Talk:Google Earth/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of cities and towns in 3D

I think it is becoming too big, that it needs it's own article page for it. Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. We need that one. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove the list altogether. Some areas include dozens and dozens of towns, most of which aren't included yet. Trying to cover this in an article would be extremely time-consuming and in my opinion pointless (a user would rather check on Google Earth by themselves rather than check an incredibly huge and likely outdated list). 88.27.80.252 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why adding towns that lay close to the big city that are covered together? In my opinion it is better to just name a big city that is in the center of 3D mesh. – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please move 3D locations list to separate article.-71.174.180.207 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This list is by now ridiculously huge, and as far as I can see, completely unsourced. I am going to remove it, as Wikipedia is not a directory among other things. LjL (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The source of this list is Google Earth itself. Verification can be achieved by simply checking out the area in GE. This list was often the best way to keep track of new updates because it was crowdsourced. There is no way in Google Earth to see which areas are updated aside from zooming all the way in. I suggest making it its own article. Apple maps has a similar section as well for its flyover feature. This list showed is relevant for comparing apple maps and Google Earth's 3d building coverage.Belmaktor (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but "Google Earth itself" cannot possibly be a valid source for this, as it clearly falls into original research (you say yourself that there is "no way in Google Earth to see" it without doing specific research) and restrictions on primary sources. That the list is useful or relevant for comparing to Apple Maps is not a justification for keeping, as WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook or a directory. LjL (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started a reliable sources discussion at the noticeboard. LjL (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the list, whether in the main article or on a separate page. I use the 3D imagery very frequently and I find this listing is the easiest way to keep track of which areas are covered. However, I do agree that the table should be more concise and standardized, with a single table entry for each area of imagery within a country or subdivision, and with areas spanning multiple countries or subdivisions repeated under each one. (For a more complete listing of locations covered, Google Earth displays this in its new Voyager layer, though this is rather haphazard.)

There is an easily-consulted third party source for this at Google Earth Blog. They maintain a KML file showing the outlines of each area covered, color coded by date so it is easy to locate new areas. ESRoads (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why not use that file? Isn't it easier than consulting a textual article with no search functions or anything? Even if we have secondary sources (but I'd still argue that turning a map into a list of names very nearly fails WP:NOR), Wikipedia is still not a Google Earth manual. LjL (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I do use the file, but I don't find it easier than the Wikipedia listing, which I can scan at one glance as opposed to the nested menus of the GE interface. Also, I can refer to the Wikipedia articles about the various places as I explore them in GE. I offer this perspective as a frequent user of the page rather than as a contributor, and whatever Wikipedia may or may not be, I find it more useful with the list. I also agree that it would be better on a separate page.

I note your arguments to the contrary, and I hope they will be taken into consideration alongside my own (and the others above) in deciding what to do with the list. I intend only to add my viewpoint to the discussion, not to alter anyone else's. ESRoads (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. I have been on the "but it's useful" side against the "but it's an encyclopedia" side before. In this case though, the way it was before made for an unreasonably long article with an overly detailed list; if we can trim it a lot and still let it be useful, then I'm not necessarily opposed to that. LjL (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it could very much use some trimming, though it's gotten better lately; the situation in Japan was quite out of control for a time (and California still is). One name for each area of contiguous imagery, which would make it somewhat less detailed than the KML file, and far less so than GE's own layer. ESRoads (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the trimming idea. The table has gotten to be much too unwieldy and the decision probably would have been never made to remove it if it wasn't so large. I have contributed to the table but if you look at my edit history you will notice that all of my contributions are major settlements, not tiny towns or suburbs of a larger city. Culling this table however would be difficult due the lack of objective measures for doing so. Consensus on a set of standards would have to be arrived at. I think that the best way forward would be to delete all suburbs of larger settlements from this list, unless those suburbs are major cities themselves (eg. Yokohama is a big city but also a suburb of an even bigger city Tokyo; but the Lawrence suburb of Indianapolis is not a major city). I would also remove all internal divisions of each country except the United States. Most readers of English language Wikipedia are probably familiar with the US states. I don't think the same holds true for the provinces of Italy or the prefectures of Japan. These divisions make it more difficult to locate cities within each country by scanning alphabetically.

