On 2018.01.31. 03:16, Albert Pundt wrote: > Yeah, that wasn't right of me... I've been using the other sources for a > bit now and it's really not as bad as I thought it was, plus there's > more of the old imagery still available than I thought through > Mapbox/Digitalglobe Standard all over Pennsylvania, just not where I'm > currently working on. I guess the relatively high quality (albeit very > outdated by the time it was updated) imagery for the whole country > spoiled me a little too much. :P > > Ignore my previous post, it was dumb.
your original post did not seem dumb or impolite to me, but that must be the cultural differences all over again :) the suggestion about more local imagery is good, albeit requires more manual work to find and use those. texas has published very good ortophoto data, not sure whether this will be picked up by any of the providers we have available now. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/mapsview?entry=Texas%20Orthophoto i recall it being mentioned that this imagery is published under an osm-good licence, but cannot find any sources right now. > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com > <mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Albert, > > Please keep in mind that all of this data you're complaining about > is donated to the OSM community and it's a privilege to have access > to it. Please don't take your frustrations out on the providers that > are letting us use their service for free. > > All of the providers that donate their imagery are constantly adding > or improving imagery. Since it takes a lot of work to make these > imagery layers, the "previous iteration" is probably not out there > in any way. The best you can do is go to the provider and ask them > to improve the imagery so that the next imagery update can have > better imagery. > > Also, keep an eye out for local imagery from the state (through > NAIP, for example), your county, or city. Governments in the US > frequently post their imagery online for you to use. > > -Ian > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com > <mailto:roadsgu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > With the exception of the higher-resolution imagery in cities, > the current Bing/ESRI World Imagery is worse than the previous > iteration in every way except for being newer. It's blurry, > often distorted, and frequently has clouds covering it. The > previous imagery was crisper and rarely if ever had clouds, and > what little distortion there was was obvious and avoidable. > > Is there any way to still access this imagery, or at least a > better alternative to the current Bing/ESRI imagery? If the > former, then the outdatedness of it could be easily worked > around by comparing to the other imagery available. It must > exist "out there" in some capacity, since the > Mapbox/Digitalglobe Standard imagery still uses it in western > Pennsylvania, and even in some low zoom levels on Bing. > > I would use some of the other nationwide imagery options > available in JOSM, but most of them are either low-resolution > or with color so bright and washed out it's often difficult to > map with. > > —Albert > -- > —Albert-- Rihards _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
