Slashdot Mirror
Google Adds Satellite Imagery to Maps
Ant writes "BetaNews reports that Google quietly updated its maps service late Monday to include satellite imagery, a first in the industry... Much of Google Maps remains the same - just with detailed pictures from high-tech satellites instead of standard map graphics. Maps can be dragged to view adjacent areas, which means users do not have click and wait for graphics to reload. Zooming is also instantaneous with the help of a slider placed atop the map." The resolution doesn't seem very high, but the integration is very seamless.
I can imagine taking some very high resolution artwork and displaying it using this technology. I can zoom in to the max resolution or your can scroll around forever.
Anybody have any software that would take a large image file and apply a google-map-like interface to it? The software should be something as simple as:
If you are smart about your image naming conventions you shouldn't even need a powerful webserver. The whole thing could be served up via static files from a webserver with enough disk space and a big enough pipe.
I'd like to see this for things like:
--
On-line Currency Exchange Rate Conversion Calculator
Looks like, at least in parts, the imagery is from an older dataset than what's on the Keyhole service. I live in a large neighborhood that's been under construction for 3 years across the various sections, and there are more houses in the Keyhole dataset than on the Google Maps satellite images.
No idea how much older, but it can't be more than a year or so.
... thats the standard for commercial imagery and, with CitiPix flyovers (non-space) it's down around 1/3 of that.
Frankly most of what's available is only good for mapping, and that isn't that good at best. Most of the images have been jpg'd to the point that an 8x8 block is destroying what little detail is available.
For example, 8x8 blocked JPG at 10 meters per pixel is a boatload of image data lost.
And yes, I work with Satellite imagery.
Eh, no. Multimap had aerial imagery at least three years ago and they still do. Not satellite, but as far as the end-user is concerned, the effect is identical.
I think they mean that it's the first time a true mapping/routefinding service (MapQuest, et al) has satellite imagery integrated.
Very cool. And the world is more then just the USA in satellite view. Searching for anything outside the states does not work yet. But hey, it's a beta. Can't wait for more coverage.
Do you mean that Google is the first in the industry to have satellite images on a map-site? :)
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten have had this on their map-service for almost a year now. At any time in the map-search you can switch between a vector-based map and the satellite images. Very neat
Here in the UK the online provider MultiMap lets you do the same thing, just with aerial photography rather than sattelite imagery (it obivously takes a lot less time to photo the UK with a plane than the US, so planes are more feasible).
How is this really "new" - in fact, MultiMap has an even cooler feature, which uses a Java applet to overlay the photos with the map, so the area your mouse is over gets a photo superimposed over it.
The only advantage Google has that I can see is a higher free resolution - if you want high res photos on Multimap, you have to pay.
I see that the US is the only place on Earth...
In the upper right corner click 'satellite'. Took me a while too. ;)
Look for the "Map - Satellite" in the top right corner and click Satellite.
Decode these
multimap.com has had satellite images linked into their maps of the UK for years now. Of course, it's UK only (maybe other European countries by now), so doesn't count on Slashdot, unlike Google's US only service.
Not really - try mousing over this map (hope the link works).
fud, notfud, yes, no, maybe
Wow, even though I'm not american, the seamless scrolling makes the application superb way to waste time - zoom into a city, and just start scrolling along a road, and you never know where you are going to get!
Rather nice if you want to plan a trip, too, as you get an idea how things look like along the way! And if the resolution gets better in distant future, who will need to do the actual trip anyway?
If a service like this really becomes popular, it has vast potential - just zoom to where you are, and you can see all web sites in the area, plus visual hints on how to get there and how does the thing look like. Now if you only could link images taken from those places directly to maps..
http://codeandlife.com
This isn't a first in the industry, Microsoft did this over 5 years ago, with their Terraserver project. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/ It might have not had the same goals as Google Maps, but it definitly is the same concept.
Indeed you're right. Multimap has had aerial photos for a while... For example, this is where I live! The Aerial photos are actually provided by Getmapping.com. The aerial photos aren't available for all locations, but certianly most of the UK is covered.
YMMV!
return 0; }
Dear rest of world,
Hi this is Google
Our software is in beta
Please do not criticize it until we say you can
Sincerely,
Google
For more information, click here.
It is somewhat disconcerting to be scrolling around the area where I grew up, and see one half of a lake in full summer splendor, with boats frolicing and surrounded by green hills...and the other half of the lake is frozen solid.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
You are AMAZING. I want your children.
I thought most of the satellite image services now put a giant white block over certain places in the US. Maybe google will add that later. Not that anyone in the world DOESN'T know what the white house and pentagon look like, but here you go anyway...
v enue,washington,+dc&t=k
, Arlington,+VA&t=k
White house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1600+Pennsylvania+A
Pentagon:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2+South+Rotary+Road
hmmm, I'm sure the whitehouse roof isn't quite that plain in real life :-)
Great googly-moogly. Stop with cheap low-res sat photos and try adding a scale to your maps. You know, one of the basic features of a map? The little hashed bar that gives me some idea how far it is from one point on the map to another. I realize it is not innovative or amazingly cool, but it kinda renders your maps useless otherwise.
Mapquest had arial photos for a long time that zoomed in farther than what google offers. I haven't seen them on their site in a while however.
Try getting directions, then change to satellite view. Your route is still overlayed perfectly over the roads you need to take, even though the images are slightly different than the vector map.
This is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. If it was possible to center the Google map based on lat/lon, just imagine how easy it would be to write a script that took input from your GPS and used it to scroll the map.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Actually Mapquest used to have aerial photos. I'm not sure why they got rid of it.
:)
Go ahead, split hairs about aerial vs. satellite...
