After reading What to do about [labeling] and [classification] tags? about labeling and classification, it became clear to me that many, if not most, of the posts on our site about classification relate to image classification.

The current excerpt for the tag is:

The process of sorting or arranging entities into groups or categories; on a map, the process of representing members of a group by the same symbol, usually defined in a legend.

While this may relate to image classification, I think it's too broad a definition.

Esri's definition is:

Image classification refers to the task of extracting information classes from a multiband raster image. The resulting raster from image classification can be used to create thematic maps. Depending on the interaction between the analyst and the computer during classification, there are two types of classification: supervised and unsupervised.

Do we need any of the following tags?

Or is it just a matter of redefining our existing tag to refer to image classification and remove it from the posts that don't relate to image classification?

bumped to the homepage by Community 2 days ago

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

  • 4
    Classification covers more than just images, so I think classification shouldn't be limited to just images, so perhaps more refinement is needed across the related tags – Midavalo Nov 6 '17 at 0:55
  • 1
    I agree with @Midavalo in that we should keep the specialization tags. – Aaron Nov 6 '17 at 3:38
  • This is my point. So, we are in agreement that we need to add the tags I specified? Maybe I didn't phrase my question properly. We currently only have classification. We should add the others I specified? Do we need more? There was a comment from @Andre Silva on the first post about Point Cloud Classification as well. – Fezter Nov 6 '17 at 3:41
  • However, I just noticed there is an existing land-classification tag too. – Fezter Nov 6 '17 at 3:43
  • 2
    I think the best way to discuss tagging issues is usually to present the tagging situation and issue in your question, and leave proposals for how to solve it for answers (including self-answers). I find that makes it easier for trying to establish what consensus is because we can assume upvotes on the question mean a worthy issue has been raised, and upvotes on the answers indicate good ways to solve it. – PolyGeo Nov 6 '17 at 9:29
  • Upvoting for bringing up the subject. – Andre Silva Nov 6 '17 at 15:51

It sounds like a rename (via the moderator merge tool) of to would be a quick and easy fix to a large part of the issue identified.

After/before that we just need to disambiguate any questions that are (to be) tagged and are not about image classification.

One set of questions where is used, I think incorrectly, can be identified using https://gis.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bclassification%5D+symbology+is%3Aquestion. These questions are about symbol categories and I propose that they should be tagged with and have removed.

This answer makes no comment on the case for supervised/unsupervised classification tags because that is an area where I have negligible background.

About and :

I think as methods of classifying data they would be useful. My proposal:

Don't go in a campaign applying massive retaggings (this disrupts the active page). If there is a volunteer this can be done with patience throughout time (5 posts per day, for example).

has been used in 13 questions up to now. I think we don't need it because:

Therefore, I propose manually burninating (eliminating) this tag. One less problem trying to organize 'image-classification' tags (if necessary).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .