Geograph - photograph every grid square

The answers given by Barry have been on the site for a long time, and they form the basis of what the site is about. Yet many good Geographs do not fulfil any of those criteria, and two are almost contradictory (at close up and being useful in interpreting a map).

It is important to realise that the site has grown way beyond what was first envisaged, and so the site's definition of Geography is now very wide, incorporating a lot of social history, ecology, geology and other allied subjects. This is encouraged but it means that the definition of a Geograph has become broader.

So a Geograph is any photograph, accurately geoloacted, that depicts the Geography of a square, or any aspect of the Geography of the square, shown in some form of context. A description is useful and encouraged, especially for photographs in which the geography is not obvious, but it is not essential.

Some other photographs are still extremely welcome and contain useful geographical information but may not be classified as Geographs*, and listed below:

Firstly, it was felt that it was very important that every square should be actually visited and not just 'view-bagged' from a distance. So, Geographs must be taken within the square. Nevertheless, certain views can only be seen from outside a square. These cross-grid shots are classified as "Cross Grid".

Secondly, some photographs don't have much context. These are usually details of large objects, but they may just be very small objects or they could be large objects that are not shown completely. Most mods would agree that the smaller the object the more context that is needed to make it a Geograph. These close-ups are classified as "Close Look"*. The largest objects that tend to be classed as shown in close-up or incompletely are buildings. Most mods believe that to be a Geograph a building photograph should the whole building or some context, although some mods would prefer both.

Thirdly, indoor shots are classified as "Inside". They can add useful information, but indoors, being an entirely human environment, is on the fringe of the site's definition. Only public indoor areas are acceptable.

Fourthly, shots taken from the air are classified as "Aerial". They are often useful, but they approach the subject of Geography in a different way than was originally envisaged.

Finally some shots are classified as "Extra" these include:
Silhouettes
Sunsets and sunrises
Cloudscapes, sky, auroras, celestial bodies etc
Things in the sky such as birds, aircraft, balloons etc.
Things on the sea that are not permanently fixed to the sea bed for extended periods of time such as boats, windsurfers, inflatables


*(From 11 May 2016 the Supplemental Classification is replaced by Image Type Tags:
see http://www.geograph.org.uk/article/Image-Type-Tags-update ).

Image Type Tags (ITTs) were introduced in May 2016 to further define different types of supplemental image. Originally there were 5 (including Geograph) but in November 2016 this was changed to 6 after complaints about the words used. Whether this has helped or not is still a matter for debate.
Generally they can be helpful in refining a search.

Short answer - please don't!
Editing out what is there by stamping another part of the image over in order to produce a 'prettier' picture is not what Geograph is about. We aim to record what is there, not a prettified version of it.
If people happen to be in your photo and you think they may object to the image appearing on the internet, consider if you are prepared to deal with any objections they may raise. If not, best not to submit. That said, I can only recall 2-3 images being removed from view because of objections raised by people (known to the photographer) who appeared in them - in the 11 years since the site started.
Some submitters do blur out legible vehicle registration plates. Opinions vary as to whether this is necessary or desirable but it is not a reason for rejection if subtly done.

(From 11 May 2016 the Supplemental Classification is replaced by Image Type Tags:
see http://www.geograph.org.uk/article/Image-Type-Tags-update ).

If an image doesn't quite fulfill the Geograph criteria above, but is still a good image, we'll accept it as "Supplemental image" - no Geograph points are awarded, but the image will still appear on the selected grid square. A square that just contains Supplemental images is still open to be claimed as a Geograph though!

Supplemental images are not inferior to Geographs, just different. For the interpretation of a square they are just as valuable as they add extra information (in the case of close-ups) or wider views (in the case of aerial shots or images taken from another square).

No, T-points are only awarded to Geographs. However, if an image which qualified for a T-point is later reclassified as 'cross grid' (e.g. photographer position added or moved) it is likely to retain its T-point for some time. Up-dating of T-points (an infrequent process) is long over-due.

(From 11 May 2016 the Supplemental Classification is replaced by Image Type Tags:
see http://www.geograph.org.uk/article/Image-Type-Tags-update ).

see also http://www.nearby.org.uk/geograph/answers/view.php?id=16

Supplementals are all photos that are not Geographs.

Any photographs that show close up details without sufficient surrounding context to be deemed geographs are classed as supplemental as are photographs of the insides of buildings. Also photographs taken from outside the grid square are commonly referred to as cross-grid supplemantals.

Aerial and underground shots are always classed as supplementals as are "all-at-sea" photographs with no land or permanent structure (such as a fixed navigational aid) in the square.

The distinction may be "borderline" in some instances and different moderaters' decisions might fall another side of the border but such decisions are initially based on their interpretation of the guidelines and generally without reference to other similar images.

The "aesthetic quality" of the image is irrelevant.