Talk:Google Maps/Archive 1

It would be wonderful if someone got us an api key for google maps. Then we could include google maps in wikipedia and add our own "landmarks". http://www.google.com/apis/maps/

List of interesting images

Who else thinks the NASA jet propulsion laboratory is not worthy of such a prestigious list? Lotsofissues 04:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, but I believe it is. They are single-handedly responsible for the very successful Mars Exploration Rovers which are still operating under their control there in Pasadena, not to mention extensive work on previous robotic missions such as Cassini and Galileo. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• But it looks like a plain campus! Let's replace the space with - say - a pic of the US-Tijuana border crossing. Lotsofissues 23:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added your idea of the border crossing. Very interesting traffic flow. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think the list needs to be culled in general, I think its good that its growing now, but at one point it should be cut in half. These are the most interesting places (places that look interesting from a satellite) not important ones.. --18:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to turn the list into its own page? Lotsofissues 08:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it is getting kinda big. We're also duplicating content available elsewhere; that is, there are other sites with lists such as these. Wikipedia is not a directory. -Joshuapaquin 17:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps limit the list to about 10 or so of the best entries? Scott Bell 21:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. -Joshuapaquin 21:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've sorted the interesting images into alphabetical order since they didn't seem to be in any order previously. There's probably some mistakes and I the US Government list should probably be sorted differently instead of by the first letter of each sentence. -- Scott Bell 02:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made the list into its own page. It is now located at List of interesting Google Maps satellite images. Obviously the name is awkward, so if you can think of something better then feel free to move it. Now the list can be made as long as we want without cluttering the main Google Maps page. -Joshuapaquin 20:06, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page was moved to User:Joshuapaquin/List of interesting Google Maps satellite images. --Interiot 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image for satellite images

I just added an image for the satellite image section. Do all of you think that is a good idea? Should we have only one image, or several? Feel free to change it. Alex Weeks 04:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, too many images is bad news for dial-up users. • Thorpe • 20:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And if you want to add more, I suggest doing so at the List of interesting Google Maps satellite images. -Joshuapaquin 21:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the fewer the images the better. I'm sorry, I phrased the question badly, not whether we should have several satellite image screenshots on the main Google Maps page, just whether we should have an image for each. It hasn't been changed, so should it stand? Two images, 1 normal, 1 satellite. Alex Weeks 00:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it right now, thanks for adding that image. -Joshuapaquin 04:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

List of interesting images II

Where is the interesting images list stored now? I though that it was deleted and moved to Joshuapaquin's user page, but now it appears to be a Wikipedia article again. Scott Bell 11:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was moved by User:Thorpe, and I've contacted him to try to figure out what's going on. -Joshuapaquin 14:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to presume Thorpe made a mistake and revert it back to how it was-Scott Bell 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Embedding sites

Clearly "Websites embedding Google Maps content" is too generic, and can apply to any site which includes a Google Maps frame to show a map or directions. This section and its title should be retooled to specifically include sites which build upon or show custom location sets using the Google Maps interface. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ July 8, 2005 19:46 (UTC)

The Register

how about linking these two register articles, *http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/29/google_bush_map/

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/15/google_spots_jesus/

(the latter with a See also: Shroud of Turin)? dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Websites collecting Google Maps aerial views

I'm very temped to revert Elfguy's delete of these links, but I'll bring my gripes here before doing anything that might start a revert war. (Let me be up front and state that I am a moderator on one of the sites who's link was deleted, so I do have a personal interest here. I think my points will still stand, but I want my personal interest in this to be known.)

I feel strongly that this section belongs here, regardless of whether a similar list is present on the map list page. This page is for Google Maps, and contains an extensive list of external links to sites that do various things with Google Maps. Why should one specific use be excluded from this article? This one is by far my strongest objection to the deletion,

The page to which they are being dropped is a page about cool links, not a page about GM related sites. Yeah, it does have a set of external links, but that's an almost afterthought to that page. If people are wanting pages of links, that's not an obvious place to go looking for them.

Finally, the set of links on Joshuapaquin's page does not contain every link that was deleted from the main page. TexasAndroid 17:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I think that the external links section is getting way out of hand. There need to be some kind of criteria for what should be listed in the article. -Joshuapaquin 00:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not really sure what criteria could work, but I'm open to suggestions.

Hmm. Maybe instead of criteria, we split the external links off to a separate list page or pages. One list would work, but it could be multiple for the separate sections if people wanted that. Whichever, if it was a separate list page, I suspect there would be less need for limitations on content.

