Question for CEMETERISTS - Uploading images for cemeteries

Question

I asked a similar question last week and got 4 ups and one response saying we can upload one photo at a time.

Today, I am asking the CEMETERISTS

Question: Would you like to upload your tombstone photos in bulk ?  I have an agreement with a genealogy club to use all their tombstone photos.  I want to create a SPACE for each cemetery to host each photo and then link the profiles  to those photos.  The problem is just one cemetery has over 2000 pictures.  I don't see myself uploading one photo at a time.  It will take me years to do just one region of the province of Québec.

I would like the possibility to create folders for A tombstones, B tombstones, etc and then transfert each folders in the cemetery space.  I could then create and link the profiles to the tombstones.

This would save me time for other things to do :)

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

Comments

Thank you for UP votes.  But I would prefer ''answers'  :)

---

How it would give me time to do other things ??

Faster upload and once the photos are installed in the Cemetery Space, creating the profiles could be a team work instead of a one person job.

Answer 1

I think it would make a lot of sense to have that capability.  One photo at a time is fine for personal photos, but I can see where it won't work for the cemeteries project.

Answer 2

I think that is a great idea!  The cemeteries in my area are not that big, or at least the ones I am working on at the moment.  And they happen to be family, so right now I am happy with the 1 at a time upload!  But as I move on to bigger cemeteries and cemeteries outside of my "home" territory this will be an awesome tool!!

Answer 3

I haven't uploaded any yet, but it seems to me that it would make it easier. I like the idea of having the photos in one place and linking the profiles to them.

Answer 4

My up vote was for the question, because I think this is a great topic for discussion.

I have mixed feelings about the bulk upload of photos.  To get assistance with the creation of profiles, I've been creating the cemetery free space, transcribing the photos myself (definitely time-consuming), and asking for assitance creating the profiles for people listed on the interment table.  That has worked well, though I'm the bottle-neck in the process since this method relies on me transcribing the photos.  Bulk upload would resolve that issue, since others could help with the transcriptions as well as the profiles.

My concern wth bulk upload is the potential for a lack of information about the photos. When I upload tombstone photos, I take the time to list the name and location of the cemetery in the Location field, indicate the certainty of the location (since I took the photo), and change the title of the image to be more descriptive, such as Joe Smith military tombstone, or Joe and Mary Smith tombstone.  If we could create a bulk upload process that would allow (and maybe encourage?) data entry in the Location field, I would be more supportive of this suggestion.

Comments

As you upload your multiple photos to one cemetery, the location and the information on the thumbstone are no problem.

Data entry for the photo (location and name) can be done when creating the profiles.

The only data not available would be the site or row in the cemetery unless you write them yourself.

---

I really like Star's modification of the process.

 

I would consider a batch upload a good idea - but the greatest would be to have copies (because LINKS, hey!) in a  CEMETERY-based area so that if someone thinks they might have a relative buried there, they can BROWSE.  

HOWEVER, I think the best thing to consider is that sometimes it is not WHO you are looking for - But WHO IS BURIED AROUND THEM - that can be incredibly revealing.  

I don't know exactly how that could be achieved without making the task even harder, but I still wanted to share.

---

I understand, Guy, that the cemetery location will be easy to determine when you go to the cemetery page.  My concern is that when someone else creates the profile and links to that image, the location is no longer associated with the image.  I was hoping someone could create a batch upload process that would include a field for us to enter the cemetery location to attach that data to each individual image i the batch, so the data would appear just as it does when you enter the information for the photos individually.  This would not only reduce the time for those who are uploading a large number of photos, but it would also reduce the potential for error or omission of this data.

One thing Cemeterists were asked to record, if possible/available, was the GPS location of each grave.  I’m afraid that information will be lost by batch uploading.

Thanks, DK, for your excellent point about the valuable information that we could derive from knowing who is buried nearby.  I’d like to revive a previous discussion from a few months ago regarding how to best list interments for very large cemeteries, since that could be relevant to how we upload batches of photos.  I’ve been considering breaking the large cemeteries into sections or groups of sections, if the cemetery has defined sections, rather than breaking the cemetery page up alphabetically.  Since the cemetery category page lists the interments alphabetically, this could give WikiTree visitors the option to browse alphabetically or by section.  Then I could upload batches of interments by section and enter the cemetery location with the section.  Though the location wouldn’t include the specific plot number or GPS coordinates, but it would list some additional location information.

What do others think?

---

I would agree completely - the GPS thing is often too subtle from one relative spot to another and while technology certainly allows it, naming the section of the cemetery and even using the cemetery's plot numbering system would be better. GPS is useful for the cemetery and perhaps for the section, but to me there's just too much involved in detailing it to the actual plot itself without using the markers the cemetery provided for that purpose. I'm not opposed to using both, although often I capture the photo, travel hundreds of miles back to the home, and then have to figure out the physical location of the plot from memory - which is horribly counterproductive.

I'm currently doing a very large cemetery (many thousands interred there) and it's essentially many smaller sections that combined make up the larger whole, and documenting each section individually in some fashion would be easier than any GPS mechanism. And I think getting the plot info would be easier than the GPS coordinates as well, but that's just me.

---

Thanks, Scott, for your suggestion to include the GPS coordinates of the section for large cemeteries.  I've been recording the GPS for cemeteries, but since I've done small cemeteries, I hadn't thought of this.  I just started my first large cemetery, and have only photographed 2 sections, so when I go back to that cemetery I'll record the GPS for those sections.

I recently got a new camera that includes a GPS, and I tested it at a nearby cemetery that I've prevously photographed.  It records where you're standing.  This was probably obvious to everyone else, but it was a revelation to me when I tried it.  I stood back from a larger monument so I could photograph the entire memorial, then looked down to photograph the flat memorial I was standing over.  The coordinates recorded by my camera make it appear that they plots are next to each other.

Are you planning to use a separate interment table for each section?  Or if the sections are small, grouping a few sections?

---

Generally, I have a difficult time with GPS, so I might record the general GPS for a section of graves, but tend not to have it for most. I don't have an integrated mechanism, and to stop and manually find and record the data is not something I've managed to date. However, each cemetery does keep meticulous records on plot numbers, sections, etc.

Those I'm planning to keep in a consolidated table under a sortable field so that it can be easily found. For example, under Washington Cemetery, there are sections (mini-cemeteries) like George Washington Mausoleum, and within this, the Mausoleum plots run in building C-60, 4-6 (4th row up, 6th one from the left). The grave markers are more difficult to categorize, as they don't have readable markers, but a good relationship with the cemetery may be able to resolve this to get their numbering system. So I would have a field for the section and a field for the plot location.

---

Thanks for all the discussion around GPS and the use of this for headstone and grave locations. I believe it is good to have both the GPS and area/plot numbers. We have to remember too as pointed out that GPS can be relative - to where you are standing, and some may not particularly well pinpoint a grave location. What we are also finding in New Zealand, due to seismic activity, is that the GPS co-ordinates have changed. There have been what is called "slow slip events" and the landscape is altered. I have some family graves located in a cemetery that is particularly prone to earthquakes, and could not reliably say that GPS would be a long term permanent indication of their location.

---

Would it be possible to do a bulk upload and upload a corresponding table with the information you want to have for each?

Would that be an interim solution? and allow for the data to then be transferred one by one to the images? or use the table as an index?

Answer 5

Sorry for the gravedig, but wouldn't uploading albums be a neat feature, I can upload my photo lot for that cemetery under one album all together. Then for photos I could just link to them as "Album name"-#.jpg and then of course we could add the individual photos to profiles.