| ▲ | ieie3366 4 hours ago |
| Most likely: actually using the geolocation is an extremely niche usecase for images uploaded from mobile browsers. I’d wager 99.9% of the users didn’t realize that they are effectively sending their live GPS coords to a random website when taking a photo. But yes, a prop to the input tag ’includeLocation’ which would then give the user some popup confirmation prompt would have been nice |
|
| ▲ | Shalomboy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| My first eye-opening moment working within the government was with team of herpetologists at the state conservation agency. They had a pretty slick public education campaign around protecting Gopher Tortoise habitats and a grand call-to-action "let the agency know where and when they see their nests". The whole thing fell apart because they were getting tons of earnestly-submitted junk data from earnestly-engaged citizens. Turns out the application was just a form that they asked people to fill out. I suggested they ask for user photos and scrape the EXIF data or ask them to opt-into sending their location and got laughed out of the room. Turns out that they discovered users immediately nope out of government websites that ask for their location! What a shame. |
| |
| ▲ | MostlyStable 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A colleague of mine tried doing this after a large sturgeon die off in the San Francisco Bay a few years ago. Citizens were asked to upload photos of dead sturgeon washed up on beaches. They actually got pretty good data (sturgeon are very easily identifiable) and lots of participation, but the location data ending up being largely useless because it was fuzzed (I think by iOS?) to a large enough degree to no longer be helpful, and the fields for manual coordinate entry had very low usage | | |
| ▲ | Shalomboy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh that's fascinating. I hadn't considered OS-level fuzzing as a hurdle until now. I'm an pixel guy and typically I get decently-accurate location heatmaps in the Photos app when I search by location; I wonder how we would have handled this. HABs are so difficult, they break my heart. | |
| ▲ | Barbing an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does iOS decide whether to default to including location? I coulda sworn, even in earlier versions of iOS 26, if you told it not to include location when sending a photo once then it would not include it by default the next time. Also I thought that when you uploaded a photo from your camera roll to the web I thought it defaulted to no location. And that seems to have changed too. (Of course, you can still tap a button to withhold location EXIF.) |
| |
| ▲ | smelendez 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder if there would be any way to fix this with the right messaging. With infinite funding and the right agency cooperation, I bet you could include this in a state parks app that you could also use for other useful purposes, like pulling up trail maps, paying for parking and camping, fishing licensing, signing up for volunteer events, receiving notifications with news around particular parks you frequent, etc. But in the real world, if you put a QR code at the trailhead and said "take a picture of this code. When you see a tortoise nest, use the code to go to our website and share your exact location." If people are wary of sharing their location with the conservation agency, you might have better luck if the website was run by a nongovernmental conservation group? | |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > earnestly-submitted junk data from earnestly-engaged citizens. What made the data junk? Were the provided coordinates not precise enough, incorrect, something else? | | |
| ▲ | Shalomboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well that's just it - in most of the submissions the coordinates weren't supplied at all, and when any location information was given it would come down to just a city name or a park name. They're trying to pipe these results into ArcGIS to inform park rangers where to reroute trails, public works departments where to survey before digging, and real estate developers which lots need proper relocation assistance before building on. They were depending on the average citizen to know how to fill out a technical field in this form and to do so accurately, and without and form validation. The whole project needed re-thinking. | | |
| ▲ | mapmeld an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like a combination of 'can it be geocoded?' and 'is their location precise enough?' There is some progress on resolving human-written locations in cities ( https://www.danvk.org/2026/03/08/oldnyc-updates.html ) but I imagine once you lose reference points, '100 feet into Golden Gate Park...' would be interpretable but not possible to fix to one point. |
|
| |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Really? You don’t understand why people wouldn’t want to share their location with the government? | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | iNaturalist is great for stuff like this as it allows organizations to create projects for data collection on specific species. | | |
| ▲ | mapmeld an hour ago | parent [-] | | I've also noticed that iNaturalist also fuzzes exact locations for some species within a geographic grid (example: zebra) even the ranch zebra in San Simeon, California. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I’d wager 99.9% of the users didn’t realize that they are effectively sending their live GPS coords to a random website when taking a photo. I'd wager 90% of the photos on Google Maps associated with various listings don't actually know their photos are in public. I keep coming across selfies and other photos that look very personal, but somehow someone uploaded to Google Maps, the photo is next to a store or something and Google somehow linked them together, probably by EXIF. |
| |
| ▲ | eru 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google prompts you in Google Maps if you want to upload your picture to Maps. I sometimes do that for random pictures, even like selfies, which I don't mind popping up there. | | |
