Videos capturing vehicles AND people are categorized as vehicle only.

[RustyWilliams]

When a camera captures motion that includes a vehicle and a person, the video is categorized as having only a vehicle. If I filter videos for people, it will skip and videos where a car happens to pass by at the same time. Are your video algos not capable of recognizing more than one subject type in a single video? Its as if recognition searches for subjects in this order [packages, vehicles, people, pets], and just stops on the first result.

[JamesC]

The classification tag is determined by the first identifiable motion within the triggered recording. For example, if a detectable vehicle moves into the cameras field of view and a recording starts, then a person exits that vehicle, the video will be identified as a vehicle detection as that was the original trigger.

Your feedback on multiple tags for this type of scenario is certainly valid. I will pass this along to the team for future consideration.

JamesC

[StephenB]

---

@RustyWilliams wrote:
 It's as if recognition searches for subjects in this order [packages, vehicles, people, pets], and just stops on the first result.

---

They certainly only apply a single tag.  Not sure if the recognition is stopping on the first result, or if they have a prioritization scheme for determining the tag.

FWIW, I asked @JamesC about this (privately) a few days ago - still waiting for him to get back to me.  I think this does merit a KB article.

However they prioritize the classification in the notification, personally I would like to see them apply multiple tags in the library when they detect multiple objects. 

[JamesC]

The classification tag is determined by the first identifiable motion within the triggered recording. For example, if a detectable vehicle moves into the cameras field of view and a recording starts, then a person exits that vehicle, the video will be identified as a vehicle detection as that was the original trigger.

Your feedback on multiple tags for this type of scenario is certainly valid. I will pass this along to the team for future consideration.

JamesC