In the end I think a table of the 3d cities is relevant to describing the capabilities of Google Earth. Google Earth's coverage of cities in 3d vastly exceeds all other mapping services' 3d coverage. Honestly I think a lot about this article could be changed as much of the info is now outdated (eg. both London and Toronto are now in 3d, the image of warped terrain in Gibraltar is fixed). I think it would also be good to include a screenshot of a 3d area to accompany the table. Unfortunately personal time constraints have prevented me from taking on this task so far. I opted to edit the 3d cities table because they were easy and quick contributions. Belmaktor (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I object to the idea (and possible consequences) that "most readers of English language Wikipedia are probably familiar with the US states". The English Wikipedia is meant to represent a worldwide view of things, and the only readers that can reasonably be expected to be particularly familiar with US states are US readers. I, for one, am not at all familiar with US states, but, in fact, much more familiar with the provinces of Italy, given I'm Italian. There are more second-language speakers of English than there are first-language ones, and most of them are quite certainly not in the US. LjL (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have caused offence with the US states statement. I am also clearly not as familiar as you are with the detailed goals and rules of the Wikipedia project. If what you say is the case than I would advocate for removing all internal country divisions from the table, including the United States. This action alone will consolidate the table dramatically. Removing the small suburban settlements will do so even further. Belmaktor (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The former could help, but without the latter, it'd end up being veeery long lists of unwieldy town names. About doing the latter, the problem is what will be the cutoff, and how to make it not arbitrary? I'm somewhat more attracted by talk's concept of basing it on continuous areas, although I'm not at all familiar with the KML file depicting coverage and whether this would really be feasible. LjL (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In many places the coverage connects multiple population centers and in others it focuses on only one small town so I don't think that would be a good idea. I think it would exclude too many big cities and include too many small towns. I think the best way forward would be to remove every city with less than 100,000 residents (using the administrative boundary definition) and rename the table Major Settlements in Autogen 3d. As this table is the result of contributions of many editors I am not sure how to get them all on board. But in order to preserve the table, as many of us apparently do, a compromise of some sort must be forged. The 100k definition is a hard rule that can be easily understood I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belmaktor (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia does a great idea/feature end up getting ruined/removed by a bunch of idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.231.88.109 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm flattered by such a compliment from an IP address who never edited anything else and clearly understands that all that Wikipedia is about is not being an encyclopedia, but being their own definition of "great". LjL (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Support keeping the list. Many users have contributed to this list, and is a very easy way to track the new additions. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a vote, though. Do you have some arguments based on Wikipedia being an encyclopedia (i.e. policies and guidelines and so on) for keeping it? I gave a few for removing or at least substantially trimming it. That many people contributed to it and that it's useful to some Google Earth users shouldn't cut it. It can be moved to some Google Earth-specific site if that's all it is. LjL (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How many times have you contributed on this page before starting this non-sense? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 21:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You got me, I actually haven't added to a ridiculously long unencyclopedic list of cities, towns and outskirts before being bold and deleting the whole nonsense since there was a talkpage section requesting as much. LjL (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As to the naming of contiguous areas, I'd suggest one name per area, but that name needn't be limited to one city. Minor places that are subordinate to the main population center should indeed be omitted, but the principal cities can still be noted. For example, in my home state of New York, you might have: Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Lockport; Albany-Schenectady-Troy (or simply "Capital District"); Kingston-Poughkeepsie; and New York City-Yonkers-Long Island (along with several other areas that cover a single principal city). Or we may prefer to use geographical descriptors, such as in California: Los Angeles-Inland Empire-Orange County; San Francisco Bay Area; Napa Valley and so on. However, choosing geographic names that are appropriate and recognizable might prove challenging for non-local editors. ESRoads (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Choosing names that don't have a Wikipedia article of their own seems problematic to me. Before, most cities or whatever they were had a linked article. Anyway, how "contiguous" are we talking about when we say contiguous? When an area is marked as contiguously covered in the KML does that actually mean "every" building (with some latitude) is in 3D, even outside of big settlements? LjL (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the file displays various polygons inside of which the entire area is covered by 3D imagery. Often, new polygons are added that are contiguous to existing ones, resulting in an enlarged area of coverage; we can decide whether to list these separately as they are released (to keep track of changes), or regarded all contiguous areas as one entry (to mitigate list size). I would agree with choosing only names that have a WP entry, whether those be cities or geographic regions. I haven't confirmed, but I would imagine all the examples I gave do have entries already; that said, I suspect that using only city names (or other definite entities like counties) might aid standardization. ESRoads (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd use whatever best matches the given polygon at a given time, as long as it has a Wikipedia article for it, since that means it's a recognized area in some way. Counties and so on are country- or even state/province-specific concepts anyway. LjL (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in agreement with the naming of areas. So, where does that leave us? Is the consensus to keep the list, revised and much reduced in extent, and on a separate page? ESRoads (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Who's going to make it though? ;-) I don't have the time or skill to do this, and between keeping the old list and having nothing, I think having nothing is preferable. If you're able and willing to create a new list as proposed, my suggestion would be to create it in draft space; then if it ends up being brief enough, perhaps we could just keep it inside the main article, since there are so many drive-by IPs and SPAs being outraged at the loss. LjL (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to work on the list itself, if we're at that stage in the decision now; I was waiting to see what the consensus was. I don't think we have anyone pushing to keep it on the main page, a few of us seem to think it out to go on a separate page, and I know you'd prefer to lose it altogether (along with one other IP). So, it sounds like consensus slightly favors a new page for the list (and I think it would end up being long enough to justify that, even when revised.) ESRoads (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Then start it on a separate page in article space, and if it turns out to be surprisingly short, we merge it. LjL (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, and in the meantime should we revert the removal of the list on the main page, since the sourcing concern has been addressed? ESRoads (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so... the original list is still badly sourced from who-knows-where (likely just looking at Google Earth itself, but despite accusations that I haven't edited this article before, I have been monitoring it for quite some time, and new places have continuously been added by WP:SPA/IP editors without any real verification). I think if you want the list to be there, it'd be best to start the new article and paste it there (remember to mention where it's from in the edit summary, it's required by the Wikipedia license for attribution), and merely link to it form this article. Besides, I don't really want to give in to all the single-purpose editors who keep rudely reverting without saying a single word on this talk page. LjL (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's why I was asking. Hopefully we'll hear from the others who have chimed in on this as well, so that it doesn't become just the two of us deciding everything. I can say that the list does pretty well match the KML source; a few additions do seem to have come out of the blue, but most of the worst offenders seem to have been cleaned up already.

