Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps Adds Drone Imagery
joshuadugie writes "Slashdot carried a story a while ago that Google had purchased drones for unknown purposes. Google Maps has now added new non-satellite imagery (at UT Austin, for example) when you zoom in close enough. Mystery solved!" I'd like to think that there really are (or were) drones over Austin, but would also like to see Google's explanation for the close-up images.
I can't wait until I can start viewing more embarrassing photos because the only uses this has to normal people is pretending to be a spy and looking for people falling off of bicycles or doing other stupid stuff.
yet you state that in your headline anyway?
Brilliant.
Ummm.... if it's "non-satellite imagery," where else could it be from? I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a Cessna wouldn't be very economical long-term compared to a drone.
http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/12/changing-your-perspective.html Just starting to be available in more places it looks like.
Now we're almost to the point where we can have the Technodrome Eye; you know where Chrome Dome can just see exactly what's happening no matter where the action is?
But, I a am in doubt that it is really news worthy. "Google adds new level to zoom" :|
I wonder when this tech will be cheap enough to be commonly used for private security (guarding installations) and private investigators.
Actually, yes, sort of... the majority of the higher res images on Google Maps, is taken from light aircraft fitted with specialized camera equipment.
The imagery is taken most for surveying, council and real-estate uses, not for applications like Google Maps.
I would bet the Austin imagery is also done this way.
As an example, http://nearmap.com/ offers quite high res imagery.
Its mentioned here they the photos are taken with low flying aircraft: http://www.nearmap.com/products/photomap-coverage
Satellites are also capable of shooting oblique views, too. I have no idea what Google did.
Luke, help me take this mask off
were "drone" and "Cessna." My mistake.
Am I the only one who thinks these new drone images are horrific? Sure, the detail is great, but the perspective is totally whack when viewed in 2D map mode. It will probably look a lot better on the 3d Google Earth buildings when they apply the textures correctly, but for now it looks awful.
It seems that this is a joint effort with Sanborn given the copyright notice on the bottom of the image. Sanborn uses LiDAR as one of it's tools.
I'd also like to note that Bing has had areas covered with a similar angular mapping for a while. Their images are tagged with the name Pictometry.
So, yes, it seems it is a "guy taking pictures out of a Cessna". Or something close to it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Look, everyone knows that the Google index server has evolved sentience and is currently hunting for Sarah Connor. You might as well just admit that's what the drones were really for.
From Bing's Bird's Eye view.
Drones are illegal in the US without a Certificate to Operate from the FAA. The FAA does not provide CtO's lightly, nor have they ever granted one for operation over a populated area...and before anyone links to DIY Drones, this rule is for corporations, not individuals who operate under r/c rules (under 400 ft AGL, within sight without any vision enhancement devices such as binoculars).
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
No.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Presciently, from 1982:
Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Always in focus
You can't feel my stare
I zoom into you
but You don't know I'm there
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
I'm elected electric spy
I'm elected protective, detective, Electric Eye!
My brother used to work as a commercial real estate appraiser. He talked to one of the first guys in Texas (perhaps the US) who retrofitted his Cessna with a viewport, a fancy DSLR, and a laptop. He flew around Houston and other cities in TX once a year or on demand, and took high res images that his software stitched together later. It may not be economical compared to a drone, but it was affordable, especially compared to satellite imagery at the time.
Were Google's drones just RC craft piloted by a certified pilot on the ground? I thought automated aircraft (no pilot) and RC craft flown by non-pilots were not allowed in controlled airspace in the USA.
looks just like the birds eye view that Microsoft Bing maps use
From the resolution it's likely not from satellites (I don't think satellites can photograph people yet - at least not commercial satellites).
Secondly when zooming in at a certain zoom level (some 3, 4 levels before maximum zoom), the copyright data changes (see the little line at the bottom of the images). These close-up aerial photos have been made by Google themselves.
