This issue of an icon representing a concept vs specificity for one or more file formats is actually rather interesting. As you know the “mission” of the Geotag Icon is first and foremost to improve the current poor state of recognition of online geotagged content. To do this it has to be readily identifiable and format-agnostic; it deliberately does not attempt to differentiate KML from GeoRSS or GPX from geo on the basis of inter-operability, capability, or ultimate usage. It’s there to establish a visual link between a set of geospatial coordinates and a document, pure and simple.

My own take, that the majority of users prefer format transparency is in fact reinforced by your own assertion here—namely that when confronted with a video you don’t care what container format it’s in; you just want to know that you can play it. Likewise, when presented with geotagged content—whether encoded by means of metadata, microformats, EXIF-GPS, etc—typical users just want to know that they can plot the position on a map.

I accept that lumping together a bunch of XML derivates and other geodata syntaxes is artificial. As they currently stand the usage guidelines reflect a real-world compromise: we rub the purists the wrong way but at the same time by “keeping it simple” help make a much greater section of the online community aware of the concept and utility of geotagging. I happen to think that’s a compromise worth making.

If there are further views concerning the breadth of the usage guidelines, and in particular suggestions for refining them in such a way as to accommodate all (OK, most) parties, I hope your readers will post them here or get in touch with the Project directly.

I think the analogy with Share this is fine – indeed we are also working on that, and the Shareaholic extension should soon sport the new generic share icon, also there are indications that iBegin’s Share WP plugin will sport the new Open Share Icon in due course.

The use of an icon to signify the presence of “geo” information within a page – it’s use as an “indicator” within plugins and extensions such as the Minimap Sidebar – sits well with me. Another pertinent example is the iCab browser. Each of these examples may or may not well have “child” icons for individual functions, indeed iCab’s developer has said as much, and why not? The universally accepted feed icon has found it’s way to encompass both rss and atom and the Open Share icon is heading that way. (I take your reference to the very narrow opportunities for a Time and Titletag as I’m sure it was intended, tongue-in-cheek )

It is early days in the life of both icons and this type of constructive criticism is most welcome, it can only help to hone an easily recognised web presence, representing a category of functions.