Mapping England and United Kingdom

[Stephen]

Without jokes about Brexit, I would like to hear how others are mapping images from England (or other similar groups of keywords / labels) which belong together.

When starting with PSu I imported them into United Kingdom, which was a default in PSu and (if my memory is right) England was not shown. I have started adding England, but it is not yet mapped.

Ideally I would like to map:
England
United Kingdom
Europe

Thanks

[bimo]

Stephen,

when using the geotag panel, COUNTRY is set to "United Kingdom", while "England" (like "Wales", "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland") can be found under PROVINCE/STATE.

As the geotag panel still relies on the (meanwhile deprecated) IPTC Core definition of a location, it has no WORLDREGION, which can only be found in LOCATIONCREATED and LOCATIONSHOWN (belonging to the IPTC Extension's definition of locations). You will have to change this manually or by script to any other value than "World" (PSU's default value...).

HTH

[fbungarz]

On a sideline:
Not joking, but, the Brexit may indeed have consequences: it seems quite possible that the UK breaks apart as a result. I guess England and possibly Wales will remain part of the UK, but Scotland not necessarily so. If that happens you will have to treat the UK similar to the former Sowjet Union...
So: how does one deal with political developments that have" geographic" consequences?

[Mke]

In terms of labels, I create them down to street level (or even building level) in some cases - so Europe::UK::England::county::town::street. In other cases I may stop at the town level, or have broader areas, such as town::townCentre and town::townHinterland.

In addition I have additional entries such as Europe::UK::England::county::area::specialArea (for national parks and the like that span county boundaries) and Europe::UK::England::river::riverName for rivers that cross national boundaries, etc.
Such features / areas also labelled elsewhere too - for example rivers under environment::naturalEnvironment::water::river - which is one reason I'm very keen to see http://mantis.idimager.com/view.php?id=2603 implemented.

I do geotag too, but normally only with the latitude and longitude - I don't routinely lookup and save Google's attempt at the location, which I find isn't always reliable in the UK, and which tends not to return helpful results (for an English speaker) in non-English speaking countries. See also http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php ... 94#p109994

[Stephen]

@bimo
I don’t geo tag, so I didn’t check that, but if PSu does that then that might be wrong. Technically, it doesn’t work quite that way in the British Isles. A province/state would be the county, so there would be a problem in filing:
Europe (world region), United Kingdom, England (country), Berkshire (county), Reading (town/city)

The United Kingdom is in fact a group of countries (formed under the crown). Other groups might be Scandinavia and Benelux, but in a different way because they are politically completely independent.

@Mke
How do you tackle this? I see you have:
Europe::UK::England::county::town::street

@fbungarz
“So: how does one deal with political developments that have" geographic" consequences?”
I was thinking about his when I recently started adding England.
Spontaneously I would probably initially treat them to portray the image content in the same way that I would treat people. Images showing President Horacio Cartes remain as such even if he should not be elected next time.

I see in the last link that this has been discussed before I came on board, so I possibly need to study the iptc guidelines when time allows.

[PhilBurton]

On a sideline:
Not joking, but, the Brexit may indeed have consequences: it seems quite possible that the UK breaks apart as a result. I guess England and possibly Wales will remain part of the UK, but Scotland not necessarily so. If that happens you will have to treat the UK similar to the former Sowjet Union...
So: how does one deal with political developments that have" geographic" consequences?

As in "Yugoslavia" or "German Democratic Republic." ?

Phil

[fbungarz]

As in "Yugoslavia" or "German Democratic Republic." ?

Very much so...
But to be more constructive: I guess it would e possible for these cases to create some set of "historic" place labels or perhaps use synonyms.
[Anyway, it is all a bit off-topic, so I'll better shut up about that issue now.]

[fbungarz]

Europe::UK::England::county::town::street

Here is what I have:

Places.jpg (79.04 KiB) Viewed 9192 times

I see in the last link that this has been discussed before I came on board, so I possibly need to study the iptc guidelines when time allows.

Thanks Stephen and Mke for pointing me to that post: http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=23898
This is closely related to quite a few question I recently encountered using the GPS panel (http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24279). Very interesting!

Coming from IDI I have previously been using labels with "Apply Detail Profile" a lot for geo-tagging images automatically. It is a simple and extremely efficient way to add geo-data to images quickly.

Geo_Label.jpg (285.94 KiB) Viewed 9193 times

I guess, what's missing is the option to convert the Favorites from the Geo Panel as a Label with "Apply Detail Profile" for the fields from the Geo Panel...

