Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage dropped dramatically in Taiwan
Same case reported in the Philippines. cheers, Maning Sambale (mobile) On Apr 11, 2015 12:20 AM, Hsiao-Ting Yu [:littlebtc] sst.dre...@gmail.com wrote: For mappers in Taiwan, currently the Bing imagery is the only way to draw details in Taiwan, since only Bing has good zoom 18+ coverage in Taiwan. However since the imagery updated this week the coverage dramatically dropped. Though some region had been updated, a lot of areas, like Taipei, Miaoli, and Kaohsiung, all zoom 14+ images were disappeared. It is frustrating. This issue had been lasted for several days, and we had reported the imagery lost in the Bing maps report form. Is there any other ways we can report and get this fixed? -- Littlebtc / 笨笨的小B / 小犬 (Xiaoquan) http://blog.littleb.tc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
Am 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse: I noticed this while looking at the map here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059lon=34.825519zoom=18layers=M The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? I can't see a good reason given there is a website such as http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ that shows you Bing worldwide highres coverage. Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
On 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse wrote: The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? Not exactly about this relation but in the country I map we have a similar relation. The thing is that unlike in many western countries the coverage of aerial imagery is limited. So having a way to easily share the boundaries was needed. The boundary is not on the ground like most boundaries. Actually I have never seen a boundary. I saw constructions like fences or walls at places people say there is a boundary, but never the boundary itself. So why to keep them? You can do fancy queries with boundaries. Have you ever tried to make a statistic on the number of unnamed highway=residential of an area having imagery comparing to a similar sized area (in number of highways or area) having no aerials? Or you could visually compare against other map sources and find an unmapped place in case you are into armchair mapping. Have a look here. http://compare.osm-tools.org/ It hides streets from a google map if there is a road/water in a similar location in OSM. If you see a lake/road on the map than it's not in OSM. With the edit button on the left you can open the are in JOSM (button is disabled if JOSM is not running). It can also display the coverage on a map. For this a local cached copy is used. Due to load reasons I recommend not to use osm.org for browsing such relations. So what to do with such relations? In case of local relations please leave the decision to the local community. If they consider it useful then it is. Don't try to decide what's best for people on the other side of the globe. A boundary relation like this does no harm at all, so just leave it there and ignore it if you don't like it. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
Also, one could just remove type=boundary (since it isn't really a boundary) and name=something from the relation/ways so they don't show up on any renderer. You could put a description=* tag instead or some nonstandard one. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 03:58, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: On 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse wrote: The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? Not exactly about this relation but in the country I map we have a similar relation. The thing is that unlike in many western countries the coverage of aerial imagery is limited. So having a way to easily share the boundaries was needed. The boundary is not on the ground like most boundaries. Actually I have never seen a boundary. I saw constructions like fences or walls at places people say there is a boundary, but never the boundary itself. So why to keep them? You can do fancy queries with boundaries. Have you ever tried to make a statistic on the number of unnamed highway=residential of an area having imagery comparing to a similar sized area (in number of highways or area) having no aerials? Or you could visually compare against other map sources and find an unmapped place in case you are into armchair mapping. Have a look here. http://compare.osm-tools.org/ It hides streets from a google map if there is a road/water in a similar location in OSM. If you see a lake/road on the map than it's not in OSM. With the edit button on the left you can open the are in JOSM (button is disabled if JOSM is not running). It can also display the coverage on a map. For this a local cached copy is used. Due to load reasons I recommend not to use osm.org for browsing such relations. So what to do with such relations? In case of local relations please leave the decision to the local community. If they consider it useful then it is. Don't try to decide what's best for people on the other side of the globe. A boundary relation like this does no harm at all, so just leave it there and ignore it if you don't like it. Stephan __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
