lat=0, long=0 bug?
|
December 09, 2009, 09:28 PM
|
|
I just noticed a friend's photo displaying geolocation for lat=0, long=0
http://www.23hq.com/emilyann/photo/5168436/meta
I don't know if it was the Samsung or the upload mechanism to blame... but Zero,Zero is likely almost never a valid geotag. Except that it might be the most fun geo point to go to some day. ;-)
|
| |
|
Team 23
December 10, 2009, 07:23 AM
|
|
Yeah, it's from the camera -- we could write some code to make sure 0,0 is not a valid point; but what would happen if you actually went there some day?
|
| |
|
|
December 10, 2009, 10:22 PM
|
|
i'm sure people with those particular cameras would appreciate the assumption they are not in fact at that location. ;-)
Maybe don't make it a global assumption but start a list of camera make/model strings that require these sort of tweaks?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
December 11, 2009, 10:21 AM
|
|
We've added the code to ignore (0,0); it'll be included in the next update -- which is soon, I think...
|
| |
|
|
December 11, 2009, 10:35 AM
|
|
You just created the Bermuda Atlantic Equitorial Photo Triangle Singularity !
Poor fishes with their satellite enabled scientific cameras. No geotags for you!
Silly comments aside, it's even more amusing that Google actually comes up with an address in Michigan for that spot. Must be the other end of the wormhole.
|
| |
|
December 14, 2009, 02:23 PM
|
|
Shouldn't those co-ords be at the prime meridian and the equator? Should be just off the coast of West Africa, near the Bight of Benin. It is a valid set of co-ordinations in any GPS-generated EXIF data I know about.
|
| |
|
|
December 14, 2009, 11:58 PM
|
|
It is indeed. The issue here was that some cameras/phones apparently submit a zero value instead of a null when they have no data to put in those exif fields.
When someone actually goes there and posts a photo, 23 will have to deal with the consequences of the aggressive workaround I suppose.
|
| |
|
