Tymbee Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 Ok, Google Earth is really slick. I enjoy using it when I can. If the maps had any kind of detail for the areas I need, I'd probably use it as one of my primary mapping programs. But for virtually all the areas I need, the map detail simply isn't there. MS's Terraserver maps are simply vastly superior. I can pick out houses, streets and even small buildings w/ Terraserver, but that same area in Google Earth? Can hardly tell whether that gray splotch is even a town. Is it just me? I can't be the only one that lives in the boondocks and is feeling a bit left out... Quote
+h2omember Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 Your exactly right. I live in the boonies and I'm going to Arkansas for two weeks (family reunion) and will be in the boonies again. No detail again. It sucks! Guess I'll have to rely on the GPSr and Geocache.com. Quote
Tymbee Posted July 16, 2006 Author Posted July 16, 2006 Guys, Google Earth is free. Enjoy it Oh please, not the "it's free enjoy it" defense! Besides, I didn't say I didn't enjoy it. I rather like it. Just pointing out that it's pretty much useless for some purposes. Personally I'd gladly pay for the "pro" version but I assume the underlying data is the same. (?) I also expect that eventually they'll have the whole earth covered. But I won't be really impressed until someone figures out how to deliver high res, full color, _real time_ streaming video images! Of course by a hermit like me will have erected huge domes over my estate to keep out all those prying eyes... Quote
+Jamie Z Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 I find this to be an incredibly low-class complaint, yet I will offer a possible workaround. Ask.com maps often have hi-res images where Google maps do not. Try that. Jamie Quote
+ejnewman Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 There are actually higher-res pictures of the entire US that google doesn't use, probably because they are black & white and 5-10 years old. Quote
bansheegeo Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 The yahoo maps beta has better satellite images for some locations. I don't know whose underlying data they're using, but I like it better than Google maps/earth about 1/2 of the time. Quote
+thefiveofus Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) does this give you the same detail? http://local.live.com it's MS w/ navteq data..not sure where the images themselves come from.. I'm not an MS fan, but it's pretty cool. edit: btw, try the bird's eye view if the data's avail..it's pretty wild, you can swing around from multiple vantage points (does g earth do that too?). edit: re-added URL (did I forget the first time or do they need to be short links to be allowed in the forum) Edited July 17, 2006 by thefiveofus Quote
+Chuy! Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 edit: btw, try the bird's eye view if the data's avail..it's pretty wild, you can swing around from multiple vantage points (does g earth do that too?). Yes, you can rotate and cant the angle of the display in Google Earth. Additionally, in cities, high-rise buildings are displayed quite effectively. Quote
+geognerd Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 There are actually higher-res pictures of the entire US that google doesn't use, probably because they are black & white and 5-10 years old. Those who live in the boondocks might want to try NASA's WorldWind. It uses the same aerial imagery as TerraServer. The 2001 Hi-res color imagery for urban areas and the one-meter resolution B&W imagery for other areas that's from about 1996-2001 if I remember correctly. I tried WorldWind a couple weeks ago and didn't like it. Its navigation controls aren't as good as Google Earth's, and it really ate up CPU cycles on the P4 3.4GHz machine I use at my office. Quote
Tymbee Posted July 17, 2006 Author Posted July 17, 2006 I find this to be an incredibly low-class complaint, yet I will offer... Hi Jamie, "low'class" ??? What on Google Earth are you talking about?? I just made a simple factual statement summed up in the subject of my post. One's not allowed to comment on the relative strengths/weaknesses of a particular program for their purposes? Thanks for the input re. the Ask maps. I'll check 'em out. Quote
+TheRoundings Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Try the microsoft equivalent: http://local.live.com In some cases it's better than Google Earth in others it's not, but worth a look to see which is best in the location you want. Quote
Tymbee Posted July 17, 2006 Author Posted July 17, 2006 There are actually higher-res pictures of the entire US that google doesn't use, probably because they are black & white and 5-10 years old. Those who live in the boondocks might want to try NASA's WorldWind. It uses the same aerial imagery as TerraServer. The 2001 Hi-res color imagery for urban areas and the one-meter resolution B&W imagery for other areas that's from about 1996-2001 if I remember correctly. I tried WorldWind a couple weeks ago and didn't like it. Its navigation controls aren't as good as Google Earth's, and it really ate up CPU cycles on the P4 3.4GHz machine I use at my office. My observations re. World Wind parallel yours. Interesting program however. I see they have an updated version as of this spring as well. Quote
+ejnewman Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 edit: btw, try the bird's eye view if the data's avail..it's pretty wild, you can swing around from multiple vantage points (does g earth do that too?). Yes, you can rotate and cant the angle of the display in Google Earth. Additionally, in cities, high-rise buildings are displayed quite effectively. The bird's eye view pictures aren't the same thing. In google you can tilt the view, but you are still looking at pictures taken from directly above. The bird's eye pictures are taken at an angle, i.e. looking at the side of a building instead of the roof. Quote
+ejnewman Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I tried WorldWind a couple weeks ago and didn't like it. Its navigation controls aren't as good as Google Earth's, and it really ate up CPU cycles on the P4 3.4GHz machine I use at my office. I like WW's controls a lot better. Google's work backwards from every other 3d app in the world. Quote
planewood Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 you know, you can always go to USAPhotomaps and download as big of an aerial photo image as you want, then use GE to 'overlay' that image over the GE image. GE is working to define higher resolution coverage. Takes time and a lot of bucks for them to do so. In my neck of the woods (Houston) the coverage is excellent and with very good resolution. The images are also registered quite well with less than 3' accuracy being the norm. For the other places I just create a large JPG photo image file and do the overlay bit. I just wish that GE gave the ability to define several lat/lon points on the overlay images as a means to register the files. Instead of trying to move the image around to line up with their images. Quote
Tymbee Posted July 17, 2006 Author Posted July 17, 2006 does this give you the same detail? http://local.live.com it's MS w/ navteq data.. Hi five-- It's pretty much the same. Quote
+ejnewman Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I just wish that GE gave the ability to define several lat/lon points on the overlay images as a means to register the files. Instead of trying to move the image around to line up with their images. http://research.microsoft.com/mapcruncher/ This lets you do exactly that to overlay your own pictures/maps on live.local.com. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.