Wikipedia talk:Obtaining geographic coordinates

Which geographical coordinate can be chosen when there are different ones?

Which geographical coordinate can be chosen when there are different ones? For example, for Drygalski Island, there are several different geographical coordinates (see Talk:Drygalski Island and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates). Are there guidelines or hints which one to choose? Which geographical coordinate is the most correct one? -- Citylover 12:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia namespace?

Shouldn't this article be under the Wikipedia namespace - i.e. at Wikipedia:Geographic coordinates (obtaining)? It looks like a set of guidelines primarily designed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates use. Any objections to moving it? --David Edgar 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved the page from Geographic coordinates (obtaining) to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. Coffee 02:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we move it in WP namespace (the current wording isn't ideal), we should at least write a summary for the geographic coordinates article. Otherwise, we could leave it (put it back) in article namespace and mark it for cleanup.-- User:Docu

m:Google Maps Extension

This doesn't seem to have been mentioned before, but this extension is great for finding coords within a small area (say, one city... or even one country I guess) if you set it up on your own wiki with your own desired default coords. I have set it up defaulting on Melbourne, Australia at http://www.brunsbug.dreamhosters.com/testing/ . pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Lat, Lon coordinates to map links, place names?

Help?

Sadly,

http://kvaleberg.com/extensions/mapsources/index.php?params=37.04_N_121.88_W_

no longer works.

That was an experimental tool (webpage) that could accept (lat, lon) and yield a list of map sources such as GOOGLE maps, MapQuest, TopoZone, nearby Place names, etc... numerous links to different mapping services, all based on the input (lat, lon)

Does anybody know where to find such a tool?

--GeoFan49 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'd suggest https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?params=37.04_N_121.88_W --Patagonier (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of GPS receivers

Using a GPS receiver with a clear view of the sky as a method of obtaining co-ordinates: doesn't this violate WP:NOR? – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if that's a stupid question, but it seems there are two formats supported, but not the GPS format, is that correct? If so I think there should be some documentation on the conversion. Also - wouldn't it be more useful for Wikipedia readers to see the GPS format, rather than any of the other two? Stefanmuc (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps Tool: No Longer Works As Described

Looks like Google Maps has been updated so that it no longer displays the coordinates in the address bar. This makes the use of this tool impossible? Any Help? Kojones (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The server used to talk to GHoogle Maps, is down for essential maintenance. When it is back up, please try again so we can solve this problem. ClemRutter (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Google Maps does display the coordinates in the address bar. --Patagonier (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google coordinates tool

Today I found a great tool for getting coordinates from Google Maps. It a website in France provided by Univers Immedia and can can be found here. Just enter any address or location Google knows about and it returns the coordinates in decimal degree format. These results are much more accurate than those that can be obtained from the Google URL or the map centering method. The easiest way I have found of converting from decimal degrees to dms is to paste the decimal digit coordinates into the Google maps search box, press enter and the dms coordinates are displayed on the left of the page. This site is so good that I'm going to save the HTML locally in case the site every goes down. --droll [chat] 05:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the main it works for the UK with caveats. You can't cut and paste directly. You have to take care that it actually finds the right street, when there are two of the same name in the same post town. If it does a post code search it is kms wrong. It will work for a postcode, the street and house number though it appears to ignore the incoming postcode and search for the street name within the outgoing postcode area. In my case the location is 12 m to the SW of my property, 20m from the front door and about 35m from the centre of the plot. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using coordinates from copyrighted map sources

