Ehrenberg
An image archive people can navigate, check and keep organized.
File inventory, traceable groupings and human review for Burgenwelt Ehrenberg’s image collection.
Overview
Ehrenberg received an organized image archive plus the means to review it: traceability records, a local browser-based tool and handover guidance. Available dates and location metadata informed the structure; content-assisted classification helped propose groupings, while uncertain files stayed open for human review.
What's the challenge?
Image archives contain different kinds of evidence. Capture dates and coordinates can support a classification, while visual resemblance only suggests one. Missing metadata and similar-looking subjects make an apparently tidy folder tree an unreliable measure of quality.
The task was to create a useful structure while preserving originals, recording where files came from and giving a reviewer a practical way to resolve ambiguity. Preparing the destination workflow mattered as much as sorting the files.
Leave room for a reviewer to disagree.
Some images carried stronger evidence than others. The review tool let a person inspect suggested groupings and record corrections without moving files during review. Uncertainty remained visible instead of being hidden by a tidy folder name.
What We Did
We started with a directory inventory, then organized the images using the evidence available in their metadata. Capture dates supported chronology and available position metadata supported place-based groupings. Content-assisted classification helped propose assignments where metadata alone did not settle the question.
The original files and their capture metadata were preserved. We used reconciliation records to follow the reorganization and kept uncertain assignments visible for review.
A local browser-based tool gave a reviewer a way to inspect suggested groupings, confirm them or record corrections without moving files during the review. Handover guidance covered continued review and preparation for the intended photo-library workflow.
This automation work and custom software delivered the archive structure, traceability records and the means to keep checking the collection.
Outcomes
What We Learned
Good archive automation preserves provenance and makes corrections practical. An explicit uncertain category and a usable review interface can be more valuable than a polished but uncheckable result. The SKD Web3 Workshops & Strategy case study describes another kind of technology work in the cultural sector.
Questions about this project
What is Ehrenberg?
Burgenwelt Ehrenberg is a visitor destination in Tyrol. Wavect turned a large image directory into an archive that people could browse, review and maintain.
What was the challenge in the Ehrenberg project?
Image archives contain different kinds of evidence. Capture dates and coordinates can support a classification, while visual resemblance only suggests one. Missing metadata and similar-looking subjects make an apparently tidy folder tree an unreliable measure of quality.
The task was to create a useful structure while preserving originals, recording where files came from and giving a reviewer a practical way to resolve ambiguity. Preparing the destination workflow mattered as much as sorting the files.
What did Wavect do for Ehrenberg?
We started with a directory inventory, then organized the images using the evidence available in their metadata. Capture dates supported chronology and available position metadata supported place-based groupings. Content-assisted classification helped propose assignments where metadata alone did not settle the question.
The original files and their capture metadata were preserved. We used reconciliation records to follow the reorganization and kept uncertain assignments visible for review.
A local browser-based tool gave a reviewer a way to inspect suggested groupings, confirm them or record corrections without moving files during the review. Handover guidance covered continued review and preparation for the intended photo-library workflow.
This automation work and custom software delivered the archive structure, traceability records and the means to keep checking the collection.
What were the outcomes of the Ehrenberg project?
- Folders to archive, A structured image collection with records tracing its reorganization.
- Human review, Suggested groupings could be checked and corrections recorded.
- Local review tool, Browser-based review and guidance supported continued archive maintenance.
How did Wavect work with Ehrenberg?
Engagement: Archive organization and automation. Year: 2026.
Which tech stack did Wavect use for Ehrenberg?
Python, EXIF.
What did Wavect learn from the Ehrenberg project?
Good archive automation preserves provenance and makes corrections practical. An explicit uncertain category and a usable review interface can be more valuable than a polished but uncheckable result. The SKD Web3 Workshops & Strategy case study describes another kind of technology work in the cultural sector.
- Funds Management
- Blockchain
- AI
- Enterprise
Case atlas
Where this case sits
Your current case is marked. Hover or focus to preview another; click to open. On touchscreens, tap once to preview, again to open.
Shared technologies:
MyMerch
MyMerch is a German merchandise and print-on-demand brand based at the Chiemsee. They sell custom apparel and branded goods through Shopify across more than 10 …
~50% Efficiency improvement for the MyMerch team Open case study →Want outcomes like this?
Tell us what you're building. We'll tell you whether we're the right team for it.
Get in touch