asteinmetz
Tourist
Reged: 11/10/04
Posts: 67
|
|
I know this has come up before but I just want to express my frustration with updated imagery that is of lower quality than the preceding images. In my neck of the woods, central New Jersey, USA a recent update now uses DG images from Aug 2002 and March 2004, about 2 years newer than before but hardly recent data (DG Catalog ID: 1010010002C7811F is one example, if you care). The resolution of the "new" images is about half the older stuff. Furthermore the seams joining (is that what you call it?) is about 15 meters off. Again, worse than before. Google maps still uses the better, older images. I've attached a sample image.
Now, an argument might be made to automatically select more up-to-date images even if lower resolution but that seems to make no sense here because a) 5 years old is not "new" and b) the lower resolution removes enough information to render the detection of smaller changed features impossible.
I am disappointed to see GE get larded up with more and more narrow interest layers while the core data degrades. It's like putting more frosting on a rotting cake. I've been a paid subscriber since the Keyhole days and have enjoyed the continuous improvements since then. To paraphrase a recent political speech, for the first time I am not proud of Google Earth.
Edited by asteinmetz (02/22/08 10:49 AM)
|
Bob_the_printer
Tourist
Reged: 07/09/05
Posts: 176
Loc: Bridgeton, NJ
|
|
I agree with you completely! The difference between the 'old' and the 'new' imagery is very obvious here in the Bridgeton, NJ area. Some areas here are showing updated shopping centers and such, but others, such as my own house and a good friend about 10 miles from me are just a green blob in the new imagery.
I just happened to run GE today, after not accessing the database for about a week and noticed the changes. 
--------------------
Sincerely,
Bob the Printer
|
DRPaddler
First Post
Reged: 02/29/08
Posts: 1
|
|
Near Somerville NJ the same thing happened recently. Images from 2004-03-13 replaced data from 2004-03-08. The new data has lower resolution and is mis-registered ~25m at an azimuth of 105 degrees.
It would be nice if the layering capability extended to the choice of imagery. 
We geocache using GE in central NJ and like the challenge of not using a GPS. This is a huge offset we will have to figure in when using these images. It was very convenient to use fallen trees as waypoints too.
The registration of southernmost image of this track near N 40 30.5, W 74 34.5 is S 00 0.001' and E 000 0.025' of where it should be in relation to the grid and older imagery.
Is anyone aware a place to submit database errors?
D&R Paddler
|
Hill
Master Guide
Reged: 10/31/04
Posts: 9201
Loc: Southern California
|
|
Try this link to report problems.
|
asteinmetz
Tourist
Reged: 11/10/04
Posts: 67
|
|
Now the Google Maps imagery is degraded, as well.
|
LuciaM
Master Guide
Reged: 11/22/05
Posts: 2343
Loc: New York City
|
|
I might be recalling this wrong, but I think the previous imagery for New Jersey was licensed from the State of NJ itself rather than a private imaging company. Google may have decided to just switch imagery to newer shots but it's also possible that the State pulled their images back or made the economics less attractive.
--------------------
felidae vult.......................................... ......................
One cat leads to another... Ernest Hemingway
My Google Earth Layers Network Link My Panoramio Images
Word of the Decade
They say the neon lights are bright on Broadway...
|
uhohink
Tourist
Reged: 08/31/05
Posts: 7
Loc: NJ, USA
|
|
I myself have been around since the "Keyhole" days, and if I've learned one thing it's that "You can't fight City Hall".
I remember when the “big announcement” was made that NJ was now completely in high resolution. It had taken a while and I for one was grateful for it. I guess now that they decided to go with these “newer” low-resolution pictures we’ll just have to wait for them to decide to “upgrade” once again.
|
asteinmetz
Tourist
Reged: 11/10/04
Posts: 67
|
|
Whew! That didn't last too long. The latest image update includes mid-2006 images of NJ that restore the older, higher resolution, and properly registered images. Thanks to the image fairy for fixing this.
Interestingly, the DG coveage layer info is not any different and the images are copyright TeleAtlas.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
