahead and move it! --Blisco 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the project's forums. There are an awful lot of single links in, so it might be easier to leave it be. Espresso Addict 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to move, most of the single links in are from Geograph image pages, changing the template (and then possibly touching those) should clear. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If the links can be fixed automatically, then I have no objection to the rename. A couple of days' wait would seem polite to give the site members time to object if they wish. Espresso Addict 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wondering why the Republic of Ireland is still GREEN - look no further than the project name. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Probably because the Irish are an illiterate nation of- what was it?- oh yes, "peasants, pixies, and priests"? Ireland is in the "British Isles"...Ireland is in the "British Isles"...Ireland is in the "British Isles".... How dare you question the intellectual sophistication and open-mindedness of British nationalists by inferring that Irish people would have no part of any project covering their country that is entitled "British Isles". It's clearly Irish people like you who have been the bane of British peace and civilisation in Ireland for all of Britain's glorious reign in that dark benighted disobedient island. Less treasonous barbarous Irish popish activity, if you please. 78.16.43.40 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Charming! Anyway, one year on and Ireland is still green. I guess the UK tourists can only cover so much ground?! Sarah777 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New urban sample image

I've added an urban image to illustrate the project's coverage of the built environment. It's a fairly random choice from the site's weekly competitions, but chosen to contrast with the existing image in style and location (Ireland). Espresso Addict 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Geograph Images in Wikipedia

Is it acceptable to use images from geograph in Wikipedia? I'm guessing all you need to do is put the name of who took the image in the summary section of the image when you upload it to Wikipedia, right?Doom jester 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a template (and category) set up on Commons which generates the licence notice and stuff. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geograph_images Anything I want to use I upload there and it can then be used in all the wikipediae. --Cavrdg 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Just a thought though. Would it make sense to just have some way of linking from wikipedia to those images on geograph? I mean, aren't the sites kind of interconnected somehow? It doesn't really make sense to store 2 copies of the images, really. Doom jester 10:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's any connection between the two sites. If we relied on some sort of direct linking, we'd really be stealing bandwidth from the original site and there's always the risk that any other site might close down or change its terms and conditions for new content. --Cavrdg 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use any image on Geograph in articles on Wikipedia as the are all Creative Commons 2.0 licenced. Simply record the details when uploading, and add {{geograph|000000|A N Other}} where 000000 is the number of the photo on Geograph and A N Other is the author's name. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed section on "Variations"

I've deleted the following text which isn't directly relevant to the page Geograph British Isles.

"Geographing is also a term used for a form of virtual geocaching, where instead of finding a cache, the seeker "finds" a picture which they may share on Web sites such as GeoGraphing.org or use the Geographing Yahoo Group."

Espresso Addict 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GeographBrowseScreenshot.png

Image:GeographBrowseScreenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use statement added by Lordelph 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's it gone?

The home page shows a "Temporarily Offline" message, saying the site should be back by "early evening". This message is dated 21st November. What's going on? 86.132.139.23 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Description - should it agree with the Web Page

The opening paragraph states freely accessible archive of geographically located photographs of the British Isles. The project excludes the Channel Islands which are not geographically within the British Isles. The main page of the Geograph British Isles website states "The Geograph British Isles project aims to collect geographically representative photographs and information for every square kilometre of Great Britain and Ireland". Any objections to changing the article to agree with the website and make it less confusing. --Bardcom (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, the website itself is confusing, in fact technically it's incorrect. The Geograph project covers not only GB and I but also IoM, Shetland, Anglesey and the rest. It doesn't cover the Channel Islands yet, so I suggest the article says something along the lines of British Isles (except the Channel Islands). CarterBar (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold that! It already does say that. I should have read the next sentence. OK, so it seems fine to me as it is. The only thing that's perhaps required is a clarification of what they mean (or don't mean) by Great Britain. CarterBar (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this website started out using the term "British Isles", then changed it to "UK and Eire", then changed to "UK and ROI", and have settled on "GB and I". Seems like a rather unusual step for Wikipedia to insist on British Isles - especially when in the past we've both agreed on the argument of following whatever the primary source says? --Bardcom (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just visited the site to check, it seems to say "British Isles" loud and clear. The project is still called Geograph British Isles. Within their "Great Britain" and "Ireland" pages they list other islands too, so clearly they mean British Isles as opposed to just the two islands. I don't see any need to change the article. Waggers (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's funny - did you visit the right site? If it still says "British Isles" loud and clear, how come they say "Great Britain and Ireland" right there on the description (which is what this article is quoting btw)? You may not realize, but they changed from saying British Isles to "Great Britain and Ireland"? It's obvious that they *started* out saying British Isles - and even called the project "Geograph British Isles". Check out the archive.org website if you like to see the transition. So clearly they seem to know what they're doing and why, and have chosen to describe the website as "Great Britain and Ireland". Unless you believe they're wrong and you know better? --Bardcom (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

