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.

Comments

Sounds like good technology for lots of uses

[DeadSea]

Googles map software is pretty nifty. It seems like something that wouldn't be to hard to whip up for any large image file.

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:

1. Resize the image to various resolutions
2. Break the images into 200x200 pixel chunks at each resolution and save those chunks as individual image files
3. Put a javascript interface on

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:

• Local maps such as for state parks
• Scanned artwork such as paintings - Like the Gigapixel Tapestries covered the other day.
• Circular panorama photos that could be scrolled only in one direction

--
On-line Currency Exchange Rate Conversion Calculator

Re:Sounds like good technology for lots of uses

[mosschops]

• Resize the image to various resolutions
  
• Break the images into 200x200 pixel chunks at each resolution and save those chunks as individual image files
  
• Put a javascript interface on
  

Rather than working with fixed resolution images, you're must better off using wavelet compression to store your images. As well as up to 50:1 compression ratios, you can easily stream out whatever resolution you need, without having to uncompress all the data first. ECW and related formats have been used by GIS systems for many years, long before Google joined the party. Still, it's nice to see so much information publically available.

I'm certainly looking forward to when Google add the UK data, so I don't have to rely on the limited service from GetMapping :-)

Different dataset from Keyhole

[willith]

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.

Re:Different dataset from Keyhole

[garcia]

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.

We were already talking about this this morning on our local geocaching assocation forum. Two of us (St. Paul and Apple Valley, MN) show that the images are at least 4 years old or newer.

My house was built in 2001 and it shows it there. Google doesn't know my address and gives something nearby but I still can see the house :)

Re:Different dataset from Keyhole

[ecklesweb]

The photos of Memphis, TN, were taken in the first half of 2003. You can tell by the state of completion of the FedEx Forum.

Comeon, 1 meter per pixel....

[purduephotog]

... 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.

Re:Comeon, 1 meter per pixel....

[jmc]

Good enough to see SR-71s parked on a tarmac:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kramer+Junction,CA&l l=34.952788,-117.884331&spn=0.006480,0.006738&t=k& hl=en

Scroll east to see a huge compass rose painted in desert.

First in the industry???

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Re:First in the industry???

[baker_tony]

> but as far as the end-user is concerned, the effect is identical.

No, you're wrong, the multimap is much more detailed and better looking than google's :-) (as well as being able to display the map at the same time as the image).

Re:First in the industry???

[markus_baertschi]

The Swiss mapping site map.search.ch does have satellite images since a long time.

Here a sample link map.search.ch/etoy of my village. Click more to zoom in !

Markus

Re:Erm

[MynockGuano]

I think they mean that it's the first time a true mapping/routefinding service (MapQuest, et al) has satellite imagery integrated.

First?

[oddrune]

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 :)

Re:Example

[betelgeuse-4]

Look for the "Map - Satellite" in the top right corner and click Satellite.

Re:Erm

[ishepherd]

Not really - try mousing over this map (hope the link works).

Not a first.

[nberardi]

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.

Re:But when will the rest of the world be included

[generic-man]

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

varying seasons

[coult]

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.

Re:varying seasons

[Mignon]

Nice one. I thought it was cool that the shadows of the towers of the George Washington Bridge (New York City) were pointing in different directions. (Sorry I couldn't get a URL, so you'll have to search for it yourself. Try "178th and Broadway New York City" then scroll left a little.)

Re:y0z

[FinestLittleSpace]

You are AMAZING. I want your children.

Re:I do not see any change

[Sinus0idal]

hmmm, I'm sure the whitehouse roof isn't quite that plain in real life :-)

And still no scale.

[Peldor]

Open letter to the head heads at Google:

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 this ages ago

[cryogenix]

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.

Re:Erm

[19thNervousBreakdown]

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.

Re:Erm

[markov_chain]

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... :)

link

[coult]

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.962159395217896, -93.5434341430664&spn=0.008153915405273438,0.01179 0990829467773&t=k&hl=en

Re:Not blocking?

[biglig2]

They've done something to the roofs of the neighbouring buildings (to the white house) as well...

Re:Erm

[rebeka thomas]

Or until it shows Area 51, which I notice is conspicuously missing.

Sand in Central Park

[AtariAmarok]

"Tres cool. So what are those patches of sand in Central Park anyway?"

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.

Re:Area 51?

[BillBrasky]

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

High-interest targets obscurred?

[Chappy01]

Check this out, the US Capital Building congressional offices in Washington are totally obscured...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=constitution+ave+and +1st+street,washington,+dc&ll=38.891006,-77.008873 &spn=0.008444,0.010664&t=k&hl=en

It's the same with KeyHole as well (screenshot):
http://www.allbootdisks.com/images/keyhole.jpg

Is keyhole doing this to all 'sensitive' targets?

Re:Erm

[antdude]

IIRC, MapQuest said it was about the cost when I e-mailed MapQuest about it a few years ago.

Re:More likely...

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

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.

Re:Goolge Watermarks

[DaoudaW]

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.

Dates to mid-2002 at my house

[Reziac]

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).

Re:Erm

[dourk]

Area 51