Can someone give me a quick overview of how geograph works and how the images are taken? I ask this because a number of images from my home town are poor quality, and incomplete (I can locate less than 5 notable buildings photographed in the town, when the real number is circa 20-30). When I say "poor quality" I don't necessarily mean low res etc. but of poor photographic quality; for example a monument in the centre of the town is photographed from about half a mile away across the roofs of several buildings (although you can drive/walk right past it...). Tom

Thanks Roger, Both Geograph and Wiki Loves Monuments have established that people like photography contests, and they are willing to take images and release them under open licenses. I'd also add that enough of the images are good that it is worth sifting through the many that aren't. Geograph is very much focussed on the UK and Eire, though I think they may be extending to Germany. They definitely aren't global but then neither is the UK chapter. WLM started in the Netherlands and has now extended to dozens of countries, but not yet the UK. WLM is a Wikimedia initiative from one of our fellow chapters, and I'd agree that means a presumption that we should take part, and that we'd be welcome participants. The Geograph is a completely separate entity and my only attempt to contact them has not been responded to after some months (I emailed them about a probable copyright anomaly). But their licensing is fully compatible with ours. The Geograph runs a points based system which started off with the idea of getting a photo of every square kilometer of the UK, Yes they really do have images as banal as a bit of driftwood on the shingle that forms the only dry land in one particular grid square. They've subsequently extended that model to allow various other ways to get points for subsequent picture in the same square km. I have whinged slightly here about their poor coverage of nature reserves, but I'd really like to see the UK chapter approach them and say "Here is a list of Wikipedia articles that lack images, would you be willing to add them to Geograph and offer Geograph points for photographing them? And while we are talking would your members like a dual load option so that they can also load their images onto commons?" Where the Geograph outscores WLM is that they aren't time limited, some of their photographers have uploaded images from decades ago, and they cover the same object in different seasons. I think that makes them more compatible with Wikipedia, September foliage can hide some of the features we want to photograph, winter snow can highlight earthworks and other archaeology, past events are best illustrated with old photos, and waterfalls in particular are much better illustrated with minigalleries showing winter spate next to summer trickles. I've taken part in some of the discussions about the future of WLM, and there is a realisation that it will need to change as we run out of monuments in some countries, But they do seem very wedded to the idea of it being a September competition, and I find that very limiting. My preference would be that we follow both tracks, there is no guarantee that WLM would want to collaborate with us, but if they did the benefits would be great for us both - and why not run WLM in cooperation with the Geograph? WSC On 20 January 2013 16:52, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We gave a prize to Geograph as Wiki of the year - they should respond to us if we use the right address On 20 January 2013 19:29, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: -- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2