British? Isles

One year since I last looked and Ireland is as green as it ever was bar a few pics from visitors I'd suspect. The gap is now so massive that if ever proof positive were required that the overwhelming majority of people living in Ireland object to the term "British" being used to describe their country, we have it right here. Most emphatic. The article should be re-titled to reflect this fact? At the very least we need a section to explain to the reader why one large section of the islands remains virtually blank. Sarah777 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You really are speculating here, could it not be just that there is less population in Ireland? I suspect so, there is also a lot of green in northern Scotland. The article should not be re-titled as the article uses the websites name, anyway it's not an important issue. If there is a collective racism of the Irish people, Implied in your post then that should be explained before the modifications you suggest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.148.227 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is speculation. There are many possible reasons, including less availability of online mapping (the site gets high-res GB mapping from its sponsors, Ireland has to rely on Google Maps) -only in the last few months has Republic of Ireland mapping even become available for free online, population differential, 'internet take up' differnces, and possibly the name. In fact if you remove ONE contributors photos for Northern Ireland, the percentage coverage for Jan '09 drops to just 28% (from 73%) - so a large percentage of the Northern Ireland coverage can be attributed to being lucky in getting one Kenneth Allen hooked on the project. Similally removing the contributions of just 5 users from the GB coverage, drops 10% coverage. BarryHunter (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I once contributed a few pics years ago - there is no technical barrier in Ireland at all. It isn't "population" related either; Ireland is more heavily populated than Scotland and about the same as Wales. The contrast is so dramatic that denial is simply that. Irish people read "British Isles Project" and either assume it has nothing to do with Ireland or object to it. In fact it appears that a good chunk of the few pictures in the RoI are actually posted by folk from the UK. I could easily fill 1,000 "green" squares merely from my own photo collection but will not do so while the project is called "British" Isles anything. Sarah777 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"It isn't "population" related either; Ireland is more heavily populated than Scotland and about the same as Wales." You are delusional if you seriously think that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.192.50 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777, have you not heard of Geograph Ireland? Perhaps you'd contribute to that. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Geograph Ireland is wonderfully sporadic. Why would somebody post a picture of the signpost/gate/footpath to the legendary Shannon Pot, but not post an image of the Pot itself. Autodidactyl (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mjtoots! Despite the big blue bar I only spotted your comment just now. I will look into this. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also just now spotted the rather rude comment by some anon. Based on the Wiki articles Scotland and Ireland have a near identical population density; the folk in Wales are a bit thicker. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the same project though, isn't it? --HighKing (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! It is a sub-project of the BI project. Which is saying Ireland is part of the British Isles. Which is where we came in! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they should just change the name to "Great Britain and Ireland"; a far more common usage these days. Without the political implications. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, for a graphic illustration look at the Isle of Anglesey and County Dublin in the same frame. Anglesey has about ten times more pictures than County Dublin per unit area. Anglesey: population 69,000; Dublin a million or so. Maybe we are not technically advanced enough to use those cameramajigs? Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Isle of Mann then? Thats not part of GB or Ireland. Would we remove it? ;) BarryHunter (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Most outsiders assume IoM is part of GB in the same way that most folk would consider the "British Isles" to be...well...British. Anywhere that is ultimately controlled by London is British in any common sense of the word; any place not controlled by London is not part of any "British" Isles. 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk)

Another issue is we get a large proportion of traffic and new contributors (most happen across an image and get interested) from google.co.uk - we are however virtually non existent on google.ie. Quite simply not as much development time is focused on the Ireland section of the site (the developers are from GB). Not denying the name is an issue, but still don't think its the issue. BarryHunter (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'd probably be surprised at how big an issue the name really is... --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The map proves the point. The website is very well know in Ireland. Denial is futile. Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So if we changed the name today - we would see a 10x increase (the current discrepancy taking into account population differences) in visitors from Ireland? If only it was that simple. BarryHunter (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll probably never really know the answer to that one, but I genuinely believe that yes, you'd see equivalent levels of participation. --HighKing (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it for a moment. I uploaded about 10 new squares before I noticed the name. That was maybe three years ago. Without effort I reckon I could have added maybe 5k since then. I have at least 10,000 photos in storage taken over the last few years, 80% are outdoor shots of Dublin and Ireland. About 1,500 are on Wiki or Wiki Commons; there are 10 on Geograph! Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont listen to them BarryHunter, do not change the title simply to appease a couple of editors on here. Dont fall for bribery either lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "bribery"; it is sound advice. There is not other reason why the Irish would be disinterested in a project like this. (Which is great, apart from the unfortunate title). How many photos have you added to it BW? You can see my beauties at [1] Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded 0, but my area is well covered on there anyway. I looked at the images you uploaded they were very good, liked the childrens crossing one. At the end of the day its up to the people there who run the site, i suppose they would be able to tell if lots of people from Ireland are visiting the site but not uploading images which might back up your theory about them being put off by the mention of BI and in the interests of the project they should probably change it to make more of their users happy. Although its clear 1000s of images have been uploaded from Ireland so not every cant stand it :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