For the record, I would be in support of reverting. I think if, as you've said, you haven't the time or expertise to make the necessary revisions (because the consensus is for moving the list, not deleting it), then the best course would be to keep the status quo until the appropriate changes can be made—and sorry that I didn't have the chance to offer this view before the list was actually deleted. However, I am with you on wanting to avoid "drive-by" editing, so I will wait to hear others' opinions before making any further change. ESRoads (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources aren't all there is to deciding whether something should be included, though: there is also (among other things) WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTDIR. The original list took up a very substantial portion of the article, to the actual point of making it slow to scroll on some computers, which is a bit ridiculous since it's not at all central to the article's topic. Even if I don't have the possibility to shorten the list, I have the ability to express my own, but policy-backed, opinion that the original list is better left out than kept. And since you said yourself that eventually it would likely end up on its own separate article, even after trimming, then it seems sensible to reintroduce it on its separate article in the first place, and only merge it back if and when it becomes quite short. LjL (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Very good; I think your opposition to reverting is well understood, and I have offered my own differing viewpoint in favor of it. As I say, I'll wait for others' opinions before reverting the edit (by which time the new list may well be finished anyhow). ESRoads (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ljil, please do not delete Google Earth 3d buildings because these are sourced sources from Google Earth automatically generated 3d areas and Maintaining our map of 3d areas from Google Earth Blog . Viperesti (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (blocked sock)

