This paper introduces a dataset of enriched geographic coordinates retrieved from Diderot and d'Alembert's eighteenth-century Encyclopedie. Automatically recovering geographic coordinates from historical texts is a complex task, as they are expressed in a variety of ways and with varying levels of precision. To improve retrieval of coordinates from similar digitized early modern texts, we have created a gold standard dataset, trained models, published the resulting inferred and normalized coordinate data, and experimented applying these models to new texts. From 74,000 total articles in each of the digitized versions of the Encyclopedie from ARTFL and ENCCRE, we examined 15,278 geographical entries, manually identifying 4,798 containing coordinates, and 10,480 with descriptive but non-numerical references. Leveraging our gold standard annotations, we trained transformer-based models to retrieve and normalize coordinates. The pipeline presented here combines a classifier to identify coordinate-bearing entries and a second model for retrieval, tested across encoder-decoder and decoder architectures. Cross-validation yielded an 86% EM score. On an out-of-domain eighteenth-century Trevoux dictionary (also in French), our fine-tuned model had a 61% EM score, while for the nineteenth-century, 7th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in English, the EM was 77%. These findings highlight the gold standard dataset's usefulness as training data, and our two-step method's cross-lingual, cross-domain generalizability.
Figures & tables
Type
Headword
Coordinates
Point
AAHUS
[["52 10’ N 24 36’ E"]]
Point
AGRIGNON
[["19 40’ N"]]
Rectangle
ABISSINIE
[[’6 N 48 E’, ’20 N 65 E’]]
Rectangle
FALSTER
[["55 50’ N 28 50’ E", "56 50’ N 29 26’ E"]]
Polygonal chain
AMUR ou AMOER
[[’pchain’], [’117 E’], [’55 N 152 E’]]
Subentries
AVA
[[’subart’], [’21 N 114 E’], ["33 N 151 10’ E"], ["35 20’ N 159 E"]]
Table 1: Annotation examples for points, rectangles, polygonal chains, and sequences.
Category
Count
Simple types
Well-formed points
4,287
Incomplete points
232
- Latitude only
221
- Longitude only
11
Surfaces
133
Polygonal chains
11
Table 2: Dataset statistics.
Long_D
Long_DM
Long_DMS
Lat_D
116
182
2
Lat_DM
278
3,356
91
Lat_DMS
3
38
221
Table 3: Coordinate precision distribution for single well-formed points.
Figure 1: Map showing the location of dataset coordinates colored by their level of precision. Red points contain only degrees (D), light blue contain degrees and minutes (DM), and dark blue points contain degrees, minutes, and seconds (DMS).
EM
CER
Support
mt5-small
0.86
0.07
959
gpt5-mini
0.86
0.03
points
mt5-small
0.92
0.01
903
only
gpt5-mini
0.90
0.01
others
mt5-small
0.00
0.57
56
only
gpt5-mini
0.29
0.22
Table 4: Coordinate retrieval and DMS normalization model performance.
D
DM
DMS
mt5
gpt
mt5
gpt
mt5
gpt
D
0.81
0.81
0.84
0.77
-
-
DM
0.92
0.87
0.98
0.91
0.5
0.83
DMS
0.0
0.0
0.85
0.85
0.56
0.91
Table 5: Exact match (EM) evaluation scores for coordinate retrieval, comparing MT5 and GPT model performance for coordinate precision levels. Rows represent latitude precision level. Columns represent longitude precision level.
Geographic coordinates are common inputs in applied machine learning, but latitude and longitude describe position rather than the surrounding environment. Image-grounded location encoders learn this context from satellite or ground-level imagery; structured open map data offers another source of supervision whose utility for continuous coordinate encoders remains less explored. We introduce CartoVec, a coordinate encoder trained to predict Overture-derived land cover, land use, transportation, place and connectivity targets at multiple spatial scales, without image inputs or downstream-task labels. We evaluate frozen embeddings on Census outcomes, Airbnb prices and Philadelphia crime in the US Northeast using spatial block cross-validation. CartoVec has the highest mean performance on most Census outcomes and the highest average across the full suite, with several comparisons close across folds. The findings support open map data as a practical source of reusable location representations with a coordinate-to-vector interface that requires no map lookup at inference. The open-weight model is available at https://huggingface.co/gursoyfurkan/CartoVec.
Earth-observation (EO) foundation models provide reusable embeddings, yet downstream task accuracy does not reveal whether these representations encode geographic information, which may be beneficial for location-aware applications but potentially detrimental when representations invariant to geographic location are desired. We therefore evaluate the geographic coordinate robustness of Tessera v1, Tessera v1.1, and AlphaEarth by testing whether coordinates can be predicted from the embedding representations using 284 quality-verified European solar farms from 2024. We assessed geographic information content information through the association between cosine and geodesic distances and through prediction of projected coordinates in EPSG:3035. Embeddings from all three EO foundation models contain recoverable geographic information. All prediction models significantly outperform training-range uniform random sampling baselines, with AlphaEarth exhibiting the strongest distance association and lowest mean geodesic error. Both Tessera variants also yielded higher geographic distance correlations than the Sentinel-2 controls. These findings motivate geographic information content as an additional criterion for auditing EO foundation models.
Peiwen Zhang, Kristie Hu, Jovana Knezevic +2
University of Waterloo · University of Cambridge · Aalto University
This paper addresses automatic geospatial question answering over multilingual toponymic data. An original bilingual dataset of toponyms of the Republic of Tatarstan is introduced, comprising 9,688 structured records with linguistic, etymological, administrative, and coordinate information (93.1% georeferenced). Based on this dataset, a question-answering corpus of approximately 39,000 question-context-answer triples is constructed with guaranteed answer localization. A hybrid retriever integrates dense semantic indexing (multilingual-e5-large) with geospatial filtering via KD-trees and haversine distance. On 500 test queries, the hybrid search achieves Recall@1=0.988, Recall@5=1.000, and MRR=0.994, significantly outperforming BM25 and purely spatial methods. Among tested reader architectures (RuBERT, XLM-RoBERTa-large, T5-RUS), XLM-RoBERTa-large attains the best quality: EM=0.992, F1=0.994. On raw outputs, RuBERT models fail on coordinate questions (F1=0) while XLM-RoBERTa-large reaches F1=0.984; however, simple post-processing eliminates numerical gaps and restores RuBERT accuracy to 100%. This discrepancy stems from tokenization differences and pre-training corpora composition. All resources (dataset, QA corpus, model weights, web demo) are openly published on Hugging Face. Results apply to geospatial QA services, geocoding, and digital humanities in multilingual regions.
Mullosharaf K. Arabov
Department of Data Analysis and Programming Technologies Institute of Computational Mathematics and Information Technologies Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University Kazan, Russia