Someoneelse wrote: Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. Agreed. OSM is not the world's sole repository of co-ordinate data, and nor should it be. This would be much better stored in an externally hosted .osm file or shapefile, which can be loaded into the editor/tool of your choice, than in the main database. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bing-coverage-relations-in-particular-1298962-tp5669039p5669972.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
Hi there, Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 02:28 +0100 schrieb SomeoneElse: I noticed this while looking at the map here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059lon=34.825519zoom=18layers=M The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? There will be always things in the database that is not on the ground. You'll find many things tagged with note=experimental, please don't delete this object,... Or note=penholder relation, ..., note=mapping coordination, Unfortunatly a renderer or any other bot cannot read this note messages. Some time ago I've created a draft about such objects: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm This would help to differ between real objects and artifitial objects easily. Even if nobody likes that artifitial objects it would be easy to ignore them. Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
I noticed this while looking at the map here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059lon=34.825519zoom=18layers=M The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? There are, of course, a number of other relations on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
If I saw one of these locally I would verify that it corresponds to nothing on the ground and then delete it. -Original Message- From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:28 PM To: Open Street Map mailing list Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962 I noticed this while looking at the map here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059lon=34.825519zoom=18layers =M The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? There are, of course, a number of other relations on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962
We used to do this for outlining hires imagery (as closed ways not relations), but decided to remove them following the on the ground principle. Instead, we moved the data to a separate webmap [0]. Further coordination, listing and other imagery updates are added in the wiki as well [1]. [0] http://forge.codedgraphic.com/osm/imagery_coverage/ [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/hires_imagery On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: If I saw one of these locally I would verify that it corresponds to nothing on the ground and then delete it. -Original Message- From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:28 PM To: Open Street Map mailing list Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962 I noticed this while looking at the map here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059lon=34.825519zoom=18layers =M The Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East label is from the name on this relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 Regardless of the perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just because of name=blah issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? There are, of course, a number of other relations on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
I do agree that it is a lot of effort for information that Bing must already have. *Looks at SteveC* Wouldn't be too hard to dump imagery boundaries into a shapefile or something, would it? :) Or feed it from the editors, as I suggested before. They're already doing the hard work of fetching the tiles. The meta info they could collect at the same time is free. Hey, how's that for crowd-sourcing? And, while we're at it, we can have a bit of graffiti too: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=32.18260201828125lon=-47.760662707134124zoom=6 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=61.51534917347587lon=19.306271732481257zoom=7 -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Replies to several statements in this thread. On 10.02.2011 23:50, Lennard wrote: On 10-2-2011 23:37, ant wrote: On 10.02.2011 20:25, Lennard wrote: @ant: Would it be possible to have the editors collect and report* on the available zoom levels, as users download Bing tiles while editing? That's a brilliant idea, but I'm not involved in how editors handle Bing maps. So the question whether they can provide such data at all should be directed at their developers. Well, they will need to have a way to get the collected data back to you. I'm assuming, as things go in OSM, that once you provide such a mechanism, the editors would follow. Fair point. That would require an API to be implemented (which I assume is a lot of work). Also: How to authenticate the editors? That is, how to tell them apart from people willingly sending misinformation? On 11.02.2011 03:19, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Most of the information has already been collected as some sort of relations which higher accuracy than the red/green tiles, I can't say for all planet, but at least in Europe. Should be possible to import that into the bingimageanalyzer. Sure is possible. But those areas aren't that accurate actually, because in general they've been derived from imagery