Geo_Panel.jpg (329.69 KiB) Viewed 9193 times

Sorry for veering slightly off-topic again here, perhaps I should have better added this to http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=23898, but that one is getting quite lengthy...

[bimo]

In terms of labels, I create them down to street level (or even building level) in some cases - so Europe::UK::England::county::town::street.

There's a 5 level hierarchy (from WorldRegion to Sublocation) in the IPTC specs. Google maps doesn't know of WorldRegion but has the remaining 4 levels as well. IMO it's a good idea to follow existing standards.

@bimo
I don’t geo tag, so I didn’t check that, but if PSu does that then that might be wrong. Technically, it doesn’t work quite that way in the British Isles. A province/state would be the county, so there would be a problem in filing:
Europe (world region), United Kingdom, England (country), Berkshire (county), Reading (town/city)

Neither England nor Scotland nor Wales nor Northern Ireland are listed in the ISO list of countries. Any of these four are a state like the 50 states are which form the USA. So I totally agree with what google maps delivers and PSU displays when using the geo panel.

[Stephen]

@Bimo
Thanks, you are correct and too I like to stick to the standards if possible.

Here is a screen shot to show what I am referring to when I say mapping. I don’t mean GPS. The cursor shows where the pop-up screen on the right can be activated.

Photo SupremeScreenSnapz136.jpg (391.92 KiB) Viewed 9150 times

I wonder how Mke (or anybody else) maps an image containing both England (which Bimo says is a state) and additionally a county, which is also a state?

[fbungarz]

Hi Stephen,
talking about standards, it is funny actually that Google (and IPTC) does not completely comply with political administrative subdivisions most generally recognized!

IPTC does not recognize the county level, which of course is NOT the same as state! It is an administrative level below the state/province. IPTC was largely developed in the US which is unfortunately somewhat infamous for being ignorant towards the rest of the world, but dominates the PC industry. At least they did call that level province/state, recognizing that Canada is separate country, not subdivided in states but provinces...
[Another good example are foreign symbols not generally all being recognized and it took quite a while to get from ASCI to something like UTF-8.]

Anyway - the county is most certainly an administrative level below the state. In Germany we do have Bundesland largely corresponding to the State, in Switzerland you may call it the Kanton, in France Departments, but the English/Scottish/Welsh counties are what in Germany perhaps best translates to Landkreis...
That "county" was not included in IPTC is a bit ironic, because the US actually uses that subdivision. For example Arizona is one of the states in the US and the city of Phoenix lies in Maricopa county...

So, it is definitely incorrect to map the English counties to the same level as a "state".

In any case - you might be interested to know that version 3.3 now includes DarwinCore fields, and one of these fields is "county". I use it in my label hierarchy... For my German political subdivisions I have mapped that field to "Kreis", for the UK it is mapped to "county", for the US too...

Cheers,
Frank

[Stephen]

Hi Frank, thanks!

talking about standards, it is funny actually that Google (and IPTC) does not completely comply with political administrative subdivisions most generally recognized!

It doesn't surprise me.

IPTC does not recognize the county level, which of course is NOT the same as state! It is an administrative level below the state/province.

They also appear not to recognize that England is a country and not a state. Her Majesty would not be amused!

In Germany we do have Bundesland largely corresponding to the State, in Switzerland you may call it the Kanton, in France Departments, but the English/Scottish/Welsh counties are what in Germany perhaps best translates to Landkreis...

My opinion is this, but some will surely disagree. Being familiar with both countries, I would generally translate the English county as Grafschaft or in some cases (i.e. Cornwall) as Herzogtum. There are further exceptions too. The 'counties' in England were adjoined, but the situation was different in the relatively 'new' country of Germany, where the Grafschaften and Herzogtümer were more isolated and so the term Landkreis was created to fill the gaps. After the aristocracy was officially abolished, the previously designated aristocratic lands became (politically) part of the Landkreise, although the ownership question is different. So the comparison between England and Germany is difficult to make and also we are digressing. I appreciate the discourse but don't want to dissuade others from reading the thread.

So, it is definitely incorrect to map the English counties to the same level as a "state".

But most certainly incorrect to categorize England as a state!

In any case - you might be interested to know that version 3.3 now includes DarwinCore fields, and one of these fields is "county". I use it in my label hierarchy... For my German political subdivisions I have mapped that field to "Kreis", for the UK it is mapped to "county", for the US too...

Thanks, I will investigate that.

We will see what others will say about this mapping question.

[fbungarz]

Hi Stephen,
well, well, I have lived in the UK too
Whether the UK is a state or a country, whether England is a country or state and whether the word "county" literally translates into "Grafschaft" is, in my humble opinion, really completely beyond the point! and I believe, pardon my French, that you are completely missing that point, if you strive for literary accuracy here...