Indeed whether it has been done by manned aircraft or drones you can't tell from the photos, but with the current state-of-the-art of unmanned flight, and the known fact Google owns such aircraft, it's very likely these photos were made using drones.
Soon enough the mystery will be solved by a Google blog post or so followed by a post on /.'s home page.
Classic discussion system is not currently working properly with scripting blocked via noscript on Firefox and clicking the classic discussion system option. All that shows is the broken AJAX view and have no desire to allow scripting and go with the very abrasively annoying AJAX view. Please fix the Classic view.
Since flying a drone in US airspace is very difficult and they do require pilots. Yes from a light airplane.
I would guess that it would cost a lot less than the street view cars do.
You can probably get a plane and a pilot for less than 100 an hour. It can probably a city in one day. 8x100=$800. Then think about how many hours it will take to drive all over a city at say $20 an hour. The shots from an airplane will be a lot cheaper.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You're right. I checked a little more after I submitted the article (should have done it first). The images seem to be taken from about 20000 ft, but the drones purchased (http://microdrones.com/en_md4-1000_tech_data.php) can only fly up to about 3000 ft. These must have been from a plane instead. I apologize for the incorrect conclusion.
Google Maps, AFAIK, has _always_ included non-satellite imagery. Higher resolution images have _always_ been from aerial photographs taken by aircraft. From the Google Blog, a few days ago:
...The folks who created Google Earth devised a way to stitch aerial and satellite imagery together into a seamless, searchable map of the world and make it available to anyone with a computer...
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/world-as-eagle-and-wild-goose-see-it.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/MKuf+(Official+Google+Blog)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Google "aerial photography" and notice all the ads which sell you the photos. Or look in your local Yellow Pages, where you can get photos of your house if you wish.
Is it legal to fly remote-controlled aircraft over built-up areas in the US? I'm pretty sure it's not in Australia.
OTOH, there isn't much that is legal in Australia these days. Ain't it a bitch?
Bing Maps has this type of imagery over most of the populated US and Europe. There's nothing new about this. Pictometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictometry) has been collecting these images for years.
No one else has found the drone's shadow? Hint: On campus and between two majestic symbols of academia.
I kid you not, I can see the RG6 on the roof of the building across the street! (San Diego)
I took a look at my own building first to see if there were new, higher-resolution images. Sure enough, I could see the plastic conduit on our roof that carries the Cox cables to each stack. I think it's about a 4" conduit.
Just for yucks, I pan over to the building across the street, and I can see the bare RG6 laid on the roof.
Voila! I now have the photographs to accompany my presentation to the HOA about how stupid it is that our cable is laid-out orthogonally, as opposed to the sensible, star layout across the street. (It's so stupidly laid-out that it accounts for the 8db difference between my living-room drop and bedroom drop.)
See link below. (What the heck, privacy is dead, right?) This isn't even at maximum zoom, you can zoom in further yourself. I left it at this zoom level so you can see both buildings at the same time.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2414+Front+Street,+San+Diego,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.726391,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2414+Front+St,+San+Diego,+California+92101&ll=32.730802,-117.165676&spn=0.000842,0.001206&t=h&z=20
Perhaps.
But then, until quite recently, I thought that driverless cars were not allowed, either.
YMMV.
Kid-proof tablet..
So, I'm pretty close to the airport, so I thought I'd take a look over there. Something tells me they had to get SOME kind of special permission for this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2414+Front+Street,+San+Diego,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.726391,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2414+Front+St,+San+Diego,+California+92101&t=h&ll=32.733691,-117.182491&spn=0.000424,0.000603&z=21
I'll leave nearby military installations and bunkers as an exercise for the reader...
Some of the perspectives are interesting.
Check the condo on the west side of Congress between 2nd and 3rd.
From the summary: "I'd like to think that there really are (or were) drones over Austin, but would also like to see Google's explanation for the close-up images."
It's Google implementing a feature Bing has had available for over a year - the Bird's Eye view.