There's an edit war going on in which Geni is claiming that we can't use "copyrighted information". This is a misnomer, since only the presentation of information can be copyrighted. In fact, the only way for us to get information is to get it from a reliable source, which often is copyrighted. --NE2 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Geni, cool down, please. Map sources are copyrighted in sense, that you can't reproduce them. Not that you can't use them at all... --Teslaton (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright act explicitly provides that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. It is usually construed that only expressions are copyrightable.[1] This is true of Canadian copyright law as well as many other countries. —EncMstr (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps however are an expression. Takeing coridinates from them is createing a derivative work. If you had acess to their raw data (say OS's triangulation measurerments) and were useing that you would have a case but you are not.Geni 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a coordinate from a map is perfectly legitimate, just as taking a phone number from a telephone book is. The phone book might be copyrighted, but the data within cannot be. Taking a map excerpt and adding a layer to it is most likely copyright infringement. The coordinates of a few points on it, no. —EncMstr (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not disscusing the case of takeing a single cordinate. People are takeing large number of cordinates. Takeing multiple cordinates from a map falls into much the same copyright situation as traceing maps (since otherwise you could just extract enough cordinates to resssemble the thing) and is the creation of a derivative work.Geni 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most coordinate information at least in the US comes from government sources such as GNIS, NGS or the Census Bureau. I am familiar with similar services in Canada. All this data is in the public domain. If this data is published without crediting its source then it is still public domain. Most maps can be sourced back to government data. When DeLorme publishes a topo map based on a USGS map it has rights to its presentation of the data but not to the data itself. Interpolating coordinate data from maps can be done accurately given the right tools but too often I think it falls into the realm of original research. I believe that the first place an editor should look for coordinates should be GNIS in the US or GNSS or one of the provincial agencies in Canada. For world places NGS is as good place to start. In my own opinion is that it is best practice to use government sources when possible to avoid any question of copyright violation but I on the other hand I doubt anyone has tested the copyright of coordinate data pertaining to static locations in court or ever will. --droll [chat] 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it comercial mapping sourcesm in the US add to goverment data and google uses comercial sources (Canada is not PD btw). Even if the company has used pure US gov data going via their presentation of that data creates copyright issues.Geni 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which number is a large number? Do you have some sort of agregated stats about how many coordinates at wiki are taken from what source (using which method and at what precision) to judge if it's going to form a derivative work? Also, one frequent tool usage scenario is just to view/validate an already existing coordinate, or pick a heading. Maybe we shold treat this as a copyvio too? I believe, this aproach is just a copyright-purist obsession. --Teslaton (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the number of cordinates in wikipedia and the promiance of the non free tools on this page it's safe to assume that we have reached a large number point.Geni 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent} Maybe it would be a good idea if we had a specific example of what your talking about. Is the data propitiatory or not. For example are we talking about the location for a new development of some kind that has not been publicly released. --droll [chat] 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data is not propitiatory but you do not have acess to the data so that is of no significance. The presentation of the data is under copyright and that is all you have acess to.Geni 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying that the use of information from any copyrighted source is covered by copyright, since all you have access to is the copyrighted "presentation"? So if I pull out the June 2009 Trains, and see on page 20 that Amtrak's International was discontinued in April 2004, according to you, my use of that fact is subject to copyright laws, because the article I read it in - the "presentation" - is copyrighted? If that is not what you're saying, please explain what your argument is. If it is what you're saying, I, and hopefully others here, will ignore you. --NE2 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what exactly you do that would be the equiverlent of useing a single coordinate on wikipedia which isn't a problem. It's the cumulative effect of large numbers of coordinates where we hit problems.Geni 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear on what you're saying. What, exactly, is a problem? We're not taking any "presentation"; we're only using some of the data in that presentation. But the data isn't copyrighted. So what copyright do you think is being violated? --NE2 21:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not takeing the data you don't have acess to it. You are effectively violating exactly the same copyrights as traceing the map would violate.Geni 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked what copyrights are being violated, not for a sketchy analogy. What copyrights are being violated by going to http://mapper.acme.com/, moving the cursor to a feature, reading off the coordinates from the lower right corner, and then rounding as appropriate? --NE2 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeleAtlas's (probably them might be Navteq) right to control derivative works.Geni 01:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I asked for a copyright, not some vague "right to control derivative works". I think I'm done here. --NE2 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "a copyright" doesn't really make legal sense so you are asking for something that doesn't really exist under any conditions.Geni 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we agree then - there's no copyright to infringe

