In the last few days, photo-sharing service Flickr has launched a new mapping service for displaying geotagged photographs. And it's really simple to use - much simpler than geotagging used to be. Just drag and drop your photos onto a map and, hey presto, a map covered in photos. Perfect timing too. I thought I'd have a go at mapping my Metroland photographs, and here's the result. Clever, isn't it? Not only can you now see where each photograph was taken, but you also get a really good idea of the shape and extent of Metro-land (which you may not have had before). See, I told you it was a long way from Amersham out to Quainton Road - now you believe me. Except I'm not impressed, and here's why.
Metro-land map: There are lots of good online mapping services out there. Google, for example, have really detailed maps of the UK, right down to satellite shots where I can pick out the individual tourists in Trafalgar Square. Unfortunately Flickr aren't associated with Google, they're associated with Yahoo, and Yahoo maps of the UK are rubbish. I don't know what data they used, but the amount of detail included on these maps is absolutely pitiful. Would you have guessed that Trafalgar Square was here, for example? In Central London the cartographers appear to have invented streets and railways that bear little resemblance to reality, and then randomly joined them all together. I've never seen a road which cuts diagonally across Hyde Park, for example, but Yahoo Maps assures me that it exists. I think not. And you can't zoom in very far on these maps to take a closer look either, so most of the locations on my Metro-land map are merely best estimates. It's like trying to pinpoint a precise location at arm's length whilst wearing steamed-up spectacles. Which is rubbish. See?
Go West map: Last year I went for a twelve mile walk due west from my house and took several photographs along the way. And then I stuck them on a map. To do this I had to "geotag" each one with its exact latitude and longitude, which was remarkably time-consuming. But still worthwhile, because the walk only came alive once you could see it on a map. And hurrah, Flickr have automatically updated my geotags so that you can now follow my Go West walk in the new format. It's really easy to skim through the photographs at each location too, which was never possible before. But there's still a catch, which is that if you want to go and see what I saw, you still can't tell precisely where each photograph was taken. Because a map of a big featureless area called 'London' with no other place names and a few unlabelled semi-imaginary roads isn't very useful, is it? See?
San Francisco map: But there are two countries where Yahoo maps are very good. Not surprisingly one of them is the USA, and the other is neighbouring Canada. So I've been back to my photographs of San Francisco and have dropped each of them onto a map of the city, just to test out the much better Flickr service that Americans get to enjoy. The SF maps are so accurate that I was even able to locate the city's gold fire extinguisher on the correct corner of the correct intersection. Or at least I think I did. San Francisco's not my local town, so I might have got my geography mixed up. That's the other problem with "dropping things on maps" - the general public don't necessarily know (or care) quite how accurate they are. And if they drop photographs from too far up, they'll probably miss. You can find "close-up" photos of the Golden Gate Bridge, for example, bang in the middle of the city, or halfway along the wrong bridge, or even several miles away beside the airport. Even when the maps are great, people aren't. And Flickr/Yahoo maps outside the US really aren't great. Maybe one day.
