Google has released their free satellite map service.
http://maps.google.com/
CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/04/05/google.maps.ap/index.html
Some places to check out:
chicago, IL (around Union Station, and most of the South side)
Ogden, UT
Vaughn, NM
My apt. building sticks out like a sore thumb. How about your place?
Pretty cool. Very smooth zooming!!!
…Sounds similar to what has been available on TerraServer for some time now…but glad to have any and all…
Wow… just checked it out. I’ve been an avid user of Terraserver for the past 4-5 years. This is even better. Can scroll a LOT faster. It’s ALL in color. Incredibly focused. Just started panning around the BNSF “racetrack.”
Recommend this to any prototype modeler. What a great way to get a “Model Railroader’s” view of the railroad you’re modeling.
Good luck
Jeff
I agree that the maps and aerial photographs are better than those on Terra Server’s website. However, I do think that Terra Server’s “Urban Areas” is better.
Hmm, doesn’t seem to be in my area yet. I think its cool that I can see my truck on mapquest…
Adrianspeeder
Nice tool!
Initial Impression:
Think I’ll stay with the USGS product on Terrasever. Poor grade GIS Tiger maps on google. (sampled using terrain around Coffeyville, KS…poor 1st impression)…An awful lot depends on what you would use the product for.
I guess I’m looking at the wrong stuff. I tried looking at a satelitte picture of Birdsboro, PA and it lost resolution any finer than about 1" = 1 mile. Terraserver is way more detailed from what I could get out of it.
However when I tried Coatesville, PA and Wilmington, DE it was very detailed. I guess not all the the country is scanned to the same level of detail.
The one thing that it doesn’t have that Terraserver does, is a way to capture the URL of the picture you are looking at so you can find something and then send somebody else a address so they can call up and look at the same thing.
Dave H.
I can see the outlines of my area but it wont let me zoom any closer. I gusee it will be better over time.
I agree with the above. It looks like it really has potential, but it isn’t quite where it could be. I like the super fast scrolling. And the detail of the cities is better than the surrounding areas.
However, the zoom is not as good in the cities, and for places outside of the city, terraserver’s black and white is currently far still superior. Oh and the fact that you can’t link to a particular map is frustrating.
I should add that I am comparing the city images on the google site to those under the “urban” tab on the terraserver site.
Hey what ever happened to the mapquest site? Did they make that a pay feature or something?
[:o)] They have our duplex in the middle of our busy street - but then it always sounds to me like we live there anyway!
Moo
Eons above Mapquest in my opinion. Thanks for the tip!
[quote]
Originally posted by eastside
In comparing to Terra, my impression from features that I’m familiar with is that Google’s maps are more up-to-date, even though they say they will deliberately lag by 6-12 months. Some of Terra’s maps are years old. Have they ever updated? Note the “Beta” designation below the Google logo. This means that it’s a test, not the final version. I guess they’re still filling-in some of the missing data.
Found the maps to be more up to date than most everything else for my area, although the reailroad is still “Conrail.” Resolution of the satellite isn’t super for my area, either. Certainly can’t pick out my house, although I can narrow it down pretty well. Terraserver is still better in that respect. In Google’s defense, though, they are using satellite. Terraserver uses aerial photos (as in, from airplanes).
Very impressive, and will be another arrow in the quiver.
Very nice. Living in an area where mountain railroading prevails, this is very helpful. Thanks for sharing with us.
Boy I don’t know what you guys are looking at, but it is sure not what I see. All I get for my home town is a line drawing map - highly stylized - like a stick figure drawing. All the streets are just straight with roadway way to wide in proportion to the city lots. The railroad tracks don’t even go anywhere - just parts of them are indicated. This is definitely not satellite imagery - may be some crude software processing of an image.
TREE: Most GIS systems are inept to just plain dumb when they get around railroads.
…I can’t pass judgment on the Google system yet as I have not been “into” it to see what it’s capability really is…but I give Terra good credit with what it can do…I can find my house and see even the patio at the back of it and even checked out the area we stayed at in Florida and actually found the condo we stayed in down there, etc…and much detail to looking at railroads in the mountains, tunnels, Pennsylvania Turnpike and much more…with a resolution down to about I meter…No complaints about Terra except it does take a while to move from one area continuously to another…
Look in the upper-right corner. Did you select satellite instead of map? Try, for example, Chicago. You should see the downtown buildings clearly. Maybe Google hasn’t yet added the images for your area.