--NE2 15:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

being deliberately obtuse is unhelpful.Geni 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent} So if I understand you someone is interpolating the coordinates of linear geological feature using a map. Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me you are asking assistance in a dispute which you are unwilling to define. In order to receive a meaningfully responce I think you need provide a link to an example. If you fail in this regard then I will consider it a waste of time to continue this discussion. I am sure you have a legitimate question but I'm starting to detect the faint scent of a troll. --droll [chat] 02:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a pointless argument. Geni, can you point me to a reference, for instance Google Maps or Google Earth, where they say their coordinates are copyrighted? I can see how images could be copyrighted but coordinates can not be copyrighted. Google does not own the coordinates. It's like saying the road names on a map are copyrighted; it is a childish argument. Not to mention the template shows the source, which in my opinion is similar to referencing in the articles themselves. You do not have a problem with referencing copyrighted material in an article so why do you have a problem with referencing UNcopyrighted material? Brinkley32 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Geocoding data for map content in Google Maps is provided under license by Navteq North America LLC ("NAVTEQ") and/or Tele Atlas North America, Inc. ("TANA") and/or other third parties, and subject to copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to NAVTEQ, TANA and/or such other third parties. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You may be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material, and by using Google Maps you agree to make NAVTEQ and TANA third party beneficiaries of this agreement. Except where you have been specifically licensed to do so by Google, you may not use Google Maps with any products, systems, or applications installed or otherwise connected to or in communication with vehicles, capable of vehicle navigation, positioning, dispatch, real time route guidance, fleet management or similar applications."[2] The reason this is important is that it creates issues for integration with open street maps.Geni 01:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question on Google Maps forum. A Google employee responded that you can get the coordinates without using the geocoding. He said to use their geocoding you have to get the coords from searching for the point of interest, rather than browsing around. He said my method I use on Google Earth is legal. What I did was use the "Placemark" feature by centering the pushpin over the place I want. The properties window of the mark is where I get the coordinates. He also explained a way to do it with Google Maps if you wish, but I do not know how accurate the coords will be from that method but he said "I can tell you how to get coordinates from our Maps that doesn't use a geocoding service. If you browse to a location, center the satellite view on that location of interest, and click Link, you can get the coordinates from the URL. This is the safest way I know of to get location information for free use. Because you're not using a geocoding service (you'd have to use search in order to geocode), you're OK." [3] Their coordinates are not copyrighted, just their geocoding. Using their coordinates is completely legal. Brinkley32 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find Acme Mapper to be useful, mainly for the USGS topo maps, but it has a crosshair and a coordinates display in the corner. --NE2 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That answer might be of interest if google owned the copyright in this case. The people you need to ask are Navteq North America LLC and Tele Atlas North America, Inc.Geni 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, if you wish to use the geogoding data then go right ahead and ask them. We will not use the geocoding, so therefore obtaining the coords would not be violating anything. If you read your quote it says the geocoding is copyrighted. If you know anything about geocoding or even read my post them you will know that no copyrights are being violated. Thank you for you time. Are you done trolling now? Brinkley32 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical latitude and longitude coordinates."[4].19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no one has responded to this point. Should I assume that the isssue has been conceeded?©Geni 15:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not. Everyone is exasperated with your unique interpretation of copyrighted map use. At least eight different examples were given to demonstrate how your interpretation is nonsense but you haven't indicated that you understand the points. —EncMstr (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above references TOS. Your attempted avoidance would probably be more credible if you had acknolaged that.©Geni 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of the above, OpenStreetMap data is openly licenced, and may be reused at will. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Javascript for Google coordinates

The Javascript in the article to convert Google decimals seems broken, I've commented it out. The coordinates: 45.507418,-73.566127 (in downtown Montreal) convert to {{coord|45|30|26.71|N|74|26|01.94|W|display=title}}. I'll have a look at this later, when I find time, but if anyone wants to fix it right away, go right ahead :-) Enki H. (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixed (careless use of Math.floor on negative values) Enki H. (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this: the faulty code was posted here 28-Nov-2008; I have alerted the original editor and placed a warning that it needs to be updated in case it was previously installed but hopefully someone associated with the project will know a good place to alert editors who may be using a previous version. The bug is subtle: in Javascript, Math.floor(x) rounds to the next lowest integer. Therefore Math.floor(5.4321) is 5 but Math.floor(-5.4321) is -6. Since this wasn't handled correctly, conversions will be subtly off, depending on the absolute value, by up to almost one degree, for all coordinates in the Southern and Western hemispheres. European coordinates are fine, but e.g. everything in North- or South America is wrong. Hopefully this information helps to recover. Cheers Enki H. (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bookmarklets in this section seem to be, once again, broken. Which is unfortunate as they seem to be exactly the tool I was looking for. I'm getting an error in my chrome dev console: "gApplication is not defined". I'll spend a bit of time attempting to fix/create a new working bookmarklet that can replace these. Brubsby (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted two replacement scripts for the bookmarklets, I'll add them here until I get confirmation that they work correctly from other users before replacing the ones on the main article. I haven't checked the math on this one, so it's possible the format conversion is done incorrectly.

