Included is a sample photo grabbed courtesy of a search. It mentions: "The default, if none of the scaling parameters are set, is 30k/1:300,000 Not many of the geohack maps currently use these, (google maps does) but they could become more relevant in the future" I believe it is suggesting there are different scaling parameters, but I will not pretend to understand any of it. A technical site on GeoHack can be found here. If you carefully examine the images on the site's pages, you can see it is not using exact numbers in the URL or on the addressed page. In doing a quick search, I found a similar situation. The URL of that page will have "rounded" coordinates, they will NOT be the exact coordinates as listed in the EXIF data. If you open the sample photo (of drink glasses in a pub) provided in a previous post in Irfanview, go to EXIF and select GeoHack-Wiki, a browser window will open. This is your original image with the amended GPS values in the EXIF data and I think you will see that the positions on a map are correct both in GE and when passed through GeoHack I do not know how common your format is but it is not unreasonable, I think, to expect Irfanview to do the same conversion before passing them to GeoHack. Other programs, such as Faststone image viewer, do appear to notice that the minute values contain decimals and correctly convert to Degrees, Minutes, Seconds. That is the format I would assume is supplied to Google Earth by Irfanview (and direct to Google maps by Zoner) since both GE and GM work with KML files which use that form. The "Before" and "After" figures in the EXIF data are shown belowĪs you can see the values in brackets, which are just in degrees inclusive of the decimal part and are presumably calculated by Irfanview from the values supplied by the GPS in your camera, are exactly the same in both cases.
I am guessing that is the form which GeoHack expects to receive. As I said earlier I converted the GPS data from your earlier image into Degrees Minutes and Seconds with no decimal fractions present in the Degree or Minute values. The problem lies in the form of the GPS data. It appears the GeoHack-Wiki while not particularly 'precise' does offer a lot more research opportunities for the general vicinity. With Google Earth and following the same instructions as above, but selecting the "Show in Google Earth" button instead of the GeoHack-Wiki, provides the correct (almost exact) location (the Chadds Ford Pub). My "issue" arose because I did not have Google Earth installed. Somehow between the GeoHack Wiki and Irfanview, the actual location is being shifted (about 2500 feet in this case?). Now note GPS data points in upper left corner of GeoHack Wiki page which differ from the original Irfanview data. Open original photo posted above in Irfanview, select "i" (image information), select EXIF info. If an image has GPS or Geo tagging data, Google Earth will convert it to a specific location (point) while selecting GeoHack-Wiki will convert to a general area (vicinity) around the location.įurther explanation. Irfanview allows for two, seemingly similar GPS location methods under EXIF info Google Earth and GeoHack-Wiki. Or are you trying to say that the position you see indicated on a map or satellite image by Irfanview using GeoHack or Google Earth is 3km from where you took the picture even though the reported position coordinates are correct? If so would you confirm that you are actually using Irfanview v4.33 as stated in your profile and not one of the earlier editions which did have a known error. I calculate that represents about 14.0 metres possible error in longitude and 18.5 metres in latitude at your location. 01 minutes (=0.6 seconds)? I suspect that jAlbum is probably doing the same while Zoner, at 1 second resolution, is worse. Zoner you say reports N 40 51' 54" W 76 41' 01"Īre you complaining because Irfanview is only reporting to a resolution of. You stated in your first post that Irfanview reports a position of N 40 51.90' W 76 41.02'Ĭonverting that to degrees, minutes and seconds gives N 40 51' 54.0" W 76 41' 1.2" which is exactly what you say that jAlbum reports I am afraid I still do not understand what you are trying to say, mrag.
0 kommentar(er)