Drones to do aerial photos isn't that scary. If those photos were live, or nearly live, that might be scary.
Now I'll have to wonder about every plane circling a sports stadium towing an advertisement. The Google Ad Drones will probably swarm and have self-changing ads. And they'll never fly away since there is no pilot to need a break.
For photos, it might make sense to use drones when they can get closer without attracting attention. Or maybe they can be flying early and late in the day for those people-free photos. Weird to see a campus with so few people. That skynet thing must be Photoshopping the people out where it can. The people behind the joystick can work a regular 8-hour day and still get bathroom breaks. Or maybe Google is somehow harnessing strangers on the net to get good photo instructions (too cloudy, too many people, people-free, and um, embarrassing ... over-exposures.)
The splicing at the edges of map/photo sections seems weird. The shadows change direction, the buildings seem slanted on side of a street and straight on the other side.
i hate to give one to microsoft but local.live.com wich is now bingmaps i thnk bing.com/maps or maps.bing.com or something, has had ariel fotography for years, i always surprise people who use google maps with it the one good thing microsoft has done, corse they stole the software for nasqmap or something like that but STILL! hhaa
I thought automated aircraft (no pilot) and RC craft flown by non-pilots were not allowed in controlled airspace in the USA.
Not all US airspace is controlled - in fact, the vast majority is not, particularly at the low altitudes you'd need to be flying at to get this kind of imagery.
If you don't like it, there is always the opt out village.
http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-users-protect-privacy,14358/
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
Ummm.... if it's "non-satellite imagery," where else could it be from?
I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a Cessna wouldn't be very economical long-term compared to a drone.
Lots of imagery on Google Earth and Google Maps is non-satellite imagery when you zoom in close. Look at Downtown Seattle some time. You can see the sides of buildings.
Google gets images from a lot of places. In the case of Seattle and NYC the images were taken by aircraft under contract to the city for their own use, and purchased by Google. The resolution is almost as good as the UT Austin images. You can see some weird leaning buildings in Google Earth.
These images were there long before Google even announced the purchase of these drones.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The same maroon suburban is there both in street view and the 100' aerial view. I guess the drone follows the street view car around.
Looks like under 100' to me.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The cars are not driver less.
From the link you posted:
"With someone behind the wheel to take control if something went awry..."
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That number seems VERY low ..
100 / hr ??
av gas ( 100 low lead ) just around $5/gal .. ..
cesna 182 ( about the smallest thing you would want to do a task like this with ) burns about 12 ~ 14 gal per hour
Thats 60~70 in FUEL alone .. Add in insurance / oil / engine overhauls .. well over 100 / hr for the plane itself ..
Pilot .. you may be able to get cheap if you can find someone looking to go ATP and are willing to take a job cheap just for the Pilot In Command time ..
Retard
Used that as a generic term. I'm aware of the vague layout of US airspace. I was a student pilot in the early 1990's but I never got my ticket. Another commenter pointed out drones are not allowed in US airspace above 400 AGL or out of visual range of the operator (they can operate under RC rules).
2007
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
I think its an improvement, being able to see angled pictures would have helped me find a whole bunch of places much better.
Although these days i use nearmaps to make sure the road i plan to travel on still exists. It also covers construction work over time really well. Just look at the Clem 7 tunnel entrance in Brisbane Australia big changes small amount of time
Google's satellite pictures are out of date in my area by a few years and have more than once directed me to a road that does not connect, or a road that does not exist. I think drone pictures in my area would bring me back to google maps. Although I doubt i will see a drone in Australia any time soon.
At least at my location, the Google images appear to be higher-res than the Bing images. For example, on Bing, I can't see ALL of the RG6 runs on the roof across the street - only where there are several bundled-together.
(Sorry, Slashdot won't post the Bing URL - it's "an awfully long string of characters"...)
BTW, I took a look at some of the military stuff in the area. At higher-res, the aircraft carriers mysteriously disappear. But that could just be because they weren't in port when the high-res images were taken.