BW; get yer camera out! There is always a perspective the others will miss. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's it gone again?

Getting time-outs all day today.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Still? Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New name

I have taken the liberty of moving the article to the project's new name. Wiki's position on the imposition of the term "British Isles" is starting to to resemble that of the folk in The Alamo! Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be busy uploading to Geograph for a while now - a huge backlog has accumulated. Anybody know if you can get a faster upload speed in Eire? Currently mine is "put the kettle on and make a cuppa while you wait" mega-thingies. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling Barry Hunter!

Doubtless overloaded by the sheer volume of photos I'm sending your way (insomnia let's call it) your server is down. But, to my horror, the message telling me that is headlined "Geograph British Isles". I nearly fell off my chair. Sarah777 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that "All our servers are currently working to capacity" - but hey! It's 3am. What sort of people send you pics? Anyway, I feel the wooden spike of Elonka heading my way - this isn't a chat room or a bulletin board. OK. I know. Sarah777 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The middle of the night is generally the quiet time so the servers use the opportunity to catch up on bulk processing, generally the site should still be available if a little slow, but occasionally they get a little over-eager. I've also changed the title on the error page, thankfully we dont see it very often so it was overlooked. BarryHunter (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Barry, as you can see I'm giving Geograph my full attention! (I remember the old days when I used to edit Wiki!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Milestone Images

I beleive the two milestone images shown are incorrectly labeled. I not sure if I should edit the article myself. The "Malvern Rise near to Dover" is image id 2,000,000 - it is not the 2,000,000th image. Many intermediate ids are not used (for technical reasons) and/or a image is sometimes accidently given two numbers. The 2,000,000th live image has just passed . The second image labeled "1,000,000th image submitted" is again not quite right either. It was the 1,000,000th live image, but there are other image submitted (and later discounted). but this is possibly a bit pedantic, its just I think the current labels are misleading. BarryHunter (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Project scale

I was choosing "random image" at W.Commons, and geograph.org.uk images come up very often. hadnt heard of this until i did so. i wonder what % of wcommons is from them. might be as high as 5%.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

as of today, W.C. has 1,747,582 in category "Images from the Geograph British Isles project"

and the statistics report says there are 16,305,881 jpeg images.

That's 10.7%

if the remaining 2 million Geograph images were transferred, that would be around 20%

Geograph is a very large project.

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Government funded

If this project is government funded, as stated, all the images should be public domain, not the license that is currently used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.236.14 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The site's expenses are partially sponsored by an independent government owned agency, the Ordnance survey, who also provide some GIS data that is nearly in the public domain anyway. But the individual image copyright remains with the contributing photographers who attribute it to CC on a fair use but copyright retained basis. There would be some logic to what you say, if:

• The site was funded by a government other than the UK one, one which had legislation requiring public access to publicly funded data.
• The photographers were paid to travel to, and photograph, the locations.

Since neither is true, the present arrangements are perfectly valid.

Go read the Geograph FAQ, and this page.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Geograph to Commons

The main article talks as though bulk uploading from Geograph to Commons is ongoing, but it seems to have stopped around 1.8 million. I can still manually upload individual images with the basic upload page, but there is no systematic transfer going on, and hasn't for some years.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArticle reworded, and a ref. found to the end of transfers.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

REAH - the sentence referring to the figure of 1.8 million makes little sense to the casual reader in its current form and could be read (with an errant comma) as 1.8 million tools etc - it would be useful if it were clarified. thanks Geopersona (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geograph Britain and Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605232653/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2010/feb/geograph.html to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2010/feb/geograph.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711084803/http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/dailynews/2010/feb/18/news6.html to http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/dailynews/2010/feb/18/news6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Geograph.org.uk Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)