From: didier Meurgues on 27 Jul 2006 12:44
Mxsmanic a écrit :
> Gregory Morrow writes:
> > Are the roofs of the White House and it's directly - adjoining
> > buildings blanked - out...???
> Some of the roof area on the White House has been retouched on Google
> Maps. It's not a very good job.
> I just tried Geoportail; the image quality is almost unusably poor,
> and looks like a sick joke compared to Google Maps. And this is for
> the center of Paris! The site is also designed more poorly and the
> response time is worse. If they can't do it right, why don't they
> just give up?
What about 1 Observatory circle Washington DC and a comparison for 55
rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré Paris or 57 rue de Varenne Paris.
They have not yet installed a direct link for address search (only for
communes) on Geoportail. So you must choose : Plus de service/pages
jaunes/villes en direct/vues aérienne to find the address search
Hi,... back to the subject :
According to WIKIPEDIA : « Google Earth accuracy : Most land areas are
covered in satellite imagery with a resolution of about 15 m per pixel
[LandSat 7 ?], and some population centers are also covered in aircraft
imagery (orthophotography) of several pixels per meter [until 0.125 m
?]. Oceans are covered in much lower resolution. »
I've made again... a "little" (and approximative) survey. SORRY !!!
Here are only the best results found on the web in each category, by
level of resolution
+ IGN and SPOT IMAGE since... France is here concerned..., but this is
not the only european country to open this kind of free geographical
AERIAL PHOTOS (orthophotography) :
Others « free as well » (i.e. : with zoom possibility over large
GEOCONTENT (DE) : resolution : 0.2 m (Berlin) ; 0.5 m (virtually all
Germany) color (but with green lines) ; 3 D : http://www.dlkviewer.de .
AERODATA (BE) : 0.2 m (Antwerp-Brussels corridor) ; 3 D :
USGS (US) through NASA WORLD WIND (future DIGITAL EARTH ?) : 0.25 m
color (main US cities, N.Z) and 1 m black & white ; 3 D.
IGN (FR) : GEOPORTAIL : 0.5 m color (all France and part of french
oversea territories) ; 3 D in Octoberr 2006.
« Normal paying » (i.e. : without zoom found on website, but only
image by image views) :
SANBORN (US) : 0.03 m (client requiring) ; 015 or 0.30 m (main cities)
color ; 3 D.
PHOTOGRAMMETRIE PERRINJACQUET (CH) 0.05 to 0.25 m color (6 cantons +
cities) ; 3 D.
THE GEOINFORMATION GROUP + GETMAPPING (UK) : 0.0625 m ? (no
ultra-precise black zone visible on the general map) ; 0.125 color (63
% of UK + cities) ; 0.25 m color (most of UK) ; 3 D.
Germany : http://www.bkg.bund.de ,
Japan : www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH , etc...
SATELLITE PHOTOS :
Spy satellite :
ANRO (American National Reconnaissance Office) : KH-13 satellite :
resolution 0.04 m ? black & white (classified). So, are your watch
hands (aiguilles) at least 4 cm long... :+)
ANRO : KH-12 : 0.15 m black & white (classified).
French one : HELIOS 2A : « inferior to 1 m » according to WIKIPEDIA
Public released images (but paying) :
DIGITALGLOBE :QUICKBIRD : 06-07 m black & white ; 2.4 - 2.8 m color.
SIC (Satellite Imaging Corporation) : IKONOS : 1 m black & white
(panchromatic) ; 4 m color (multispectral).
KARI (Korean Aerospace Research Institute) : KOMPSAT 2 : 1 m black &
white ; 4 m color ; « merged » 1 m (made by EADS, the camera by a
german company, and normally launched TOMORROW !).
French one : SPOT IMAGE : SPOT 5 : 2.5 m black & white ; 5 m color ;.«
merged » 2.5 m apparently possible, according to the last image in
To be replaced in 2008 by : PLEIADES : 0.7 m black & white ; 2.8 color
; « merging » ? (= actual QUICKBIRD resolution) :
http://smsc.cnes.fr/PLEIADES/index.htm (IGN will be a « user
organisation » of PLEIADES images, but I don't know if they will
up-date GEOPORTAIL with them).
NASA WORLD WIND (future DIGITAL EARTH ?) (US) : 15 m color (with
TERRA METRICS (US) : 15 m color (with the same ?).
So, on Google Earth, ; the most precise zones (urban areas notably) are
apparently orthographic with a 0.125 to 0.25 m ? resolution (0.6 m with
satellite ?). Paris was apparently up-dated with The UK Geoinformation
Group images of 0.125 m resolution, which are 4 times more precise
than Geoportail with its 0.5 m/pixel resolution. In fact, when
comparing, the difference seems higher (8 times ?), but it doesn't
seem to look like 0.0625 m resolution (cf. car size) and I doubt that
the KH-13 key hole satellite was used for this Paris area coverage...
:+) So, Mixi how can be explained this incoherence (or the difference
of quality with the corresponding IGN paper photos) ?
