Same case reported in the Philippines.
cheers,
Maning Sambale (mobile)
On Apr 11, 2015 12:20 AM, "Hsiao-Ting Yu [:littlebtc]"
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
Am 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse:
I noticed this while looking at the map here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059&lon=34.825519&zoom=18&layers=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
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=32.001059&lon=34.825519&zoom=18&layers=M
>
> The "Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East" label is from the
> name on this relat
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 b
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 wrote:
> On 27.04.2012 03:
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
d 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
>>
>
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
> Sub
I noticed this while looking at the map here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059&lon=34.825519&zoom=18&layers=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 "per
On vendredi 11 février 2011 at 02:43, Toby Murray wrote :
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dave F. 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
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?
Th
> 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
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=51.06122731915702&lon=-2.3915486787965934&zoom=9
The blank areas have hi
On 11 February 2011 02:43, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dave F. 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
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dave F. 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,
On 11 February 2011 00:27, Dave F. 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 t
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
On 11 February 2011 00:00, Dave F. 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 theo
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=51.420057188094106&lon=-2.4574914579781226&zoom=20
In order to see if an area is "super high
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
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, 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 h
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
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
On 10-2-2011 19:03, Toby Murray wrote:
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=39.19008048219242&lon=-96.60511479564622&zoom=14
@an
On 10.02.2011 19:03, Toby Murray wrote:
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=39.19008048219242&lon=-96.60511479564622&zoom=14
I
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=39.19008048219242&lon=-96.60511479564622&zoom=14
Toby
___
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 i
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
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, ant 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, l
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 mailin
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 ma
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=2&cp=60.17150065552734~24.93957236409227
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@openstreetm
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 mi
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
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
Montreal
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:
2011/2/7 Peter Wendorff :
> 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,
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
___
t
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 ;) (
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, ant 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=39.294169460227224&lon=-94.71799114942492&zoom=20
___
talk mailing list
talk@ope
2011/2/7 ant :
> Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look.
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=41.8901512469295&lon=12.492339797131855&zoom=20
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
2011/2/7 Toby Murray :
> 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? R
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 sufficie
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 http://lists.openstreetma
2011/2/7 ant :
>> 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 awar
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 app
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 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have n
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 meth
49 matches
Mail list logo