Consensus was to move the list to a separate page, which I am working on compiling. Although there was never a consensus sought on deleting it in the first place, there has also not been much opposition voiced here. That's why several attempts to reinstate the list have met with reversion; they should be accompanied by an explanation here on the talk page as to why the reinstatement is justified. The sourcing issues have been addressed, but there are some other policy interpretations that need to be talked through. ESRoads (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a consensus that the list should have only one entry per contiguous area of 3D mesh; the list reinstated by Viperesti has a huge number of entries that are far too specific (even down to single buildings). In addition, there is a large number of entries on that list that cannot be found in the sources mentioned. If the list is to be reinstated, it does not help the case to reinstate a version that introduces far more problems than it solves. ESRoads (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ESRoads (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And un-done; the list has been deleted. Since discussion of the topic seems to have vanished, I won't devote any more time to it. Passing the torch to other editors if the topic is to be maintained. ESRoads (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, ESRoads please undelete the list named "List of 3D locations in Google Earth". Thanks Coffee (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, could someone re-instate the list? It is a very useful comparison with Apple maps' 3d flyover locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.218.193.198 (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

11/29/16 (jtc) google earth can help u see your house that u moved out of and your old friends houses and your new house that u just moved into

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Google Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk to nokulunga Yanela zulu (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View‎‎ Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dead link in the "External links" section

Under the tool section in External links there is a link to "GeoServer" hosted by codehaus.org. This hosting services have been discontinued since 11:53pm May 31st 2015. The project is now available at http://geoserver.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.114.36 (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Panoramio Layer of Photos

Panoramio had been providing the layer of photos for Google Earth. Google shut down the Panoramio services for uploading new photos on 2016-11-04. Google Maps will allegedly provide the photo layer for Google Earth after November 2017. Google Maps, however, does not accept photos with arbitrary geographic coordinates. Could anyone add information with regard to this prospect? --Roland (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Google Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Android

This edit request to Google Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Android)) to ((Android (operating system)|Android)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:61b2:d7f3:94d7:81fe (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810230457/http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html to http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The lede contradicts itself.

"Most areas in Google Earth are only shown in 2D aerial imagery, but for other parts of the surface, 3D images of terrain and buildings are available. Google Earth uses digital elevation model (DEM) data collected by NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). This means one can view almost the entire earth in three dimensions."

So can you see most of the Earth in 3D or not? Make your mind up... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The imagery itself is mostly two-dimensional, but the terrain is three-dimensional, even where there aren't 3D buildings. You're right though, it could be clearer. I'll change it up.Bruzer Fox 22:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

August 15, 2017

3D appears to be based heavily on drone data. For example, the image of the water-facing side of the (Sun Hung Kai Centre, Harbour Road, Hong Kong) has a reflection of the swimming pool in it, which suggests the image used was taken from about 45 degrees above - which is not consistent with a satellite or adapted streetview images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Satellite images can easily be taken from angles like that, actually. Not all satellite telescopes exclusively angle themselves straight down at the surface of the Earth. While it wouldn't particularly surprise me if Google used drones for that, there's no reliable source online to back that up, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It's just guesswork. Bruzer Fox 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123084226/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/9972.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/9972.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Google Earth 9 has been updated for Firefox

Earlier this year, Google Earth finally became accessible on a browser, giving you a way to virtually explore our world without having to install its application. At the moment, though, it will only work if you're using Google Chrome, something its developers are working hard to change: their official Twitter account has just revealed that they're making good progress on bringing the web-based app to Firefox.

Back when the Earth team were working on the app for the web, they only had two ways to bring native code into a browser. They chose a method called "Native Client," which only Chrome supports but promised to create another version using WebAssembly, the open standard for running native code in the browser that's still in development. Now that WebAssembly has advanced enough for the team to use, they're finally been able to show off what the Firefox port of Earth would look like.

The great thing about WebAssembly is that it's supported not just by Chrome and Firefox, but also by Safari and Edge. So, once Google is done porting Earth over, you might be able to access all of its satellite imagery on almost any browser you want.86.124.206.247 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would rather wait before adding that to the article. Surely, more sources are to come. As far as Edge and Safari go, Wikipedia articles should not speculate. If you were looking to discuss the subject like in a forum space, then I'm afraid talk pages on Wikipedia are only for discussion of the article's content and potential improvements. Bruzer Fox 04:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Google Earth 3d areas.

Agree, could someone re-instate the list? It is a very useful comparison with Apple maps' 3d flyover locations.