javascript:var matches = location.toString().match("\/maps\/.*@([0-9.-]+),([0-9.-]+)");coord=[matches[1],matches[2]];output='{{coord|';for(x in [0,1]){neg=(coord[x]<0);coord[x]=Math.abs(coord[x]);deg=Math.floor(coord[x]);minr=(coord[x]-deg)*60;min=Math.floor(minr);sec=Math.floor((minr - min)*60*100000)/100000;output+=deg+"|"+(min<10?'0':'')+min+"|"+(sec<10?'0':'')+sec.toFixed(2)+'|'+(x==0?(neg?'S|':'N|'):(neg?'W|':'E|')+"display=title}}");};void(prompt('Coordinates for Wikipedia',output));

and the second one:

javascript: (function () { var matches = location.toString().match("\/maps\/.*@([0-9.-]+),([0-9.-]+)"); prompt('',"{{coord|" + matches[1] + "|" + matches[2] + "}}"); }());

Brubsby (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found your code working on the few examples I tried, whereas the code on the page did not work. Therefore replaced that code with yours. Thanks for providing it! --Patagonier (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting information

According to some people, coordinate data

- i) Can be sourced from commercial mapping providers - ii) Doesn't need to credit the mapping provider.

because the coordinates of a location are purely factual information.

There are other people who hold (possibly incorrectly) that deriving co-ordinates from copyrighted maps/aerials is potential violation of copyrights in those maps/images.

As there have been rows about this I was wondering if someone could clarify once and for all

- What the approximate legal basis of this is ( a full legal response would likely need someone to ask the relevant board people? )

- What if any limitations this would place on the use of the geo-code on articles in countries that (annoyingly) implement so called database rights?

- If obtaining formal permission in respect of specfic datasets from relevant providers had been considered? (OpenStreetMap for example was able to get permission to get traces from Yahoo!, and has been able to secure the use of other formerly closed sources (like the UK NAPTAN public transport information databse).

I'd also like to know why it would be unreasonable to include a section in the table explaining the licensing used by certain providers, to allow those obtaining co-ordinates to make an informed choice.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed poor sourceing of coordinates is causeing issues for open street maps:

http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-POI-import--to23392791.html#a23394016 .17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia has a policy for text coming from sources not licensing via CC-BY-SA or GFDL. WP:NFCC This should be asked at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (or another of the locations mentioned at WP:NFC#Guideline examples), not here, probably with separate consideration for geocoding vs tracing issues. If there is consensus that Google Maps and/or Google Earth are CC-BY-SA or GFDL sources, or that pasting text doesn't result in a "verbatim textual excerpt", then WP:NFCC might not apply. --Goldfndr (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~That doesn't answer the question, I asked at THIS forum. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments like that aren't going to get your question answered. I suggest you take your issue to the suggested place! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh. Withdrawn. - Moving this disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matching up with Google maps

Is there currently a way to match up your coordinates (and metadata) with what is already marked on Google maps? For instance, the map marker for Marojejy National Park, Madagascar (labeled Marojejy Nature Reserve) has some photos and basic metadata, but I had to manually attain the coordinates at GeoLocator, and I couldn't find any way to just grab those coordinates from Google maps. If there's a way to sync up, please let me know.

Also, I'm guessing all the little "W" (Wiki) icons that link to Wikipedia articles from Google maps are automatically generated by some bot that scans for {{coords}} templates in articles, right? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google looks for {{Coord}} with |display=title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates and original research