Fact is, internationally all administrative level are being referred to using quite different vocabularies. There isn't any strict translation for what Germans call Kreis, Swiss people call a Kanton, Ecuadorians call "una provincia", the French call "departement" etc. etc.
[And frankly I don't even think you are literally even completely accurate to translate "county" as "Grafschaft" or "Herzogtum". If you choose English following the Standard Oxford Dictionary, maybe, because the UK remains an aristocratic society. But citizens of the US would certainly be offended to be put into that same basket. Would you translate the counties in the US as "Herzogtum"? I don't think Webster would quite agree with that one...].

Anyway - it is moot to discuss which particular fields to use - the literally correct native language terms are all non-existent in IPTC (nor in any XMP implementation I know of).

Fact is, most "countries" of the world have at least four different administrative political levels.
IPTC only recognizes three of them "country - state/province - city" it is reasonable to fill in these fields as "United Kingdom - England - London", and use "Germany - Saxony - Leipzig" in the case of Germany.
It does not make any sense, in my opinion, to strive for some historic accuracy here:
Yes, historically speaking the United Kingdom is a confederation of states and England a country [but what do you do with the Commonwealth, of which the UK remains a member, even after Brexit...].
Also, historically speaking, what is Germany? Towns there once were separate states (Lübeck, Hamburg...). Some still are. Today Germans themselves call their country a "Federal State composed of several Union-Countries, some State-Towns and two Free-States" Or how would you translate this: "Bundesstaat aus mehreren Bundesländern, etlichen Stadtstaaten und zwei Freistaaten" ???

See where I am getting at?

You cannot possibly take any of these fields literally! That is not what they were ever designed for!
What is the case is that unfortunately one administrative level, the one between province/state and city is absent from IPTC. In English (both American and British English) that level is called the county: "country - state/province - county - city".
Fact is, in Germany we no longer have "Grafschaften" or "Herzogtümer", but we still have "Landkreise" (And yes, those are sometimes called "kreisfreie Städte" as well, or ins some Bundesländern simply "Kreis" etc.).

In Ecuador, by the way, you have "estado - provincias - cantones - parroquias" - thus also four different administrative levels corresponding quite well to a generally four-tethered division of administrative political units. Ironically the most recent government decided on top of that to create "regiones autónomas", i.e., autonomous regions that include several "provincias". So, what do you do with that now...!? For convenience I tend to ignore them...

Fact is: no single schema can possibly ever adequately accommodate all variations of how countries decide to govern themselves...

Cheers,
Frank

[vlad]

IPTC was largely developed in the US which is unfortunately somewhat infamous for being ignorant towards the rest of the world, but dominates the PC industry. At least they did call that level province/state, recognizing that Canada is separate country, not subdivided in states but provinces...

For the record, Canada is divided into 10 provinces plus 3 (huge) territories - but, yeah, the "province" term partially fits Canada's situation. (>90% Canadian pictures are probably shot in the 10 provinces rather than the 3 territories.)

Fact is, most "countries" of the world have at least four different administrative political levels.
IPTC only recognizes three of them "country - state/province - city" it is reasonable to fill in these fields as "United Kingdom - England - London", and use "Germany - Saxony - Leipzig" in the case of Germany.

I completely agree - and hopefully I'm not off the mark saying that the city field could be (legitimately?) employed for non-cities (such as towns, villages, or even natural areas) too. (Btw: which fields do you use for pictures shot in Galapagos Islands, Frank?)

It does not make any sense, in my opinion, to strive for some historic accuracy here.
You cannot possibly take any of these fields literally! That is not what they were ever designed for!

Yeah, I agree.

What is the case is that unfortunately one administrative level, the one between province/state and city is absent from IPTC. In English (both American and British English) that level is called the county: "country - state/province - county - city".

Fact is: no single schema can possibly ever adequately accommodate all variations of how countries decide to govern themselves...

Again, I agree. If one wants to comprehensively record all location levels for pictures shot in different countries, then he would have to use keywords or custom fields. (But, then, I'm starting to wonder: what's the advantage of using the IPTC location fields at all?)

[vlad]

P.S. Regarding Canada: administratively, "Newfoundland and Labrador" is the official name of a single province, but I would personally like to further distinguish between pictures taken in Newfoundland and pictures taken in Labrador (which are geographically distinct). The standard IPTC fields do not (naturally) fit such a case, which I guess simply proves Frank's point. (Perhaps a future standard should simply accommodate an arbitrary number of location levels?)