Talk:Google Street View/Archive 2

This page 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.

99% of UK covered?

I read that "at least 99% of the roads are covered in the UK". I have to disagree with his having read on a BBC news report that 95% of roads are covered and also that I have found many many roads which are not covered. In almost every region there are roads that are not covered. Not many, but certainly more than less than 1%. I'm going to change the comment to "95% of UK roads are covered". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.15.66 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cost

How much does it cost google to take these pics? Can anyone break it down by square kilometer? That would be an interesting addition to the article. Also if a small city or town wanted to be featured on it could they cover the cost for google to get themselves featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.9.123 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial UK Photos

I found some here (http://www.miley5.net/content/news.php?id=3). Should these be listed? Ilovealysonstoner (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows Live Search

Maybe it might be worth noting that Windows Live Search had this feature about a year before Google did. RoamingComedian (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Streetview API

Google recently release Streetview as part of the Google Maps API (March 27th), definitely worth a mention. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.205.117.6 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to page

If a coordinate on Wikipedia can link to Google Maps, can a street view picture also be linked? MMetro (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. When you are on the Google Maps page with the particular point on Street View open, click "link this page." Make the link given an external link on the Wikipedia page, and when it is clicked on in the future, it'll lead straight to that same location on Street View. I have done this a lot myself, and I have seen some pages in which others do the same.Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I first saw this at Barrington Hills, Illinois (See Google Street View) and I'm wondering if there are better ways to do it, any Wikipedia guidelines on where and how to use it. What's the point? Well it is cool. Can it be overused - yes, we could link almost every photo in the US and not only show where it is but what it looks like "now." My questions on its use in Wikipedia are almost endless. Any feedback? Smallbones (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Names and numbers of cities

When describing the number of cities introduced one a particular day, that number should reflect the number of new camera icons Google has added, not the actual number of cities included. Most icons include multiple cities, but are named after only the main city they cover. For example, the Los Angeles area street view includes many large cities in the Greater Los Angeles area, such as San Bernardino and Riverside, but there is only a single camera icon for the entire region. Also, the cities should be named exactly as they are on the Google site. The Dallas icon should be named "Dallas," not "Dallas-Ft. Worth," as this is the way it is shown on the Google site.

It is unclear in defining exactly what is a city versus a town or suburb. But in the listings under what cities and how many were introduced on particular days, it should reflect Google's camera icons. If there are more details beyond that, they can be described in a separate paragraph.

San Jose is the 10th largest city in the U.S., while Juneau has a population of just 30,000. But Juneau has an icon of its own, while San Jose is considered by Google to be a part of the San Francisco area. Therefore, San Jose should not be treated as a separated city.Sebwite (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Future cities

I actually think this may be someone who I know, but I am not sure. I have several acquaintences who I discuss Street View with. I will not identify this person here, though. This is not someone who actively uses Wikipedia to my knowledge. Sebwite (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortening paragraphs

It seems as though this article could use some shortening. In the Areas included section, the first paragraph includes a very lengthy example. This example appears unnecessary since all of the first five cities have since been expanded. FlagFreak (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar services section, external links

Please note, the similar services section with paragraphs describing competing services is here to compare and contrast SV with similar services provided by other companies, and particularly show which cities have been introduced by other companies but not Google.

The external links to maps of individual cities are here for verification.Sebwite (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about said Google Street View, not about MapJack, LOCATION VIEW, yada yada yada. Would we add Liberia, Somalia, Malaysia to a "Similar nations" section in United States, with comparison to the others? No, because that article is about the United States and this article is about Google Street View.

Also, Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and it appears that the other services were being advertised here as better, which is POV.

Why would the extrenal links to each of the Street View locations be for verification? Why not verify every single location to make it fair, then? --FlagFreak ^TALK 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all those useless external links. Listing every single city covered is crazy, and linking to every single one of them is even crazier. Not to mention unencyclopedic. --FlagFreak ^TALK 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis

We have a story of a suburb north of Saint Paul who has requested Google to remove its photos. Technically they had violated private property because most of the suburb North Oaks, Minnesota is a gated community. It has since removed the gates and simply posted private-access signs. Also it may be prudent to mention that during Googles filming of Minneapolis, they had not completed some streets when the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapsed. Meaning they got all the highways done but by the time they got to streets, the bridge had collapsed. In photos along University Ave SE you will see barriers leading to the highway while you can actually travel on the highway during its construction. .:DavuMaya:. 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Coverage map

