The news today is abuzz with reports that you can make maps from the metadata of geotagged photos. Good thing I already posted some very similar-looking maps so I don't feel like a copycat.
But before anyone beats me to it, let me declare what appear to be the 10 Best Places in North America, based on small-scale clustering of these same photos (combining Flickr and Picasa data sets). The premise is that people take pictures when they are engaged with their environment and feel happy, safe, and interested, and that the larger the contiguous extent of such areas, the better. (I am considering two photos to be contiguous if they were taken within 200 feet of each other, but not at exactly the same place, by different people.)
Las Vegas is obviously the freak: it is a city of the automobile age ranking well against many much older places, and it has only two streets of any consequence, in contrast to the dense networks elsewhere. But I don't think this is necessarily a flaw in the methology, because those two streets are undeniably extremely popular places.
What do you think? If you know one of these places well, are the dots on the map reflective of where the interesting areas are? (In case it isn't obvious, you can click an image to get a larger version.)
|comments: Leave a comment|