borders. So you don't know what's inside those areas... On 11.02.2011 08:18, Maarten Deen wrote: BTW: isn't there a possibility to make an offline renderer for this? This would speed the process up even more. What do you mean by offline renderer? A script that renders tiles independently of the users' map browsing? Anyway, conclusion to all development-related questions: Code is at https://github.com/antofosm/bingimageanalyzer cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On vendredi 11 février 2011 at 02:43, Toby Murray wrote : On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: At what zoom level to I have to be at to view an already zoomed in area to view dark blue (z20)? I'm trying, but still failing to see the benefit in this. If enough of an area has been populated, it shows at pretty low zoom levels. Hey look, Topeka has z20 imagery! http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.70429533168507 4lon=-95.39738145713467zoom=8 Moving around a bit on that map, I found this http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=31.61276546098359lon=-47.38712755088407zoom=6 looks like someone has a lot of time to waste... -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
I have come across a couple of seemingly immutable tiles that refuse to re-render even though higher resolution imagery is available. For example: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.19008048219242lon=-96.60511479564622zoom=14 Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Hi, On 10.02.2011 20:25, Lennard wrote: @ant: Would it be possible to have the editors collect and report* on the available zoom levels, as users download Bing tiles while editing? That's a brilliant idea, but I'm not involved in how editors handle Bing maps. So the question whether they can provide such data at all should be directed at their developers. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 10-2-2011 23:37, ant wrote: On 10.02.2011 20:25, Lennard wrote: @ant: Would it be possible to have the editors collect and report* on the available zoom levels, as users download Bing tiles while editing? That's a brilliant idea, but I'm not involved in how editors handle Bing maps. So the question whether they can provide such data at all should be directed at their developers. Well, they will need to have a way to get the collected data back to you. I'm assuming, as things go in OSM, that once you provide such a mechanism, the editors would follow. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: On 10.02.2011 20:25, Lennard wrote: @ant: Would it be possible to have the editors collect and report* on the available zoom levels, as users download Bing tiles while editing? That's a brilliant idea, but I'm not involved in how editors handle Bing maps. So the question whether they can provide such data at all should be directed at their developers. This thought occurred to me as well. I'm pretty sure JOSM could be made to do this. It already detects which zoom levels are available and overzooms the previous level if none is available at the current one. I know P2 doesn't overzoom but it also seems to detect when no imagery is available and just blanks out the background. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
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=51.06122731915702lon=-2.3915486787965934zoom=9 The blank areas have hi-res imagery (caveat: I have checked every tile) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 10/02/2011 23:49, Dave F. wrote: The blank areas have hi-res imagery (caveat: I have checked every tile) I *haven't* checked To follow on: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=51.420057188094106lon=-2.4574914579781226zoom=20 In order to see if an area is super high (z20) I have to be actually zoomed in on that area to zoom level 20. Therefore I can tell if it is hi-res from the Bing imagery. I'm really failing to see the purpose of this product. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11 February 2011 00:00, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: In order to see if an area is super high (z20) I have to be actually zoomed in on that area to zoom level 20. Therefore I can tell if it is hi-res from the Bing imagery. I'm really failing to see the purpose of this product. I think the theory is that if you have already done the hard work of zooming in, the next guy won't have to because he'll see the coloured tiles at that location. So it's quite a valid bit of crowd-sourcing, if we accept that the end result is worth having. The end result being that the whole world appears in _some_ colour, even at very low zoom. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11/02/2011 00:07, Dermot McNally wrote: I think the theory is that if you have already done the hard work of zooming in, the next guy won't have to because he'll see the coloured tiles at that location. if someone has to do that first to highlight the data that's already there, then I think it's even less worthy than I thought before. So it's quite a valid bit of crowd-sourcing, if we accept that the end result is worth having. As I said that info is already available The end result being that the whole world appears in _some_ colour, even at very low zoom. At what zoom level to I have to be at to view an already zoomed in area to view dark blue (z20)? I'm trying, but still failing to see the benefit in this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11 February 2011 00:27, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: At what zoom level to I have to be at to view an already zoomed in area to view dark blue (z20)? You could be fairly zoomed out if there are enough adjacent z20 tiles turned dark blue. But yes, it all needs a lot of eyes to be zooming into a lot of tiles. Basically a group effort to cover the whole earth down to a fine level of detail. It'll never work... