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.

Very few images are rejected, but some of the main reasons for rejection include:

Digital Manipulation: Images that have been digitally manipulated in a way that significantly devalues the geographical information.

Subject Focus: "Family snap" type pictures where family or friends are the main subject. While people can be present in a photo, they should not be the primary focus.

Technical Quality: While we don't demand technically perfect pictures, images that are: Too small (fewer than 480 pixels along the longest side), Excessively blurred, So underexposed that details cannot be properly seen, or Pictures with distracting reflections (e.g., taken from inside a building or vehicle). Often, some judicious editing can improve these pictures for successful resubmission.

Date Stamps: Images with date stamps automatically added by the camera are strongly discouraged, even if not too obvious. If possible, please turn off this feature on your camera when taking pictures for Geograph (the date the image was taken is stored separately).

There are a few other reasons a picture may not be accepted, which are detailed in the main Geograph Guide, linked below

Yes provided they are accurately located and meet the usual criteria.

If the underground space is artificial such as a mine or railway tunnel, they can only be classed as "accepted", i.e. tagged as "inside" or "close look", rather than qualifying as a "Geograph".

If the underground space is natural such as a sea-cave, limestone cave etc., then if there is a large enough space in view a Geograph status is possible, but in a small space it would still be accepted as a "close look".

With the exception of straight tunnels, getting an accurate position underground in the absence of a GPS signal and without a detailed map of a cave system is tricky. In many cases it may be best just to give 4-figure grid reference (i.e. not try to locate the photo within the square).

(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.