Feature Request: Geolocate XMP-iptcCore:Location

[Marsu42]

For what it's worth, because I know that big tech doesn't necessarilly uses the medadata tags as originally intended:

When using Lightroom, geolocation is read just fine - LR uses XMP-photoshop:City, XMP-photoshop:Country, XMP-photoshop:State and XMP-iptcCore:CountryCode.

And there's another field "Sublocation" that is mapped to XMP-iptcCore:Location - which is currently not used by exiftool (12.81). See screenshot with the metadata fields of LR.

People could use this sublocation for custom places that aren't in the database. However I faintly remember another geotagging tool (Geosetter?) that sets this Sublocation to "small city/town/...", and City to, well "large city/town/...". This made sense to me, because small locations are accurate, but not necessarilly recognizable (using the 500 db), so having both is the most intuitive solution.

In any case, setting XMP-iptcCore:Location in addition to XMP-photoshop:Country in this way probably wouldn't hurt as Adobe apps are widely used - maybe someone else can report how other significant apps use XMP-iptcCore:Location

Edit: Adobe docs describe it as "In the sense of a sublocation to a city this element is at the fourth level of a top-down geographical hierarchy" https://github.com/adobe/xmp-docs/blob/master/XMPNamespaces/Iptc4xmpCore.md

[StarGeek]

However I faintly remember another geotagging tool (Geosetter?) that sets this Sublocation to "small city/town/...", and City to, well "large city/town/...". This made sense to me, because small locations are accurate, but not necessarilly recognizable (using the 500 db), so having both is the most intuitive solution.

Yes it was Geosetter.  They were pulling data from Google's Map API (I think), so such data was easily available.

Myself, I didn't care for the data it pulled.  It was extremely obscure.  For example, at the Anaheim Convention Center, it would return Miraflores, which is all but useless.  I doubt very many people living in the area would even know of Miraflores.

I try to fill this tag with something more recognizable, such as Anaheim Convention Center above.

For that level of detail, it would require a significantly larger database. And you would have to decide that such obscure locations are worth adding.

[Marsu42]

For that level of detail, it would require a significantly larger database. And you would have to decide that such obscure locations are worth adding.

Personally, in rural Germany my experience with Geosetter were different - it regularly tagged "small town" and "big city" rather correctly, otherwise I wouldn't remember it as something I am missing.

The prerequisites in exiftool are already there, i.e. the default "big locations" db, and the downloadable "small location" db.

[Phil Harvey]

It would require a significant change to search for the 2 nearest locations and put one into sublocation.  For now I'll put this idea on the back burner.

- Phil