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11 February 2011 02:43, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: At what zoom level to I have to be at to view an already zoomed in area to view dark blue (z20)? I'm trying, but still failing to see the benefit in this. If enough of an area has been populated, it shows at pretty low zoom levels. Hey look, Topeka has z20 imagery! http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.704295331685074lon=-95.39738145713467zoom=8 I do agree that it is a lot of effort for information that Bing must already have. *Looks at SteveC* Wouldn't be too hard to dump imagery boundaries into a shapefile or something, would it? :) Most of the information has already been collected as some sort of relations which higher accuracy than the red/green tiles, I can't say for all planet, but at least in Europe. Should be possible to import that into the bingimageanalyzer. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:49:58 +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/02/2011 11:53, ant wrote: What you do mean by inaccurate readings? I think the map is quite accurate. http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=51.06122731915702lon=-2.3915486787965934zoom=9 The blank areas have hi-res imagery (caveat: I have checked every tile) Apart from checking every tile, it is only an assumption. A fair assumption, but still just an assumption. As long as you haven't checked all tiles it is entirely possible that there is an area of low-res imagery contained in that area. Furthermore: you know nothing of the level of hi-res imagery. Is it high res imagery, very high, ultra high or super high? BTW: isn't there a possibility to make an offline renderer for this? This would speed the process up even more. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 08/02/2011 23:59, ant wrote: On 09.02.2011 00:53, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I get your point, but the single aim of this tool is to help people *get an idea* about where high resolution imagery is available. 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. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
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. 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. Then look at the U.S., or Germany. These countries have full coverage. There you might want to know which cities have got imagery that surpasses in quality the normal hires you find throughout the country. And again, you want to see it in lower zoom levels to get an overview. What you do mean by inaccurate readings? I think the map is quite accurate. Cheers Dave F. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-ja] Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツール(Was: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage)
Tomです。 北方領土は、さすがに無いよな〜とか思ってたら。 あるじゃん！やるじゃん、Bing。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=43.98653044766lon=146.07809710931377zoom=9 2011年2月8日12:29 S.Higashi s_hig...@mua.biglobe.ne.jp: 東です。 # Gmailだと宛先が変わってもタイトルが変わらないとスレッドが続いてしまうので （英文メールに埋もれてしまうので）タイトルを変えさせて頂きました。 これ便利ですね！ 色分けについていろんな意見が出ていますが、現在のところ 地上の物体が認識できるズームレベル14を境に 赤と緑で塗り分けているようです。 2011/2/8, Tomomichi Hayakawa tom.hayak...@gmail.com: Tomです。 Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツールのようです。（たぶん^^;; ズームしていくと、カーバー状況が色分けされていきます。一度、お試しください。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=38.38333768390208lon=138.2929893374731zoom=6 みんなで、見て行くと、一気にカバーエリアが色分けされていくんだと思われます。 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: 2011/2/7 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
[talk-ph] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Use this map to browse for hi-res bing imagery. Once an area was viewed at zoom 14 or higher the updated coverage overlay will be visible even at lower zooms. So far, I triggered several renders in Mindanao: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=10.192676169866743lon=122.16794058683548zoom=6 I also discovered updates in Zambo Basilan area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=87288830 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 PM Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