For a single page, how about the name : "List of External Links related to Google Maps". TexasAndroid 20:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I would much prefer a short list of distinguished or exemplary applications rather than the free-for-all currently in place. -Joshuapaquin 21:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, that's what I was trying to do in my cleanup efforts. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Very well. We still need to choose which stay. I'm no judge of quality on mashups and such, but I'm quite familiar with the "collecting" sites, given I moderate one and regularly visit the others looking for new maps. I would think that, if we had to pare this grouping down, it could come down to what I consider the Big Three of GMaps collections, plus Joshuapaquin's user page link. The "Big Three" (and this is totally IMHO) are Google Sightseeing, Google Globetrotting, and Perljam. The rest in the group are either a fraction of the size of the Big Three, or very specialized. TexasAndroid 18:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to worry more about the "sites using Google Maps" for those now-booming sites of "hey, look at our location or get directions to us in a google maps window, woohoo!", or someone's blog that posts a screencap of a Gmaps window, rather than the sites that are heavily focused around GMaps. Disclaimer: I'm a contributor to both G-Sightseeing (as "Keith T.") and G-Globetrotting ("romulusnr"). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The external links section is absolutely ridiculous. I'm taking an axe to it. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm. In the middle of a discussion on what things to keep and what to cut, you go and cut almost everything? I think you have gone way, way too far. TexasAndroid 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There's so many links that you're talking about creating a whole separate page just to collect external links. External links should be limited in number and heavily relevant. The mere use of an API by some other tool does not constitute relevance. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to make a more reasonable revision. -Joshuapaquin 03:47, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, what are the criteria to be placed on the list? Few days ago I've noticed some incoming traffic to my page from this page, so I came here and saw my page on the list, next day I saw the list "slightly slenderized", so who decides if page with a collection of link should or should not be placed on the list.

outdated / plainly incorrect information

from the article "The downloadable Google Earth allows customized use of Google Maps, with e.g. map images with town and street names overlaying satellite images.

While not officially supported or authorized by Google, the fact that the Google Maps is done almost entirely in Javascript and XML, some end-users have reverse-engineered the tool and produced client-side scripts and server-side hooks which allow a user or website to introduce expanded or customized features into the Google Maps interface"

the google earth bit??? no mention of api release?

Easter egg?

I don't really think that the swiss cheese thing is an easter egg... it's just a joke. Easter eggs are hard to find; all you need to do is zoom in!

Adding additional links

We've got a nice, simple set of links now. As things move forward, people are obviously wanting to add more links back in, one by one. If we don't do something, set up some sort of process, it'll either grow wildly once again, or potentially become a revert war. I would rather have a few simple rules in place for how a new link gets approved for addition to the page. Obviously anything like this is strictly informal, but if several of us agree that we the community on this page will not accept any links that have not followed the rules, then I think we could make it work.

Obviously (to me, at least), the process would play out here on the talk page. Any new links would need to garner conscensous here first before they would be able to go to the page without likelyhood of removal/revert. But exactly how such a process should play out, I'm really not sure. But I can see that, if we are going to manage the page with a small sample set of links, we need some way to manage new links that people want added. TexasAndroid 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

One other preemptive suggestion. I'm personally following a 1RR on cleaning out links. I will do at most one cleaing of links per day, even if someone adds some back in seconds after me. There's no real rush on this. Letting a new link stand around for a day or so doesn't hurt things. It's the build-up of link after link that leads us back to where we were, with legitimate arguments to be made for doing away with them all. By clearing out the new links daily, this build-up is controlled. Anyway, my suggestion is that anyone else who wants to help keep new links cleared please also refrain from revert wars, etc. Of all the things on Wikipedia that might be worth a revert war, keeping new links off this page isn't one of them. TexasAndroid 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bank's teller machines

One thing that I really hate is paying $ 1.5 for using a teller machine from a diffrent bank. This mainly happen when you are in a new surrounding. Does anyone know whether there is a service like this? The banks just list addresses which are not really helpful if you don't know the area. Those address on a map would be better

Placeopedia

• Placeopedia

Cleared this one, because it had not been discussed here, but I think this one may actually deserve to go back up. So let's give this link discussion thing a try.

This one has a direct concept linkage back to Wikipedia. The idea of Placeopedia is that users can add location links in the Placeopedia system that include direct references to Wikipedia articles. Basically it is trying to map out locations referenced here in Wikipedia. This fact by itself makes me think we should seriously consider adding it to our collection of links. Thoughts anyone else? TexasAndroid 15:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• vote:keep - I added it after finding it through (if I remember correctly) the blog of the man that created the sites They Work for You and Fax Your MP which are both well known here in the United Kingdom. I certainly believe it has a place here. --bodnotbod 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, let's keep it. Connected to Wikipedia. -Joshuapaquin 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Two comments on this. I deleted Placeopedia from the Examples this morning for the second time because, at the time, I was still the only comment on it. One person (me) does not a discussion make. Now we have a couple more comments, and it certainly appears that there is agreement that it should now stay. The next issue is in what form should it stay. Placepedia actually has it's own Wikipedia page, and that has been listed in the See Also section for several days. So I'm wondering, is that sufficient? Should it be in the Examples instead? Or should we have both references? TexasAndroid 15:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Archaeological findings

Manuela Catarsi Dall'Aglio, archaeologist of the National Archeologic museum of Parma (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Parma) was warned that there might be something in the soil of a field of Sorbolo. They were warned by Luca Mori who was exploring his region with google maps. On the satellite image, he found rectangular structures next to the meander of an old river: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.8819,10.4224&spn=0.007376,0.015044&t=k&hl=en

Is this an easter egg, fake publicity or ... reality? (when confirmed, you can put it in the main article "google maps")