Since List of Google Street View locations will proably be deleted, I was thinking there should proably be a coverage map like that shows this. So it would be something like this: Image:Distribution H. leucocephalus.png-- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have another map on my blog (scroll down). It could be uploaded with a website screenshot copyright tag, but it doesn't have Alaska. --FlagFreak ^TALK 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I edit the coverage map to include the latest cities covered by Street View? MSalmon (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is an SVG, so can't be edited with Paint. Inkscape is free and I highly recommend it. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will try Inkscape MSalmon (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to work on Inkscape, how do I do it? MSalmon (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right click 'Save Page As' from here, then open it in Inkscape. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done that and updated the map, now what? MSalmon (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is at Wikimedia Commons so requires to either log in there or register and then at the bottom of the image page click 'Upload a new version of this file'. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "Upload a new version of this file" on the page MSalmon (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem being that new users will not have the facility of uploading images yet, which is a bad case this time. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If I give you the link to my update, will you be able to do it for me? MSalmon (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can do that. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is saved on my computer in my documents, so how do I give it to you? MSalmon (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can tell me the changes you have made or email me you email address which then you will be able to send me an email with it attached to it. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have only updated Canada and Czech Republic with dark blue, that is all MSalmon (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

~~It is ok, I have merged by two Wiki accounts into one so I can use both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so I can upload it now MSalmon (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)~~ Done

State-by-state paragraphs

For now, I replaced the paragraphs that have long been a part of this article that describe coverage in various states or paragraphs. These paragraphs are also in the middle of an update that may take several days, as I am trying to make the writing style in such a way that they flow into one another. They are important in which they describe the evolution of GSV in each area. If this makes the article look too cluttered, it may be worth starting a new subarticle, and placing the in there. Sebwite (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. Please be careful. Having an archive of Street View locations by state is absolutely crazy. Should we make a list of Google Earth satellite imagery by state or country? No. Why? See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If you would like to present this list in a format you are working on, then I will move it to your userspace for you to work on it there, because it definitely does not belong here in its current form. --FlagFreak ^TALK 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR, which I am familiar with. These edits have come on different days, with a continual discussion throughout. The section you are referring to is under construction, and gradual construction or modification of existing text does not constitute test edits. Sebwite (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe (is not official)

Most of these places seem to be the claims of individual users and they're impossible to prove. I have taken out all but the sourced material. Also changed the title "Europe (is not official)" - which isn't really English - to "United Kingdom", which should of course be changed back if some non-UK places are added. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Just a heads up. It isn't active yet, but will be sometime today so i haven't update the article. Will include just about every populated area in Australia. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24130293-5014108,00.html

Proposed "Areas Incuded" Criteria

Every once in a while I notice someone has added what appears to be their hometown (stress on town) to the areas included table. Could we establish a set of criteria to determine what cities to list in the "other major cities/areas" column? What I would recommend:

1) For cities to be included, must have surface streets largely to mostly included.

  * Exemption for Elkton, MD until Maryland is further updated.
  * Possible exemption for Daytona Beach, FL as the city's major throughways are included.

2) The most populous city in an isolated streetview region will be included. (aka "principal city")

3) Any national parks in an isolated streetview region will be included.

4) For additional cities to be included with the cities in criterions 2 and 3, it must meet one of the following:

  a) have a population of at least 50,000 (not in metro-area of principal city)
  b) have a population of at least 100,000 (in the metro-area of principal city)
  c) be a state capital
  d) be a historically or culturally important town (e.g. Williamsburg, VA)
  e) be the largest city included in its state (e.g. Wilmington, DE...in Philly metro but under 100k)

5) Since suburb population can differ greatly by region and the date of a city's growth spurt, only the largest and most geographically distinct suburbs would be included (CA has 67 cities > 100k, most of which are simply suburbs of LA and won't really give the reader new information but would clutter the table.)

6) Common sense can always be used.

How do you guys feel about this?

Krazy19Karl (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When I first created the table, I thought it over really hard. I decided to use the Rand McNally Road Atlas to set a standard here. I listed just about every city that was shown on the US map, and excluded just about every city that was not shown on the US map. I then made some common-sense modifications. These included adding a few places that have some high significance (like Anaheim, CA, which is home to Disneyland and a major league baseball team), and exluded a few that were merely suburbs (like Joliet, IL). I also added Modesto and Stockton.

On Wikipedia, using numbers as a standard does not work well. Also, calling something "historically or culturally important town" is not fully objective because many little towns have be a historical and cultural importance, and drawing the line is not easy. You can say Hannibal, MO (doesn't have SV now, but probably will some day) has historical importance as the hometown of Mark Twain, or Independence, MO has historical importance as the hometown of Harry Truman. But once again, if it is someone's hometown, where do you draw the line how famous a person must be?