This tool has helped me to spot a threat to life as we know it! Behold, the zombies are upon us! http://i.imgur.com/rmmQD.jpg And apparently they are hanging out over Haiti. Did I just find patient zero of the cholera outbreak? I'm sure it will re-render shortly but here is the perma link: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=19.177697176843566lon=-71.12255841580205zoom=10 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Hi all, I've been thinking about extra colours for super hires imagery and been doing a little research. See the following list of some notable places sorted by their highest Bing zoom levels. Hamburg 20 Vienna 20 London 20 Rome20 Paris 20 Tokyo 20 Singapore 20 Montreal20 New York City 20 Denver 20 Los Angeles 20 Kansas City 20 Mexico City 20 Port-au-Prince 20 Munich 19 Helsinki19 Madrid 19 Warsaw 19 Moscow 19 Istanbul19 Delhi 19 Tunis 19 Perth 19 Sydney 19 Amsterdam 19 Netherlands rural areas 19 Stockholm 19 Bogota 19 Santiago de Chile 19 Beijing 18 Cape Town 18 Rio de Janeiro 18 Berlin 17 Dublin 17 Damascus17 Cairo 17 Lagos 17 Germany rural areas 17 Kansas rural areas 17 It seems that all places that have hires imagery of z14 also have it up to z17 (of which z14-z16 are scaled versions, of course). So no need to introduce extra colours for anything below z18. Then the question is: How many colours make sense between z18 and z20 (the absolute maximum)? I think one colour for each zoom level doesn't make sense, because the overall differences in image quality are too stark (compare for example NYC and Santiago de Chile at z19, respectively). So what about: 14-17 high resolution 18-19 very high resolution 20 ultra high resolution ? And... which colours? I would have liked a kind of red-yellow-green scale, but I'd rather keep the green now in order to avoid confusion (old green tiles vs. new green tiles and so on). So I propose a dark green for very hires and a blueish green for ultra hires -- see the screenshot. In anticipation of your comments, ant attachment: binganalyzer-zoomlevels.jpg___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Hi ant, On 08.02.2011 21:52, ant wrote: 14-17 high resolution 18-19 very high resolution 20 ultra high resolution sounds fine, but I experience that some high resolution images look just like overzoomed lower resolution images. For example compare these parking lots. Both claim to be zoom 19, at least your site shows them both as zoom 19. One in London, one in Chiang Mai. I don't believe the Chiang Mai one is hi-res. http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6329/z19london.png http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5817/z19chiangmai.png Interpolation can also be done in JOSM. I would be interested in the real image resolution. This might need more than just detecting the existing of tiles in specific zoom levels. Any idea on how to have users vote on the resolution experienced? Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 08.02.2011 22:32, Stephan Knauss wrote: sounds fine, but I experience that some high resolution images look just like overzoomed lower resolution images. That's true. I gave another example. Interpolation can also be done in JOSM. I would be interested in the real image resolution. This might need more than just detecting the existing of tiles in specific zoom levels. Any idea on how to have users vote on the resolution experienced? I doubt that the experienced resolution will be much more accurate... another possibility is to measure the sharpness of images algorithmically. Altogether, there's a lot of image processing applications I could think of related to aerial imagery (cloud detection, analysis of distinct photographs, automatic tracing...). That, however, is worth another application. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
My only comment would be that the dark green kind of looks like you just turned down the opacity of the regular green layer. But it still gets the point across I suppose. The zoom levels seem reasonable to me. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). Helsinki at level 19: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=60.17150065552734~24.93957236409227lvl=19dir=0sty=a Singapore at level 20: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=1.3051193488899742~103.83200242146012lvl=20dir=0sty=a Note that the scale bar at the bottom of both views are practically the same. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:52 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I've been thinking about extra colours for super hires imagery and been doing a little research. See the following list of some notable places sorted by their highest Bing zoom levels. Hamburg 20 Vienna 20 London 20 Rome 20 Paris 20 Tokyo 20 Singapore 20 Montreal 20 New York City 20 Denver 20 Los Angeles 20 Kansas City 20 Mexico City 20 Port-au-Prince 20 Munich 19 Helsinki 19 Madrid 19 Warsaw 19 Moscow 19 Istanbul 19 Delhi 19 Tunis 19 Perth 19 Sydney 19 Amsterdam 19 Netherlands rural areas 19 Stockholm 19 Bogota 19 Santiago de Chile 19 Beijing 18 Cape Town 18 Rio de Janeiro 18 Berlin 17 Dublin 17 Damascus 17 Cairo 17 Lagos 17 Germany rural areas 17 Kansas rural areas 17 It seems that all places that have hires imagery of z14 also have it up to z17 (of which z14-z16 are scaled versions, of course). So no need to introduce extra colours for anything below z18. Then the question is: How many colours make sense between z18 and z20 (the absolute maximum)? I think one colour for each zoom level doesn't make sense, because the overall differences in image quality are too stark (compare for example NYC and Santiago de Chile at z19, respectively). So what about: 14-17 high resolution 18-19 very high resolution 20 ultra high resolution ? And... which colours? I would have liked a kind of red-yellow-green scale, but I'd rather keep the green now in order to avoid confusion (old green tiles vs. new green tiles and so on). So I propose a dark green for very hires and a blueish green for ultra hires -- see the screenshot. In anticipation of your comments, ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 09.02.2011 00:53, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). ...so someone make a Bing resolution map with 256 different levels...! I get your point, but the single aim of this tool is to help people *get an idea* about where high resolution imagery is available. cheers ant Helsinki at level 19: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=60.17150065552734~24.93957236409227lvl=19dir=0sty=a Singapore at level 20: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=1.3051193488899742~103.83200242146012lvl=20dir=0sty=a Note that the scale bar at the bottom of both views are practically the same. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