This list must contain only 3d areas and it must be trimmed if these 3d areas are merged.86.124.206.247 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! This has been discussed already. This will not be included for the following reasons:

Lists of 3D areas are almost impossible to reliably source, and previous attempts to create this list have been based almost entirely off of original research, which Wikipedia frowns upon: WP:OR
The list would be ridiculously massive, taking up more space than the entire rest of the article, because Google currently has hundreds of areas covered with 3D imagery.
There's no practical use for such a list. If someone wanted to know if their area was in 3D or not, their first idea would probably be to just check Google Maps/Earth.

The information on 3D imagery that is already present in the article is enough. Articles and content for a list of Google's 3D cities have repeatedly been removed for some or all of the reasons above. Bruzer Fox 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this list if is reinstated must be trimmed, also the country divisions must be removed except for the United States, and also if these 3d areas are merged it also must be trimmed. One name for each area of contiguous imagery, which would make it somewhat less detailed than the KML file, and far less so than GE's own layer. 86.124.206.247 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with trimming idea, the list must contain only one name for each area of contiguous imagery, which would make it somewhat less detailed than the KML file, and far less so than GE's own layer.86.124.206.247 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not be very clear about this. Who are you agreeing with? I'm saying we should not add this list. The decision to remove the separate article was nearly-unanimous. It would be an unconstructive addition to the article. Please make sure you read what I wrote. Bruzer Fox 19:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Google Earth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Promote: The article is well written and has clearly laid out sections. Prose is clear and concise, no spelling/grammar mistakes, complies with manual of style, it is verifiable, no original research, valid refs, all refs from reliable sources, no copyright violations (no article and images), can't find any plagiarism, it addresses the topic well, does not go into unnecessary detail, it is broad in sub-topics covered and does not focus on one particular sub-topic. Neutral style and is a stable article (only sometimes vandalism by unregistered or new users occurs). Well illustrated, but does not overuse images. Images are properly tagged and have valid fair use rationales (if needed). The images are also relevant to the topic. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks! Any specific suggestions before you decide? Bruzer Fox 19:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead links on page

@BruzerFox: Some of the links on this page are dead. These have been marked with ^{[dead link]}. If a substitute can be found then use that or if no substitute can be found, please remove them citation (and then if applicable place citation needed). Thanks and keep up the good work. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks so much! I replaced much of the dead links you tagged, although one of them already had a working webarchive link attached. There's one piece of information with a dead citation that I just chose to remove in its entirety, as I couldn't find any other source for the information that was not behind a hard paywall. Bruzer Fox 23:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017173952/http://searchviews.com/archives/2005/08/aussie_nuclear.php to http://searchviews.com/archives/2005/08/aussie_nuclear.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for 3d imagery

Is there a way to request 3d imagery in Google Earth? I want for a 3d update in my area.86.125.62.69 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have those kinds of connections, but the only thing you can do is ask Google. Bruzer Fox 21:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Big omission

I didn't see anywhere stated that an internet connection is needed to access Google servers to download imagery. It gives the impression that the software is a standalone program, as if the file would contain all the data. And it would also be most informative to add how much terabytes the data on the Google servers is. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@P199: I added a small sentence for the Internet connection under History, but as for the size of Google Earth's data, that needs a good source, which I couldn't find. Bruzer Fox 19:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Google Earth Engine

To improve this section of the page, there should be more case studies that show the uses of Google Earth Engine identified. Already in the article there is a small amount of information about finding water and deforestation. Additional information should include epidemic mapping, species habitat monitoring, and global surface water. If any other notable uses are discovered they will be included. https://earthengine.google.com/case_studies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcronin26 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

-Tiger Habitat Monitoring: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501675

-Malaria Risk Mapping: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/09/116906/ucsf-google-earth-engine-making-maps-predict-malaria

-Global Surface Water: https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/nature-water-unveiling-most-detailed-view-water-earth/

@Dcronin26: It isn't strictly-speaking necessary to list every individual use of Google Earth Engine. There are a lot of examples to use, but they're just examples, and the section only really needs enough examples to fully illustrate its potential, which I think the current section does just fine. Bruzer Fox 06:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

controversy section is obsolete

it would have been written 10 years ago when GE was the only public satelite image provider, now there a dozen such public image provider - therefore this controversy tab belongs on a "concerns about public satelite imagery providers" and no on Google earth page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.115.61.54 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)