The IGN could nevertheless later make some more accurate aerial
orthophotos above the main french cities to complete Geoportail, or «
perhaps » buy too, meanwhile, the Geoinformation Group images for
Paris. The 3 D should be available this October, apparently for all
France. The actual possibility to make a search by city name, to easily
switch between image, coloured relief (rather funny) and topographic
map is already quite usefull. I precise that a left clic on the image
enlarges it while a right clic reduces it. But it's impossible to get
a larger view than a 80 km side square and consequently of entire
At the difference of Google Earth, the IGN is a national agency
(Institut Géographique National). So the minister of Défense probably
simply « ordered » to the IGN to blank the military zones probably
without much protest or judicial challenge... It's sometimes annoying
in particular when they are situated over historical buildings. For
instance : impossibility to check what remains of the large complexe of
17th c military buildings of the Recouvrance bassin in Brest after WWII
bombardments. But others are visible like the closed Citadelle of
Lille. On Google Earth I had noticed BEFORE some few blurred/blanked
governmental/military zones as well, like the vice-president residence
in Washington DC (see 1st line) and a base in a South West desert (not
checked again). But they are not as numerous as those of Geoportail.
The IGN website says that they just apply the european dir
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 27 Jul 2006 12:47
Martin a expos le 27/07/2006 :
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:10:12 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy
> <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic a exprim avec prcision :
>>> Martin writes:
>>>> No of course it isn't
>>> Yes, I know it isn't. They want you to buy it on a newsstand or
>> You can read it in public libraries, if you refuse to pay.
> AFAIR I offered that solution to him when he said he couldn't afford
> books. The answer was that he didn't have time to read them.
Did he answer that wasted time costs money ?
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: didier Meurgues on 27 Jul 2006 13:23
didier Meurgues a écrit :
> Mxsmanic a écrit :
> > Gregory Morrow writes:
> > > Are the roofs of the White House and it's directly - adjoining
> > > buildings blanked - out...???
> > Some of the roof area on the White House has been retouched on Google
> > Maps. It's not a very good job.
> > I just tried Geoportail; the image quality is almost unusably poor,
> > and looks like a sick joke compared to Google Maps. And this is for
> > the center of Paris! The site is also designed more poorly and the
> > response time is worse. If they can't do it right, why don't they
> > just give up?
> n°78-753, art. 6, al. 2 on www.Legifrance.gouv.fr
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: barney2 on 27 Jul 2006 14:43
In article <81uhc2hn90afn722tlu9ueem7bdpolsd1j(a)4ax.com>, me(a)privacy.net
> *From:* Martin <me(a)privacy.net>
> *Date:* Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:32:48 +0200
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:41:54 -0500, barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >In article <gcqhc2do2rd2u2umtb7avc7alo0gptl4m9(a)4ax.com>,
> me(a)privacy.net >(Martin) wrote:
> >> *From:* Martin <me(a)privacy.net>
> >> *Date:* Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:29:25 +0200
> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:30:54 -0500, barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk
> > wrote:
> >> >In article <scghc2tv0t576441prm4itnohss4l4lb2c(a)4ax.com>,
> >> me(a)privacy.net >(Martin) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> *From:* Martin <me(a)privacy.net>
> >> >> *Date:* Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:37:49 +0200
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:27:32 -0500, barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <4aehc21350vrkgsg50ru5eagfjvlvl10jr(a)4ax.com>,
> >> >> me(a)privacy.net >(Martin) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> *From:* Martin <me(a)privacy.net>
> >> >> >> *Date:* Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:04:11 +0200
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:39:24 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy
> >> >> >> <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Martin a expos le 27/07/2006 :
> >> >> >> >>>> Do you read Le Canard Enchan ?
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Rarely, since it's not online.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No of course it isn't
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.lecanardenchaine.fr/une4474.html
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You don't get more than the first page on their website,
> > > > though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How many copies would they sell if it was all there?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which commercial newspaper puts all it's content on the web?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Many - in fact most - put far, far more than a page.
> >> >>
> >> >> Many? Give 15 examples.
> >> >
> >> >UK: Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Eastern Daily Press
> >> >
> >> >France: Liberation, Le Monde, Figaro, Voix du Nord, International
> >> Herald >Tribune
> >> >
> >> >USA: Washington Post, New York Times, Houston Chronicle, LA Times,
> >> >Philadelphia Inquirer
> >> >
> >> >I would be interested to see 15 examples of major newspapers which
> >> /only/ >have a single page of content online!
> >> I asked "Which commercial newspaper puts all it's content on the
> > web?"
> >Read the thread! To that point, I commented:
> >"Many - in fact most - put far, far more than a page."
> >And you asked for examples, so I gave you 15 examples of newspapers
> which >put far, far more than a single page online. The point being
> that these >are newspapers which have decided having /lots/ of content
> online is worth the potential loss of hard-copy sales. This is far more
> > significant IMHO >than whether any given newspaper technically has
> /every last word/ of its >content online.
> Yeah but like Mixi you answered a different question.
> FFS everybody knows you can read parts of newspapers on the web free.
> Canard offers 15% of their's free.
And some offer much, much more than that - so much that to all intents and
purposes it /is/ the /whole/ paper. That was my point - the issue isn't
whether it is, strictly speaking, the whole paper, but whether it's enough
that somebody who wanted to 'read the paper' could effectively do so
online rather than buying the print edition. Perhaps I misunderstood you,
but you appeared to believe no newspapers did offer that.
From: Richard on 27 Jul 2006 15:09
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> A press card is often necessary to gain access to newsworthy venues,
> particularly all government venues and public demonstrations.
If anyone who wanted to gain access to a demonstration needed a press card,
then it wouldn't be very public.