I thought I saw an area mysteriously blanked-out with a croshatch pattern. But then I realized that what I was looking at was headstones at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetary.
I was just over at youtube testing my connection quality and noticed new videos of "UFO's" sighted over NYC on Oct 13th, and now this article. What's the chance that umbrela corp.... uh... I mean google is not connected to those :)
And for the record I love google and most things they do, but if some day in a not-too-distant future it turns out that they have an underground lab with some genetics ad-placement experiments, I will not be surprised one bit.
Ummm.... if it's "non-satellite imagery," where else could it be from?
I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a Cessna wouldn't be very economical long-term compared to a drone.
Yeah, and I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a car to make a map as he drives up and down every single street in the world wouldn't be very economical... oh wait. (Then again, drones you say? Oh snap.)
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
So if someone were sitting near a ground-based transmitter, able to take control of the drone at a second's notice, that would be OK? How many drones can their transmitter control at once before you start classifying them as driverless?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
The NSA got it right this time, partnering with Google, all the spying, all the time, all places possible, and without those pesky Federal laws.
The cheapest thing would be to contact companies with helicopters, and offer to pay them if they let Google hang an automatic, GPS-equipped camera off them.
News and traffic helicopters, corporate helicopters, charters, and air ambulances do a lot of flying anyway. Get as much coverage as possible from them going about their business, and then hire someone to fill in any gaps.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
The idea that pictures over such a small area were taken from an aircraft is both simpler and more likely than a drone, a new technology that Google might (or might not) have plans to use to take pictures for Gmaps.
Helicopters are more expensive to operate than small single engine general aviation planes like the mentioned "Cessna".
You can probably get a plane and a pilot for less than 100 an hour.
Eh? Even if you dig for the lowest of the low, novice pilots you are paying the pilot $25 an hour, more unless they are your employee, which doesn't include things like plane, fuel, or insurance. Current typical airplane fuel costs are $5 [minimum] per gallon.
If flying even the lightest turboprop imaginable, this still will consumes approximately 7 gallons of fuel per hour, probably more by the time they've gotten all their various computer equipment and cameras on board for mapping.
All said and done, a minimum $50 for fuel + $25 pilot = $75.
Unless the plane is a 30 year old death trap, it's unlikely its owner will rent it to you for a mere $25 an hour.
It might be cheaper to just buy/license the media from some other company who already got that particular footage, or buy the assets from the company when they're having a fire sale / liquidation.
Maybe so. But if a company is already operating a helicopter in the course of business, then an opportunity to get a little extra income by hanging a camera pod off the helicopter for Google is a nice bit of gravy with no extra cost. It's like selling Google ad space on the side of the helicopter, only instead of a sign, there's a camera.
The key point is: cities already have people flying overhead. Why not take advantage of that, rather than chartering flights?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
And satellites are more expensive to operate than helicopters.
Parent's point is that if the helicopter flies around on other business anyways, carrying another few kg of video gear is cheap.
Several prominent features of Eastwoods Park just north west of UT Austin are missing in these photos showing that their age to be at least 4 years old, taken well before they made their German micro-drone purchase. Various other construction and deconstruction projects around the area of viewable non-satallite imagery confirm that these are all old aerial photos of several years in age.
Indeed. After all, Bing Maps had the same distinct view angle for quite a while (called "bird's eye"), and I'm not aware of any drones being involved in that.
...many spy satellites based off the hubble telescope, but aimed toward the earth. if you think they need aerial photography for high resolution images you are sadly naive. they've been able to read along with you that book you read in the park for years and years.
private companies may be longer in getting access to such high resolution imagery, but it's nothing new.
Anyone having technical knowledge willing to explain whether a drone is more likely to drop off the sky than a helicopter?
I expect his answer would be none. The self-driving car has the full control system of a normal car and a driver present in exactly the same way as a normal car. That is very different from having a driver/pilot available to control the vehicle remotely. What Google did was just an extension of cars that can break for themselves, maintain a steady speed, turn wipers on when it rains etc all of which are fine on roads.
These aren't the drones you're looking for, you can go about your business. Move along.
Everything else equal, a fixed wing drone will be more mechanically reliable than a manned helicopter, nothing to do with the drone, but with the realities of helicopter design.
Why does the FAA not allow drones in commercial airspace yet? Short answer is no one has took the time and money to develop one and get it certified. The longer answer is it depends on whether you are talking about piloted drones or autonomous drones.
There is a problem with coordination of pilot or autopilot to ATC requests, a pilot not physically being in the vehicle to make emergency avoidance maneuvers and trusting the autopilot to do it instead, and ensuring continuity of positive control of the autopilot or the wireless pilot interface. If a drone is going to be in airspace with passenger aircraft or over populated areas with heavy aircraft, the FAA wants to be damn confident it won't wreak havoc with highly automated commercial aircraft or Joe Bob in his Cessna.
Piloted military drones have a demonstrably higher accident rate. But I have no doubt after some teething pains and a lot of money, automated drones will have lower accident rates than piloted aircraft.
I've got a Nikon camera,
Want to strap it to a bird,
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away.
don't welcome our new Google overlords.
I thought this would be about tiny cameras fitted on male bees.
our new corporate drones and their benevolent rule of the new state of Googlistan
The only sat imagery in google earth has only reasolutions of up to 15m/pixel.
Everything thats good enough identify individual houses has always been areal imagery.
I mean, just look at citites, you can actually _see_ the tilt of the scyscrapers not centered in the image (which would be nil for a sat in LEO or above.
If you really look around you can even see the shadow the for observation plane at some point.
And just in case: government has kept aerial imagery catalogs for decades. Its not that google invented flying planes with cameras around.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Since I live in Austin, not far from the UT campus, I just brought up Google Maps and had a look ... and there we are, my wife and me in our front yard. We just happened to be outside when the image was made. I admit to feeling just a bit creeped out.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
I still couldn't make out Hippy Hollow very well
Austin has had max zoom for years, and almost certainly from aerial photography. I do see that there is a new 45-degree view, but there is still nothing to indicate that they used an unmanned drone to take the pictures. There's no good reason they can't just tilt the camera on a normal aerial photography plane.
Others have mentioned that licenses for a commercial company to operate unmanned drones over cities are very hard to get. What if the drones are for UN-populated areas? There's been plenty of aerial photography done over highly populated areas, but not over the middle of nowhere. (This is depending on the area; I remember that some states seem to have had total coverage done.)
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
So if someone were sitting near a ground-based transmitter, able to take control of the drone at a second's notice, that would be OK? How many drones can their transmitter control at once before you start classifying them as driverless?
I expect his answer would be none. The self-driving car has the full control system of a normal car and a driver present in exactly the same way as a normal car. That is very different from having a driver/pilot available to control the vehicle remotely.
No, it is no different because remotely controlling a model aircraft is legal, and driving a car is legal. Indeed, riding in a model aircraft is not legal; it must be registered and that's not going to happen. You are attempting to create a distinction where none exists. The drone ALSO has the full control system of a radio-controlled vehicle and an operator present in exactly the same way as a normal radio controlled vehicle. Therefore we are comparing the driver sitting by ready to control the car with the operator sitting by ready to control the aircraft.
There is something seriously wrong with your logic. If you tried to create this distinction for your own ends then it is selfish. If you invented it out of nothing just to be negative then you're unclever.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
AFAIK they do have a transponder code for unmanned craft, so ATC can at least be aware that it's not got a meatbag in it. I think they use the "X" bit (which was previously only used by BOMARC missiles (airborn targets)).
Given that this identifier would be in addition to whatever normal 4-digit squawk was assigned, I could see how this would work.
