Msn Virtual Earth

[+nielsenc]

I was wondering if MSN Virtual Earth, http://ve.msn.com/ could be added to the list of other online maps. While Google Maps are good, VE is also good. They are both using different datasources.

 

So you can see the difference between the two, you can use this:

 

http://www.jonasson.org/maps/

 

Here is an example of where VE is a little better then Google:

 

http://www.jonasson.org/maps/?ll=41.043686...6958199762&z=19

 

Just a thought.

 

Thanks,

 

nielsenc

Edited September 30, 2005 by nielsenc

[+whitecrow]

Google earth seems about the same, at least for my home area. Google also shows long/lat co-ordinates.

[+RIclimber]

This is great! Look at This.

[+mini cacher]

They are both using different datasources.

Maybe I'm missing something but they look like the same data source to me... only MSN can zoom in a bit more. That one with the airport both have the same planes in the same place.

 

I heard the other night that Google and NASA have struck some sort of "deal" or "partnership" for something. I suspect that Google is going to end up with some pretty neat stuff that might be useful in the arena.

[+Stuey]

The MSN offering is complete pants for the UK. It doesn't even show main roads, let alone photos.

[+whitecrow]

Google Earth will zoom down to 25', of course the picture quality determines what is viewable.

[+Wacka]

They are both using different datasources.

Maybe I'm missing something but they look like the same data source to me... only MSN can zoom in a bit more. That one with the airport both have the same planes in the same place.

 

I heard the other night that Google and NASA have struck some sort of "deal" or "partnership" for something. I suspect that Google is going to end up with some pretty neat stuff that might be useful in the arena.

I think Google is going to build some more buildings on the NASA Ames property.

[+nielsenc]

At the end of the day, I am asking for choice. If you take a look at zip code 84037, you can see the VE wins hands down. In the Bay Area, where I live now, they are both pretty much the same.

 

The data sources are different and they will both be adding features to one up the other.

 

At the end of the day, it doesnt cost Groundspeak any $$ to use VE. A choice is good.

 

Thanks.

[MapheadMike]

Until VE offers searching by lat/long in WGS-84, it's of limited value to geocachers.

 

Is there a way to search VE by lat/long that I may have missed?

[+Markwell]

MSN VE seems to be using the same as Terra Server Images. The example on the page with the airplanes can be captured the same way through Terra Server. I got this one...

 

 

Notice that it's the same airplanes and everything.

 

You can take any set of coordinates for a cache - like GC47A4's coordinates at N 41° 52.718 W 087° 38.163 - and plug them in to the Terraserver Viewer?. If there is a high resolution photograph available on the Terra Server, you can zoom in to .25m/pixel.

 

Here's my house using the Terra Server viewer.

 

The trick with both Terra Server and MSN VE (which use the same data) is that not ALL of the areas of the US have hi res images. Google Earth and Google Maps provide a much broader area of the globe with higher resolution images.

 

The MSN offering is complete pants for the UK.

 

[+Hynr]

I have not used VE but I have been giving GE quite a workout. At first I was thrilled; but as I find problems I wonder about data quality for the Google products. My use of this technology in geocaching focuses on determining the sides of boundaries, fences, creeks, canyons etc that caches are on and to determine trailheads and possible routes to caches. While GE works well for the latter I am finding areas where the photos are shifted with respect to the road map (which is the layer into which markers are placed). In the panel that is stitched in for Vacaville, California, (i.e. between Sacramento and San Francisco) the entire panel is shifted too far west by about 80 ft. In the panel that contains Ione, California (southeast of Sacramento) the error is 0.38 miles around Ione - that is basically unusable for plotting information. (I discovered the former error several weeks ago and sent the info to Google where it obviously went into a black hole; there seems to be no point in submitting such information since it is not being used to fix things).

 

The side-by-side comparison link in this thread allows comparison of the data and I find that for these particular inaccuracies the VE map does not have this problem. I would be interested in data discrepancies that others may have found in either of these two products.

[+mini cacher]

In my "neck of the woods" the photos appear to be well over a year old for both Google Maps and Virtual Earth. There is a particular Government facility near me that took control of a city road and put in security stations at each end about a year and a half ago. These do not show up on the maps. Not even the beginning of construction. My guess is the photos are nearing 2 years old.

 

Plus, VE doesn't even let you zoom in as far as GM before it comes up with "No Images Available". I suspect this is some security issues as the facility is probably not too keen on high res ultra-zoom images of there layout.

Edited October 4, 2005 by mini cacher

[+Markwell]

The hi-res color images from Terra Server are from Nov 2002. The B/W ones are from back in the late 1990s

 

Google Maps (BE CAREFUL, that's what's available on the web, Google Earth is a locally run program - and you shouldn't confuse the two), seems to have a larger area of color coverage, but less resolution on even the well-covered images. I can't speak to how current those images are, but it seems at least as current as Terra Server, but with less res.

[MapheadMike]

The problem I'm finding with Google and the Terraserver Viewer is that some of the data is NAD-27 instead of WGS-84. With Google, it's hit and miss while the Terraserver Viewer may be consistent NAD-27. I will disclaim this a little by pointing out that I just spot checked a few easy urban caches and didn't check their entire database.

 

The problem of layers being off on Google is that some layers are on one standard while other layers are on the other standard. I wrote to Google about this and the notes apparently went into the same black hole.

 

For now, I'm sticking with Lostoutdoors, which uses the "latest" USGS data. The maps and photos are older (and therefore a problem in newly developed areas), but they are consistently accurate in WGS-84 and available at 1 meter resolution.

 

If the Terraserver Viewer was set up for WGS-84 and good accuracy, it could become a useful product.