| ▲ | PokemonNoGo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wait... You post selfies on Google Maps? The thought never crossed my mind. What would the purpose be? Sorry I'm probably thick... | | |
| ▲ | PepperdineG 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can say for me that after my father died I posted pictures of him at some of his favorite places or from favorite trips. | |
| ▲ | petu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Google Maps app sees that you took photo near POI and later in the day asks you in notification if you want to share it on maps. You review the photo and go "lol, sure". At least for me that doesn't even feel like posting due to how frictionless it is and that it's about natural discoverability (someone has to click that POI and scroll through photos to find it). | | |
| ▲ | eru 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | About the latter: that's why Google Maps is my favourite social medium. It's hyper-local. |
| |
| ▲ | Barbing an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I will share a thread from someone asking where was their congratulatory email that they've come to expect from Google Maps. https://www.localguidesconnect.com/t/e-mail-from-google-cong... | |
| ▲ | ClikeX 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For that sweet local guide score. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-] | | I remember arriving in Lisbon, leaving a favorable review for a restaurant because they were so nice to us, and Google sending me a notification that I'm now a local guide for Lisbon. What exactly does that mean though? Is there any benefits to it? All I see is a badge/label, that's it? | | |
| ▲ | gbear605 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There are some benefits that definitely used to exist, and maybe still exist, like early access to new features and additional Google Drive storage. But in practice today, the only real benefit is the badge. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sixothree 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I had a popup on my iPhone one day "You were in City Park last weekend, would you like to share those photos?". I stopped allowing google access to my photos after that. A little late though, they had apparently scraped all of my data already. | | |
| ▲ | setopt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I had a similar moment a few years ago. That Google Maps pop-up was what caused me to first switch to de-googled Android, and once that turned out to be a hassle after a couple of years, switch to an iPhone without Google stuff. (On Android, Google is a location provider, so blocking their access is much harder.) | | |
| ▲ | ThePowerOfFuet an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >On Android, Google is a location provider, so blocking their access is much harder. https://grapheneos.org/features#network-location Their approach encompasses GNSS location, too. Nothing Google required. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | True. Sidenote: they are still however push notifications provider, so good luck getting rid of them completely (unless you're fine with not getting the notifications). MicroG is awesome wrt. that as you can turn it on/off as you wish, and it just works. GrapheneOS however only supports Google services in sandbox, but the notifications work sporadically IME (maybe because I keep turning them off and on... not sure). So... Pick your poison. |
| |
| ▲ | ankaz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't even have G-apps on my phone. They work fine in a browser, until they don't. I was trying to use streetview yesterday and it would not open in the browser and kept trying to redirect me to the app store. So now they are deliberately borking their webapps to punish those not using native apps. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, there are lots of pages that don't show the (google) map if you don't have google services enabled on your android phone. Not sure if this is something that could be solved on browser level though? I'm quite certain that these pages still work on iphones... | |
| ▲ | eru 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Facebook has done that for a long time. And linkedin, too. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | harvey9 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I suspect there used to be a flow which was far too easy to share directly to Google maps. I was browsing the map once and found a picture of a credit card in a room in a hotel. I guess the guy intended to send it to his PA or something. | | | |
| ▲ | kccqzy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have friends that do that and it’s intentional. Had a good time at a store or restaurant? Take a selfie and upload to Google Maps. Also take a selfie video and upload to Instagram stories. It’s a way of life that defaults to more sharing. |
|
|
| ▲ | freehorse 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > actually using the geolocation is an extremely niche usecase for images uploaded from mobile browsers Is it only for mobile browsers? The article makes it sound [0] as if it is a general thing, even when sharing through bluetooth, and that only copying the image via usb connection allows you to keep geolocation in exif. Not sure what happens when you upload to native apps, eg to some cloud storage app (photo specific or not). I definitely want my location to stay when I make a cloud backup of my photos with an app intended for that. [0] Quote: >> Using a "Progressive Web App" doesn't work either. So, can users transfer their photos via Bluetooth or QuickShare? No. That's now broken as well. You can't even directly share via email without the location being stripped away. Literally the only way to get a photo with geolocation intact is to plug in a USB cable, copy the photo to your computer, and then upload it via a desktop web browser? |
