picnic
-
by
ForestPreserve
moderator
I guess it's more interesting than the trains, but there's a picnic which starts around ACH000dr76 with one of the attendees inspecting the camera and continues to around ACH000drjz, so nearly 500 photos, most containing a human. Maybe a drop in the bucket overall, but these are a lot more intrusive than the usual dog walker shot. Perhaps an admin could take a look and remove this block from the database?
Posted
-
by
mason_UWI
scientist
Actually, people are still important! While not at fun to tag as wildlife, our presence (and the frequency of our presence) will have impacts on the presence of other species. We use human presence as a variable in our analyses, and because we cannot assume that all the photos contain people, they unfortunately need to be tagged. They go out of the rotation after a single tagging though, so they should not be around too long.
Posted
-
by
lesizz
Increasingly people gotta realize that anything in public is legally public domain.
There are cameras everywhere just about. One man's "intrusive" is another man's "meh". In this day and age one needs to tend toward the meh. Chicago Wildlife might stifle pictures but the zillions of other cameras around -- many of them video -- will not be going away, rather multiplying in number in the future.
Smile, you're on Candid Camera!Posted
-
by
escholzia
I'm OK with tagging people, but see no point in marking cars when a camera is pointed at a busy road. That can easily be done in post-processing by a simple SQL statement. Waste of classifiers time.
Posted
-
by
buffalogroveP
in response to escholzia's comment.
that's when I say nothing here 😉
Posted
-
by
mason_UWI
scientist
I would not tag cars on the road. If there is literally a car on the site (e.g. a car on a path at a park) then tag it, but we are not using cameras to capture car traffic. Maybe we can get something put to that effect in the description of cars on CWW? Would that be helpful?
Posted
-
yes - I've been marking them if the road is in the front part of the pic, if they're way back -- then no I've started doing a nothing there or just not noting the cars thanks for clarifying this... since the sample pics show cars parked on the street ...
Posted
-
by
escholzia
mfidino - yes that would be very helpful! I'd been feeling quite guilty for blowing off the background cars. However, you're likely to see a radical change in classifying before/after the new car guidance.
Posted
-
by
DZM
admin
in response to mfidino@lpzoo.org's comment.
@mfidino@lpzoo.org -- let me know what textual change you'd prefer in the "car" description and I can make it happen!
Posted
-
I've been tagging cars in motion as they seem to me like they'd be likely motion triggers and not tagging parked cars. There's one park/yard that has an alley next to it that often just has cars in motion in the pic.
Posted
-
by
ForestPreserve
moderator
I've been tagging the cars in motion as well, generally ignoring the parked cars.
The sample images for cars leave a little to be desired if we're mostly ignoring cars.
The first sample shows a parked pickup on the street in the foreground, which I'd tend to call a "vehicle, other". A minivan, a full-sized van, and three cars are visible in the background.
The second sample shows what appears to be a garbage truck ("vehicle, other") in motion. It's not clear whether it's on a park path or the street.
The third sample shows a mid-size SUV and a minivan, clearly parked on the street.
The two samples for "Vehicle, other" are a mixed bag.
The first sample shows a pickup (a lot like the one in the car sample) that's clearly parked off the beaten path.
The second sample shows a semi moving behind a fence. This is at a distribution center where semis come and go all day and night. (Yes, I've actually figured out where this camera is located.)
I'm pretty sure there was car or minivan involved in the picnic that started this thread, maybe that could be a new sample. Some clear guidance on what to tag when and some better samples would help here.
Posted