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
My first guess would be hysterical paranoia about "national security".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.962159395217896, -93.5434341430664&spn=0.008153915405273438,0.01179 0990829467773&t=k&hl=en
All is Number -Pythagoras.
Or until it shows Area 51, which I notice is conspicuously missing.
RST
A little north of that lake. Aliens have invaded. http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.110807,-93.54695 3&spn=0.064802,0.085316&t=k&hl=en
Without looking, I am guessing that if the patches are vaguely fan-shaped, they are baseball/softball/etc diamonds. I've seen these on many other air photos.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
For example, this [multimap.com] is where I live!
Whoa. Can you actualy see the shadow of my mouse cursor???
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
http://mygmaps.com/ enables you to create, save and host custom data files and display them with Google Maps. It includes a standalone viewer so you can show your custom map on your site.
--Phil.
Yeah, it was the second place I searched for (after my house). http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rachel,Nevada&ll=37. 249146,-115.809631&spn=0.129948,0.191231&t=k&hl=en
Check this out, the US Capital Building congressional offices in Washington are totally obscured...d +1st+street,washington,+dc&ll=38.891006,-77.008873 &spn=0.008444,0.010664&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=constitution+ave+an
It's the same with KeyHole as well (screenshot):
http://www.allbootdisks.com/images/keyhole.jpg
Is keyhole doing this to all 'sensitive' targets?
Perhaps that is why certain images from Google have been obscured? Several buildings on and near the White House property have been covered up. The entire grounds of the Capitol building are blurry (while the surrounding area is 10x or 100x sharper) ... Commence the conspiracy theories!
IIRC, MapQuest said it was about the cost when I e-mailed MapQuest about it a few years ago.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Except that Aerial Ortho dataset was produced by the USGS and is public domain. Check out World Wind 1.3 for a smooth-scrolling, translatable, 3d globe that dynamically downlads any dataset you request and grabs higher res versions as you zoom in.
MapQuest was supplied with imagery by GlobeXplorer. Both Keyhole (hence Google) and GlobeXplorer use a mix of public and private sources, so some of what you see on one service is also on the other. For example, many states have started taking their own aerial photos, which are made available online. I live in NY, and Google shows me the same image of my house that I can get more easily from NYSGIS (at 1 foot resolution, too, whereas Google only goes down to 1 meter). GlobeXplorer, however, has 6 inch resolution imagery for my area (which was in turn acquired from AirPhotoUSA, I believe), so they show that instead. In general, different imagery providers will have different groups of datasets, some of which overlap, so some areas will have the same imagery and some will not.
Actually, the "satellite" images that Google is using for city-level viewing are aerial [ortho-]photos. And even though they are watermarked with 2005 Google all over, they are actually several years old (at least in Wake Co., NC. - they appear to be 2002). Like someone else posted, they appear to be the same photos that have been available elsewhere, like terraserver. And yes, MapQuest used to have this. It pissed me off when they took it off. But now I have GMaps and they are so much sweeeter anyways.
Oh, and in case it sounds like I could care less about this, thanks Google for adding satellite/aerial photos/topology(like the ocean depths) to your maps.
P.S. - I zoomed in on Bermuda in the satellite but couldn't find it on the worresponding map. Does anyone know why? Is the map incomplete or out of alignment with the satellite/aerials?
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
these look like they are straight off of TerraServer
The Google images are not straight off of TerraServer. Actually to even say that perpetuates a misnomer. TerraServer is not a source of imagery. It simply serves public-domain USGS images which were created using our tax dollars. I'm not complaining, they are serving the public interest, but I'd be upset if they started putting watermarks on them or claiming copyright.
The Google images come from DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite. This is a private, for-profit corporation which raised enough money to put up their own satellite and start taking pictures which they are now selling on the open-market. I'm sure that their contract with Google necessitates the watermarks. Fair enough.
I'm looking at my house right now. A tree that was cut down early in 2003 is still there. A circular path started in summer 2002 (made by exercising a horse, so it's very visible) is also there. And by the amount of greenery here in the desert, and that our veggie garden had already died off, it is probably early in the dry season. So at least in my neighbourhood, the image appears to date from about July of 2002.
The resolution is good enough that I can see the single stripe down the middle of a nearby two-lane highway. I can also see two cars and an 18-wheeler. The smallest visible object is a 4x8 sheet of plywood atop the shelter in my corral. I can also see my kennel concrete, which at that point is 15 feet wide, represented by 5 pixels on the saved image (you can pillage them via Moz's Page Info function). So there's the max resolution -- one pixel = about 3 feet (plus or minus some blurring).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Check this site:
.
http://locator.region.waterloo.on.ca/
(warning - I have only seen it work in IE).
The region of Waterloo (ON, CAN) has aerial photography at 10cm resolution (~4in) in B&W for 2000 and 2003. I've been looking for a house, and this is a really great site for checking out the state of yards without visiting them. You can see trees, fences, the size of driveways, if the house is going to be in the shadow of an apartment building . .
I honestly have no issue with 10cm resolution being available to the general public. No tin foil on my head.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Area 51
Wake up.
Comic Book Guy's answer: "As a viewer, I feel they owe me."
if you don't like the free service google offers, you said it yourself - mapquest already does it apparently. AND... it's 3 fewer letters to type in than maps.google.com. So there's your answer.
See CNN for good coverage of the issue.
Go to mappy.com.
Search for a big city. I've only tried Brussels.
There's a Transparency slider at the top left.
Mappy has had satellite maps with transparency for at least a few months. It has been truly interactive for ages. I have no idea why nobody's mentioned this, and why anybody thinks Google's US-only, slow, hardly interactive maps are any good at all.