Greg, it seems like a bad idea for pages to 'inherit' the geo.position of the whole Wiki. Is this just how the GIS extension works? For example, Project Club and University Bookstore both have a geo.position of "41.5070;-81.6090" in their metadata, but they aren't actually geocoded, and don't appear in markers.php. This makes it hard to distinguish whether or not a page is actually geocoded just by looking at the metadata (unless I want to hardcode those default coordinates, which sounds bad). Thoughts? --Brian.Beck 14:49, September 2, 2006 (EDT)

...unless geo.placename is an accurate indication of whether or not it's actually geocoded. --Brian.Beck 14:54, September 2, 2006 (EDT)

geo.placename is an accurate indicator of whether an article is actually encoded. However, after considering putting a default geo.position in every article, I decided it is a bad idea. As of now, only articles that have the geocoding tag will have the geo.position meta tag. --Gregory.Szorc 00:26, September 3, 2006 (EDT)