Communicating with the operator may be a bit different. Perhaps implementing some kind of control channel that would allow ATC to issue guidance overrides if required?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
hilariously enough, most of the pictures of google earth (at least, originally, and still partially true today) are "Non satellite imagery". They are high altitude Aerial survey pictures. Taken from around 20 thousand feet, done by the USGS starting around 1987, I know for a fact that google started out with these, and only in more recent years has bought satellite data.
info about the USGS aerial surveys. http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/aerial/aerial.html
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Oh, aditionally, on the actual 'google earth' not the website version, at least by default, when zoomed in, the source of the data you are looking at is listed at the bottom of the screen. Texas for example, when zoomed in to a particular degree, is provided by the Texas Orthoimagery Program (high altitude photography for those to lazy to google). Most of the closer data is provided that way, be it USGS data, or independent state programs.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
He was not talking about the drones not making any excuses fot them.
He was correcting a missconception about the cars in question.
Besides, we already have a name for guided, self propelled, pilot-less aircraft - and it tends to be frowned upon in most countries...
You're right. The headline should have named you, and quoted from your thoughts, because this is your blog, and your opinion is highly relevant to people other than your mother.
colinnwn told you about fixed-wing drones...but a lot of aerial photography is now done with helicopter drones (less safe than a manned heli, they don't auto-rotate as long because they're smaller and have 2-stroke piston engines instead of turbines, but are much cheaper to run than a fixed-wing drone, and of course they can hover) or quadcopters (again less safe, can't auto-rotate at all) or hexacopters (can fly or control their descent with up to 3 dead engines, usually have loads of spare lifting power and are incredibly agile when unladen, but again if they lose all power they drop like a rock).
Helicopter drones that can do decent aerial photography start at about 4ft. long (and maybe 4ft rotor diameter), a quadcopter or hexacopter would start at about 2ft. in body diameter.
There are also a few people using zeppelin/blimp drones now which are quite safe, if one lost all its lifting gas and fell on your head you'd just get a bruise if any hard parts hit you, they fall pretty slow because they have the mass-to-surface area ratio of a Chinese take-out box. The only danger with these airships is they can get blown into power lines. The ones that can do aerial photography start at about 20ft. long.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the entire state surveyed by air every five or ten years (both with the USGS and on its own). The GIS data and imagery is available to the public at http://www.mass.gov/mgis/laylist.htm . Perhaps Texas has the same sort of program.
if you take the "less than 100" literally, $49 is almost 2x $25. i dont' know much about renting a plane, but going by what you said, it actually IS POSSIBLE to get one for $75. so, you don't think it's possible to get a slightly more reliable rental for $99?
It's probably a case of a new manned aerial imagery source becoming available.
Is this new imagery also showing in Google Earth? (I can't check from my current location). GEarth is usually a bit more verbose than GMaps regarding copyright details.
At very high zoom levels, it is only listing Google as the copyright holder, but this may be an error. However, Google may have hired out to a more traditional source for this.
I'm not sure if the microdrones described have the flight stability in turbulence to provide the accuracy required for georeferenced imagery. (In general, the larger the flight platform, the less it is affected by turbulence.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"Why does the FAA not allow drones in commercial airspace yet? Short answer is no one has took the time and money to develop one and get it certified. The longer answer is it depends on whether you are talking about piloted drones or autonomous drones. "
I believe a number of military drones (namely the Global Hawk) do have such certification.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Much of the USGS data has been replaced with higher resolution aerial orthoimagery in many states, usually from a state government data source.
Definitely:
New York (imagery taken under contract on behalf of New York GIS)
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
In all three of the above cases, you can actually get the original orthoimagery yourself from the respective state's government GIS organization as a free download, with a MUCH less restrictive license than Google's.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I like the way it switches to a 45 degree angle as you zoom in. And it even switched to the street view when you zoom in enough. Wow!
People who complained about the street view are really going to love this picture of their house. You can look into peoples swimming pools now!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Well, if you stay below 500 feet or so, you're not in controlled airspace for the most part.
