Filed under: iLife, Odds and ends, Freeware
RapidoMap: slick geocoding for free
We've previously covered quite a few different applications to geocode your photos. Geocoding or geotagging is the process of adding location information (latitude and longitude) to the EXIF metadata of your photos, so you can see where they were taken. RapidoMap is one of the newest of these tools and looks to have a couple of particularly nice features. The application integrates a browser for Yahoo Maps which is how you actually locate your photos on the globe. It has an iLife media browser that makes it easy to get your photos in, and a built-in Flickr uploader.Best of all, RapidoMap is a free download from app4mac (points off to them, however, for using an installer package).
[via Macworld]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
yoinkers said 1:06PM on 8-26-2007
I find programs like gpsphotolinker (oregonstate.edu/~earlyj/gpsphotolinker/) to be a little better solution for geotagging because they allow import of actual gps tracks and waypoints which speeds up the workflow. If I need to import points from a map I use google earth and export the .kml file for the pushpins, convert to .gpx and then import into photolinker.
Reply
patrice said 1:10PM on 8-26-2007
The debate about providing an installer is only for geeks. Most mac users open applications from the .dmg file when you don't provide an installer. We have 5 years of experience of feedback from Mac users and trust us, it's funny how people install an application when you don't provide an installer. So for the best user experience, we decided to make an installer. The installer will also check if the computer is compatible.
Reply
patrice said 1:20PM on 8-26-2007
RapidoMap is also able to import the information from a camera with a GPS
Reply
JimD said 2:03PM on 8-26-2007
I recently wrote an article for Macworld about app4mac's freeware apps (the Rapido line).
Excellent applications, all worthy of a spot in your Apps folder.
Reply
JR said 3:21PM on 8-26-2007
Is it just me, or the photos you "geotag" with RapidoMap aren't *really* geotagged? Meaning the EXIF data isn't modified by RapidoMap.
I attempted to upload a few pictures i had "geotagged" using RapidoMap to Flickr/PicasaWeb and they weren't geotagged.
So if I understand correctly, unless you use this software, your geotagged information doesn't transfer to other sites/mediums.
Reply
Mo said 3:27PM on 8-26-2007
@2: Unless your installer allows people to choose where to install the app and tells you exactly what's being installed all you're doing is irritating people.
It might be “funny” what people do without an installer, but given that the VAST majority of Mac applications don't have installers, they've generally managed to cope quite well for the past couple of decades. Not to mention, a simple drag-and-drop install tells you that the UNinstall will be just as simple a drag-and-drop operation.
Reply
Jean-Ray Arseneau said 3:29PM on 8-26-2007
Update:
This info should be added to the EXIF header of an image to allow Picasa/Flickr/Other programs to pickup the geo data for the image in question.
Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLatitudeRef
Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLatitude
Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLongitudeRef
Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLongitude
Like I mentioned, from what I can tell, RapidoMap isn't modifying the photos to insert this info into the EXIF header.
It would be nice if it did.
Reply
patrice said 5:00PM on 8-26-2007
To answer request number 7, this will be the case of the final version. RapidoMap is still a beta version at this stage. About the installer, the read me file describe what will be installed. And more than 50% mac users are now coming from the Windows universe and they are not aware of Mac simplicity. We still think that the simple drad and drop is not working for many users. Maybe for most, but not for all.
Reply
patrice said 5:08PM on 8-26-2007
In fact, if you were doing the technical support at app4mac, you will tired to receive hundred of emails from people that have problem about installing a software. You forgot about the guys switching from Windows or the beginneers. The market is now different from 3 years ago. So to avoid hundred of emails about how to install the application, we decided to choose the installer way. And since this time, our technical support team get more time to answer to other questions. Making things simple is always hard and for us, the Apple way is not 100% correct. When you download an application, the process should be automatic. Why the user have to move the application to the Applications folder? Apple should improve this experience for Leopard.
Reply
Mo said 6:44PM on 8-26-2007
Are you joking?
Are you _seriously_ claiming that a disk image with a background image containing instructions, along with an alias of the destination folder (“Drag the application into the folder to install it”) is harder than opening the .pkg, clicking through umpteen steps, then having to locate the installed application to open it (another advantage of the alias: the default destination folder is right there), losing both transparency and flexibility into the bargain?
If drag-and-drop installation is causing so many support headaches, you've screwed something up that the vast majority of Mac developers manage not to.
And yes, plenty of people are switching from Windows, but they're switching for a reason: making everything on the Mac work like Windows entirely defeats that.
Reply
Mo said 6:47PM on 8-26-2007
Oh, and also, the process shouldn't be “automatic”. That way lies a wealth of security and support headaches in itself (just think about the “open safe files automatically” preference in Safari).
The most Apple needs to do—and it really doesn't *need* to, it would just be nice—would be a small tweak to Finder that asks if you want to copy an application to your Applications folder when you try to run it from a disk image.
Reply
JeffDM said 10:35PM on 8-26-2007
I'm sorry, but I switched from Windows a couple years ago. I had a little trouble at first, but providing an installer for the sake of people used to having an installer is a waste of time when there are better methods, such as:
The better-made .dmgs do provide an alias to the Applications folder with an arrow and text telling the user to drag and drop the app icon to the Applications folder. Installation is a snap this way, seconds rather than minutes and it shows an advantage that the Mac has.
I know switchers are becoming a major part of the installed base, but I think dodging the issue by letting people do things the way they are used to isn't always a helpful thing.
Reply
patrice said 10:50PM on 8-26-2007
Why iWorks and iLife have an installer? And it's the same for all Apple applications. This is to provide the best user experience.
Reply
JeffDM said 11:01PM on 8-26-2007
I don't think it's the same thing. Those programs you mentioned (and most Apple programs) install new or updated frameworks, clips, templates, themes, loops and such into the Library directory. In those cases, then yes, it's a better experience to provide an installer because it's more than one operation necessary to make the software work. Most software does not need to do this.
Reply
john russell said 1:01AM on 8-27-2007
Good thing I keep regular back-ups, because this totally screwed up the .DS_Store file in my Application folder.
Reply
john russell said 1:01AM on 8-27-2007
Good thing I keep regular back-ups, because this totally screwed up the .DS_Store file in my Application folder.
Reply
patrice said 1:40AM on 8-27-2007
The file .DS_store is always updated when you install applications. This file just contains the list of applications. You will find it in any folder and it's an invisible file. For the debate about the installer, Apple can also choose to install the items when the application is launched for the first time. A picture is also good to explain how to move the application but what happens if the user force windows to be opened in the list mode? Anyway, we hope to see some progress with Leopard on this subject.
Reply