On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Chris Casciano wrote:
You could outline any territory as a series of geos if the need ever
arose. But I'm still not clear how we've gotten here. If I want to say
something is in Ireland, or Mexico City or somewhere in the Alps I'd
tag it as such. I thought the original issue of accuracy was one of
precision (either via tool measurement or in human recollection).
Not one of being able to define a "geo" that accurately represents the
floorplan of Yankee Stadium or the whole of Antarctica but of
accurately reflecting if a designation was accurate enough to make a
determination if a specific seat in yankee stadium, "somewhere in the
bleechers", or just "near the stadium as i was walking around before
the game" or "i need to mark the bronx somehow so left me zoom out and
drop a marker from the 50k foot view"
http://flickr.com/map/?&tag=yankeestadium&fLat=40.828081&fLon=
-73.920821&zl=7
Notice that the yankeestadium tag shows various usages here - the
ambiguity between where the photo was taken from and what it was taken
of.
You could probably derive a useful 'centrepoint + radius' for Yankee
stadium from the mean and std-dev of those geolocated, tagged points.
Notice that the URL I used above has 6 digits of latitude and longitude
(a supposed precision of ~ 10cm), but a zoom-level parameter to express
the actual display I wanted to convey.
However, what you see is dependent on the size of your browser window,
as the zoom-level is defined based on pixel-size, not window width.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