| |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm guessing they changed the default behavior from "include metadata" to "strip metadata" so now any app that wants metadata has to request it explicitly, and any older apps which don't know how to make such a request are simply unable to get location data? Seems like this is possibly related to the ACCESS_MEDIA_LOCATION permission[1], and Google's recent efforts to force applications to migrate to the scoped storage API. See: https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/m... Probably someone more versed in Android's APIs could give a better explanation. [1]: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.per... | | |
| ▲ | rickdeckard 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it's about that permission. It's not even that recent, it has been implemented since Android 10. I think it's summarized quite well here [0]: If your app targets Android 10 (API level 29) or higher and needs to retrieve unredacted EXIF metadata from photos, you need to declare the ACCESS_MEDIA_LOCATION permission in your app's manifest, then request this permission at runtime. So if the app-developer didn't take explicit effort to request this data (and the user-permission for it), his app will not receive it. [0] https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/m... |
| |
| ▲ | Barbing an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No way they broke it for Google Photos. Anyone who needs location and doesn’t do cables, or can’t figure this out, can simply subscribe! Can you compress a folder with a photo it and then email that? Just curious. |
|
|
| ▲ | isodev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > extremely niche usecase Phones are computers though, it’s not up to Google or Apple to decide what’s a good use case for my own pictures. |
| |
| ▲ | jen20 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It is absolutely Apple's job to protect people who do not have the desire or capacity to decide what is a good use case or not from predators (yes, the ad industry is 100% predatory). The whole reason I and my entire family have iPhones is because there are entire classes of scams and scum that you don't have to be constantly vigilant against. If it didn't do that, I wouldn't buy them. |
|
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm gonna die on this hill, but silently attaching very sensitive PII (including exact lat/lon) to photos has always been a terrible anti-feature. One of those "WTF were they actually thinking?" terrible anti-features. Imagine if you created a word document and Microsoft silently attached your home address to them as metadata. Awful and totally unexpected to the vast majority of users. |
|
| ▲ | kristopolous 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I want the location on every time, without exception. The current behavior is exactly what I wanted. These "all users are imbeciles that need our protection" design pattern needs to die a swift death. It's maddening, We're constantly taking kitchen knives and replacing them with the colorful plastic toddler version and still have the same cutting tasks. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I was a fan of the idea that the OS would strip location data on any upload via web/app, but would preserve the data when doing specific types of transfers deemed not via third party like direct transfer to computer or AirDrop | | |
| ▲ | kristopolous 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Upload file doesn't mean mutate file. No. Upload file means upload file. If you want to mutate the file, mutate the file. When tools assume you're stupid and insert silent surprises unrelated to the task they no longer deserve the title "tool" because they are fundamentally doing other things. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Most people have no idea when they upload a “photo” they are also letting anyone know their “location”. On iOS at least, from the browser, you specifically choose whether you want to upload a file from the Files app (that lets you upload files from iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox or any other storage type service you have installed) or a photo. | | |
| ▲ | kristopolous 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | These "all users are imbeciles that need our protection" design pattern needs to die a swift death. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes and no one who knows how to change an engine should drive a car. This is why geeks make horrible product people and after 30 years geeks are still waiting for “The Year of Linux on the Desktop”. | | |
| ▲ | kristopolous 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No what you're advocating for is more like the Bluetooth hijacking when you get in a car of transferring your call from you ear piece to your sound system as if you want to blast your phone call to everyone in the parking lot. About Linux: it won the Unix war, the cloud computing war, the embedded war, and is the most installed OS on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And most people don’t want their location shared with random websites. |
|
|
| ▲ | shevy-java an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| On that point I would agree - I never used that. But Google also
lied why it wanted to destroy ublock origin. It was clear to
everyone that they did it because people can break away from
ads infiltrating their computers. I can't use the modern www
anymore without general content blocker; ublock lite is good
but nowhere as useful as ublock origin was. I notice this when
I compare e. g. firefox with default chrome. So many websites
have a totally broken UI. With ublock origin not only can I
get rid of popups or ads but also horrible UI choices. I use
that on so many websites to simplify them. |
| |
| ▲ | drnick1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Use IronFox or Fennec, preferably on GrapheneOS. You won't have freedom on Google or Apple controlled devices. I have not seen an ad in years. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Well Apple has had ad blocking extensions for over a decade and full extension support for a few years |
|
|