[OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Thu Feb 10 23:49:58 GMT 2011


On 09/02/2011 11:53, ant wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 09.02.2011 12:26, Dave F. wrote:
>> Sorry, but I'm failing to see the point in this tool. Why would someone
>> need to "get an idea" about where hi-res is?
>>
>> At <14 it gives inaccurate readings, at >14 you're to far in to *get an
>> idea*.
>>
>> Hope you can explain it to me.
>
> this map is a work in progress. First you must zoom in into an area 
> you're interested in to see if there's hires imagery available.

See, this is a bit I don't understand. If you have to zoom in then you 
can see if it's hi-res from the Bing images!


> Upon zooming out one by one, the colouring gets rendered again 
> according to what you've found. After a while you'll have a big mosaic 
> indicating coverage on a wide range.
>
> For example - look at Australia. There only a few areas are coloured 
> green, which means there is hires (zoom 14 and more) imagery. A mapper 
> might be interested in such a map to discover places in Australia s/he 
> hasn't traced yet.

1. How many people map areas they've never been to. If they are, is that 
a benefit to OSM regarding accuracy.

2. If they're interested in an area why can't they just zoom in to find 
out if it's hi-res.

Sorry, but I think your time would be better spent get out & mapping 
something.


> What you do mean by "inaccurate readings"? I think the map is quite 
> accurate.


http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=51.06122731915702&lon=-2.3915486787965934&zoom=9

The blank areas have hi-res imagery (caveat: I have checked every tile)



More information about the talk mailing list