[AT] Satellite Images WAS Re: Re Driving to Unionville Missouri

[Steve W.]

John Slavin wrote:
> I tried a case a few days ago (I'm an attorney by trade), and it
> became important to me to have some satellite images.  I was struck
> by several things:
> 
> 1)  I didn't realize the difference between companies.  In this case,
> Bing's satellite image was much clearer than Google for the
> particular site I was concerned with.  I suspect they all use the
> same satellites, but I don't think they necessarily get the images at
> the same time.
> 
> 2)  I never could figure out a way to get historical images online.
> I actually wrote Google and the response I got was that when the
> images are updated, they no longer have access to the older images.
> That would seem to me to be an easy way to monetize the images, if
> some company makes it easy, for fairly small fee, to get historical
> images.
> 
> 3)  Wow have the images improved.  I found one site that had older
> images, but they are of much poorer quality.
> 
> John Slavin _______________________________________________ AT
> mailing list http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> 

In general Bing has the edge in overhead imagery as well as the "birds 
eye views" (not done using satellite but using small drones to cover 
popular places and software to extrapolate items in the pictures) Google 
has the edge in countries covered, and street views.

The overheads are done by different satellite companies with dedicated 
birds.
Google did a raft of updates in my area soon after all the flooding and 
all of the new images are fuzzy and washed out.

-- 
Steve W.