For me the tipping point is between 18 and 19. Over Leuven (Belgium) it goes up to 19. 5 kilometers East of Leuven it's only 18 and the difference is enormous. Then again, only a few months ago there was nothing to work from. Cheers, Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: On 09.02.2011 00:53, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). ...so someone make a Bing resolution map with 256 different levels...! I get your point, but the single aim of this tool is to help people *get an idea* about where high resolution imagery is available. My actual point is that there's probably no use agonizing how many levels of coloring to consider. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi Toby, On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote: What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... cheers ant Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, antantof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 ant antof...@gmail.com: What is your definition of hires? the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without requiring a lot of effort to implement. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that does make sense. But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means z14, yellow indicates z14-18 and green is for z19+? Or maybe different colors for those colorblind people among us :) Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On 07.02.2011 16:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without requiring a lot of effort to implement. Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. Thanks ant cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com: Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that does make sense. But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means z14, yellow indicates z14-18 and green is for z19+? Or maybe different colors for those colorblind people among us :) I would use a scale like #19ff00 Z20+ #99ff00 Z18-19 #ffe500 Z15-17 #ff6600 Z14 or possibly a colour tone for each level. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 ant antof...@gmail.com: Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=41.8901512469295lon=12.492339797131855zoom=20 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.294169460227224lon=-94.71799114942492zoom=20 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. 14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other purposes even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of sidewalks, mapping of street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery we have (had?) availlable for use in Dortmund). regards Peter P.S.: if possible, an OSM map overlay would be great, too ;) Am 07.02.2011 16:27, schrieb ant: Hi Toby, On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote: What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... cheers ant Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, antantof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On 07.02.2011 17:36, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. That seems to be what most people wish to see. I'll work on that. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. 14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other purposes even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of sidewalks, mapping of street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery we have (had?) availlable for use in Dortmund). Counting the number of white lines in pedestrian crossings :-) Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-ja] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Tomです。 Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツールのようです。（たぶん^^;; ズームしていくと、カーバー状況が色分けされていきます。一度、お試しください。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=38.38333768390208lon=138.2929893374731zoom=6 みんなで、見て行くと、一気にカバーエリアが色分けされていくんだと思われます。 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: 2011/2/7 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
[OSM-ja] Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツール(Was: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage)
東です。 # Gmailだと宛先が変わってもタイトルが変わらないとスレッドが続いてしまうので （英文メールに埋もれてしまうので）タイトルを変えさせて頂きました。 これ便利ですね！ 色分けについていろんな意見が出ていますが、現在のところ 地上の物体が認識できるズームレベル14を境に 赤と緑で塗り分けているようです。 2011/2/8, Tomomichi Hayakawa tom.hayak...@gmail.com: Tomです。 Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツールのようです。（たぶん^^;; ズームしていくと、カーバー状況が色分けされていきます。一度、お試しください。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=38.38333768390208lon=138.2929893374731zoom=6 みんなで、見て行くと、一気にカバーエリアが色分けされていくんだと思われます。 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: 2011/2/7 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