I just restored the "use a GPS unit" option for obtaining coordinates which had been removed in good faith by Rschen7754 on WP:OR grounds. I've been afraid that the highway coordinates RFC might spill over onto this page, and it would appear that it has. Here's my two cents on the OR issue: Coordinates can be used in at least two different ways in an article. One is the common use of coordinates at the top of the page or in an infobox about the subject. The other is to make a point in the text of the article in which the location of something is directly relevant to the point being made. When coordinates are used in the first manner, they are IMHO much like images included in the article: an addition or illustration or extra. Just as photographs are not considered to be original research merely because the photographer claims that they're an image of what he or she says they're an image of (e.g. we don't consider the photographer's claim that this is a picture of Upper Nidderdale to be OR just because he took it and says that it is), we also don't consider coordinates to be original research merely because someone has figured them out for themselves rather than finding a reliable source that specifically says that thing N is at coords X, Y. Most of the methods listed in this article are, if strictly considered, OR in many if not most cases because they require some elements of logic and discretion. (Another problem is that there are so many sources for coordinates which would appear to be reliable but when actually checked are wrong or seriously inaccurate; the coordinates given in National Register of Historic Places listings being a prime example.) Again, just like photographs, coordinates should be subject to being properly sourced if they are challenged. This is especially true for coordinates used in the second way I mentioned above. At least that's what I think. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GPS coordinates are verifiable not just by someone else visiting the site with a GPS, but also by using mapping services and aerial photography to check plausibility and even precision of contributed data. —EncMstr (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a primary source. However, using coordinates that you found yourself makes the article a primary source. If you need further clarification on this issue, I would suggest posting to WP:RSN. And for the record, while I saw this because of the highway RFC, this had nothing to do with the highway RFC; I would have removed this regardless of whether it was taking place or not. --Rs chen 7754 20:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote you with two words changed, "However, using photographs ~~coordinates~~ that you shot ~~found~~ yourself makes the article a primary source." What's the distinction? By that light, a huge number of photographs ought to also be excluded. The photographer's assertion that a photo depicts a particular place or thing is just as primary as using a GPS. (Indeed, the photograph can be argued to be "more primary" or "more OR" since the GPS at least provides an automatic, fully-qualified result whereas the photograph must be subsequently and manually identified.) Similarly, how is "Looking at a printed map or atlas, either those you own or at a library" any less WP:OR? If you look at a map of Poland, for example, to find the coordinates of a village named Nowy Dwór you'll find that, especially with a highly detailed map, that there are dozens of villages with that name and sometimes more than one in the same geopolitical unit. The same is true with many unincorporated places in the US. It is always going to be OR to identify the proper one using a printed map. In my opinion this article, and perhaps more importantly the accepted practice of coordinate-adding-editors throughout WP, establishes a limited and conditional IAR local exception for sourcing coordinates, just as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Image description pages does for photographs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Though I cannot say for sure, I suspect that the photography rule arose from the simple dilemma that (a) photos are a Good Thing to have in WP and (b) that strict reliance only on reliable sources for photos means, due to copyright issues, that there aren't going to be many, if any, photos in Wikipedia. I'd argue that the same dilemma and logic applies to coordinates though for somewhat different reasons (in this case, the absence of accurate sources for coordinates for many places and things). — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above, but have posted to WP:RSN to get their opinion first. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a GPS unit is parallel to the use of a camera, and should be allowed. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and many photographs WP publishes include GPS coordinates provided by the camera. I doubt we need an independent RS for those coords. Glrx (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN discussion is at Wikipedia:RSN#Is_using_a_GPS_receiver_to_find_coordinates_original_research.3F and appears to have concluded in favor of allowing GPS to obtain coords. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Update: It appears that I may have spoken too soon about the discussion being concluded. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Final update: It either concluded in favor or with no consensus, which works out to the same result. The RSN discussion is archived here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding coordinates and elevations cited from what look like perfectly good sources, yet with nonsensical results when I click on them and go to GeoHack and then Google Maps. Here's an example: the source of the Ganges is given as 30°59′N 78°55′E / 30.983°N 78.917°E and 3,892 metres (12,769 ft) elevation. That appears to send you to a place that is tens of miles/kilometers and some 150 meters/500' off target in the imagery. So here's my question: is it a constructive edit to replace coordinates buttressed with a citation but with nonsensical results, with something I dredge up with Google Earth or Google Maps, but with no buttressing citation? And perhaps more controversially, what about elevations? Are elevations derived from Google Earth sufficiently reliable to note in an article? LADave (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes, correct them if they're wrong. However, please check it with Wikimapia or Acme Mapper maps before deciding that it's wrong. Though it's been awhile since I've run into the problem and it may have been fixed since the last time I looked at it, the coordinates in the article are often correct. If the problem still exists, the reason you may be taken to the wrong place is that Google, especially Google Earth but occasionally Google Maps as well (so I've heard; I've not actually seen that happen with Google Maps, though it's a common problem with Google Earth), will take you to the wrong place even though provided with proper coordinates. It's a Google problem, not a Wikipedia problem. (If you'll look at the link text, you will see that it's Google, not Wikipedia that is generating the klm files for Google Earth and that Google is being provided with the correct coordinates.) Google has long ago been informed of the problem but has not fixed it (because they consider it to be a feature, not an error). By the way, if in GeoHack you'll use the "w/ meta data" link (which generates the klm file via Wikipedia instead of Google) to open a location in Google Earth, rather than the "Open" link, it will, in my experience at least, always work correctly. Acme Mapper and Wikimapia will always take you to the specified latitude and longitude. - TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC) PS: And if you use Google Maps or Earth to obtain the correct coordinates, please Preview and verify them with Wikimapia or Acme Mapper before clicking "Save page." — TM 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) PPS: Dammit, I keep thinking of additional points to consider. With things like the source of a river there can be some disagreement over the question of what's the actual source, as there may be a number of different contenders. My answer, above, presumes that there's no disagreement over what or which particular thing or geographic feature that's being described with coordinates, or over where it is, but only over what the correct coordinates for that particular thing are. — TM 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC) PPPS: <Self-exasperated sigh.> And be sure to document what you've done, either on the talk page or in an HTML comment or in a footnote after the coordinates, in addition to putting it in an edit summary. I also note that there are multiple sources listed for the Ganges; it could be that the coordinates that are given in the article are kind of a midpoint of those various sources or a regional point that would include all or most of them, but I haven't checked. — TM 19:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikimapia

I have one question. As we know templates (castle or something) has part where we can using SVG photo of map and using coordinates put point on current map. So somebody ho 'll see this point knows where this castle situated. I have idea that what if we use WIKIMAPIA map and using coordinates and zoom put in template. So when somebody entered in page of some castle (or something) can directly go to wikimapia and see another parts in this region. How do you think is it possible?--Surprizi (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making a map using addresses

Holt International Adoptee Camp Locations
Oregon Camp Wisconsin Camp Nebraska Camp East Coast Camp
Source: Holt International Website

I made a map using the addresses provided on the Holt International website and the latitude and longitude numbers that Google Maps gave me when I inputed the addresses in Google Maps. For example, the address that the Holt International Website gave for their East Coast Camp (link) was "43 Louemma Lane Sussex, NJ 07461". I inputed this address into Google Maps, and I got the latitude and longitude for the place as 41.258724, -74.496273. I used these coordinates in the Location Map Many Template to put the mark on the map for this place. Is using a known address to get the latitude and longitude coordinates from Google Maps and then using the coordinates from Google Maps in the Location Map Many Template considered original research?--Ephert (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, a pretty close call, so others may disagree with what I'm about to say. After thinking about it, I think that it's okay. My concern does not come from, per se, using Google Maps to generate the lat-lon, but from using their website as a primary source to get the addresses right in the first place. Strange as it may seem, many people don't know their own correct exact address and Google Maps will guess when it translates street addresses to locations on a map, especially if there is some uncertainty. (I moved into a new subdivision recently onto a street that wanders both east and west and north and south through the subdivision. As a result the street numbers are not consecutive and Google Maps was not entirely updated showing all the street. When you put in my address, it put you on the right street but at a location far distant from my new house.) It would be best if you can verify from satellite imagery and/or Google Street View that the locations it points to are actually the correct locations. It would also be best if you would describe what you have done, in detail, on the article talk page or in an embedded html comment, and, of course, be open to discussion and consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How 'legal' is it copying coordinates from Google Maps?

How 'legal' is it copying coordinates from Google Maps? Any copyright worries? Jidanni (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly discussed in “Using coordinates from copyrighted map sources” section above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

units and sigfigs

For coordinates in infoboxes, is decimal degrees or degrees/minutes/seconds preferred? Also, for places that aren't points, one should not give the coordinates many digits more accurate than the size of the place. A degree latitude is about 60 miles, so an arc minute about one mile. A large school, for example, shouldn't be given to four digits after the decimal point (in degrees). Is there any MOS on this? Gah4 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps: click "Link" at the top

I am not finding this thing to click. I am finding a "Share" but it gives a URL with information in a format unknown to me. I assume it's a proprietary Google format for coordinates. Am I doing something wrong, or is our advice page obsolete? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]