Make sure your operator/pilot doesn't have any assets, too, so that when the plane fails and crashes, the plaintiff won't get too much from the lawsuit.
Far, far easier is to work with the National Guard to use the no-fly zone over Ft. Bragg or some other similar federal installations.
Compare this with the fact that you can rent a small plane, a pilot, and a camera for less than $200/hr *right this minute* and you'll see why no one even bothers with UAVs, except as research projects.
You can only operate under the model aircraft rules if you aren't being paid, and no, you can't just claim you're taking a vacation day. The university would have to testify that you stole the UAV if anything happened.
Many people need to stop posting until they read something, anything, about aerial photography. Generally, the photos used by Google are not randomly taken and have certain useful characteristics.
What Google did was just an extension of cars that can break for themselves
All cars can break for themselves; hell, mine needs new tie rod bushings now. How is that in any way a good thing?
Or did you mean "brake"? Dew knot truss yore spill chucker, as you may say something completely different than what you meant to say. If you loose your money you're unwise, if you lose your money you're unlucky. If you brake your car you will stop, if you break your car it won't run. If you break your brakes you may wreck your car.
Free Martian Whores!
Google was using aerial imagery long before Bing appeared. But don't let your avoidance of knowing what you're talking about end now.
However, pretty much every state in the US requires that the driver have 2 hands on the wheel. Not really enforced, mind you; but having an AI drive the vehicle with a human on "stand-by" would indeed still be illegal in the same fashion as driving with your leg, or letting the passenger hold the steering wheel for you, etc. They might not enforce it, but that doesn't mean its legal - just that the law is unenforceable and itself is illegal (since laws are required to be enforceable to be legal and good law - mind you a lot of laws do not measure up to that standard).
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
You can also change the view from looking north, south, east and west, and the perspective changes accordingly. Interesting...
Google should begin with fixing the broken search engine.
Don't know how about global, but in my country when you search for street-name, city-name with window zoomed to this very city; search moves you to completely other town with different name. Also when you search for town with some name, it often finds villages named the same and comlpetely ignores the town. So recently google maps suck badly in their "core" functionality.
Some of the new imagery, at least the imagery around Ann Arbor, Mich. were done this summer, sometime around April-June 2010.
Isn't it possible to just check flight plans around some of these cities?
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
wonder if these north korean images were taken by drones?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=38.685509760012,126.2109375&spn=0.00318,0.004128&t=h&z=19
if you take the "less than 100" literally, $49 is almost 2x $25. i dont' know much about renting a plane, but going by what you said, it actually IS POSSIBLE to get one for $75.
I don't think so. Rental rates from a reputable company start around $120 per hour the plane is running as indicated by the Hobbs meter, more if fuel is included in the price of the rental, of course. This does not include a pilot.
The idea you might in theory get less is predicated on finding some person or company willing to make a special deal to rent their plane out, rather than a rental company.
It's kind of like saying "You're not going to be able to rent a car and drive across the state in it, for less than $50 a day."
Well, technically, you can, if you're willing to walk to the poorest part of down, and find the guy with a $500 1980s-era vehicle that has more dents in it than a piece of used aluminum foil, and make a special deal.
It's worth noting, however, that even if you do that, you still have to pay for a driver, and you still have to buy the fuel for it
No renter in their right mind will provide and allow you to use fuel without charging the cost.
You are probably right. Even at 200 hour it is sitll not going to be as expensive as street view.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It is common for a university to pay for aerial imagages of their campus. (Aerial survey or properties.) They use this for internal mapping functions and other useful functions. Once they have it, they can share it with other interested parties, but usually it includes some reciprocal benefit. If it was a game day, could you read the scoreboard? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&ll=42.728147,-84.484853&spn=0.001413,0.002401&t=h&z=19
Speaking of Google maps, in January they removed the extremely useful "saved locations" feature in order to force people to turn on "web history". There are 6 pages worth of complaints from over 200 people on the Google Maps help forum and not a single positive feedback.
Does Google give a shit?