Some criteria have little or no room for argument, like being the capital of a state, the largest city in a state, or the largest city in an isolated blue chunk. Also, many metropolitan areas are named after certain cities. For example, San Jose is one of the top 10 cities in the US, and is a metro area of its own, yet is considered by Google as part of San Francisco. You do not want to exclude a place like that. At the same time, you obviously cannot list every suburb of every city.

For one thing, you may, at least in most cases, limit listings to one place per county (with rare exceptions). This will enable, for example, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach to each be listed, but nothing more from the tri-county region. In Virginia this is a little harder, since all cities are independent. Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Newport News, and Williamsburg are all clustered together within 50 miles, but each have a distinct identity at a national viewpoint.

Regardless, a small town of 3000 that means nothing to anyone other than its own residents would be excluded. Sebwite (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to set criteria for the table(s) you need to set consistent criteria for all countries in all table(s), not just the US. In Australia, many significant areas don't meet any of the above criteria. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a road atlas for Australia like I do for North America. When I created the Australia chart, I only listed those cities with camera icons. I felt it was best to let an Australian or someone familiar with Australia do the rest. The bottom line is, we need common sense. Sebwite (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should prevail. In New South Wales, Australia, the only cities that have camera icons are Sydney, Broken Hill, Goulburn and Tamworth and yet GSV covers significantly more than that. To make matters worse, and to show the lack of relevance of having a camera icon, Newcastle and Wollongong, the second and third largest cities in the state, don't have icons while the more minor cities of Broken Hill, Goulbourn and Tamworth do. Other cities larger than those 3 also do not have icons but are covered. e.g. Maitland. Personally, I think the table is becoming redundant, at least as far as Australia is concerned, because the coverage here is fairly extensive. Of more significance are the areas not covered. For example, the Stuart Highway is covered almost all the the way north but, rather mysteriously, stops at the southern end of Katherine. Just as mysteriously, coverage begins at the western side of Katherine heading towards Western Australia. There is no coverage of Katherine and points north including Darwin, the capital of the Northern Territory. I think that common sense would dictate that these, and other similar, areas be noted. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With the criteria what about "the city must have a urban population of at least 40,000."? Bidgee (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That limits Australia to 30 locations which is misleading because GSV coverage is far more extensive than that. A lot of locations covered by GSV don't even have nearby cities yet the areas are significant. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed Street View Sightings

It had to happen sooner or later...a Google Maps mashup showing confirmed sightings of the Street View cars in Europe!

The map can be viewed on The Register, and clicking a car symbol displays the photograph taken by the spotter, together with the location. As El Reg is a UK periodical, the majority of the sightings are from the UK, but cars have also been spotted in Rome, Turin, Munich, near Paris and several locations in The Netherlands.

Looking at the map, it may be reasonable to assume some European locations will be added to Google Maps in due course, with fairly extensive coverage from the UK due whenever photography, processing and testing are completed. As it's impossible to predict when the photography will go live, possibly just add a list of countries where the Street View cars have been verifiably spotted - assuming we can find a reliable source/reliable sources for the list (compiling it ourselves would probably contravene WP:NOR). Mittfh (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

People preparing for Street View?

Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had a front-page article (here) about people who discovered that the Google car was going through their neighborhood and produced a joke scene, complete with marching band, firefighters rescuing a cat from a tree, and swordfighters. Would it be appropriate to include a section about such being done? I'm aware that this might lead people to add OR-ish anecdotes of doing the same in other places, but I think it would be quite reasonable to have at least a small section with as reliable a source as one of the USA's leading newspapers. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To see what I mean: go to this view and select Street View for the eastern side of the long stretch between intersections, below the "400" along Jackson Street to the north. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

flickr of this happening: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattressfactory/3026977595/ flickr group on Street View cars (Googlenettas): http://www.flickr.com/groups/googlestreetviewcar/ 79.219.115.63 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Future section

The "Future" section says, "In the more immediate future, Google plans to release Street View for various Canadian cities...." The information in the reference is over a year old. Is there more recent information somewhere? roger6106 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the US location list still needed?

Back when only a selected portion of the US was covered by Street View, having a list indicating what areas were covered makes sense. Now that virtually all of the US is covered by Street View, I think this list no longer serves a purpose. If anything it should be replaced by a list of places that AREN'T as yet covered (such as Blaine, Washington, for example). 23skidoo (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're wright - That information is not useful (is too long) TouLouse (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, remove it. Trying to maintain some purportedly authoratative list, to keep up with Google's continual update of its maps product, is a growing exercise in lunacy. Twredfish (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed GSVtable - to be easy to navigate, we need a new article Google Street View locations - TouLouse (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be neither a separate list article, nor a template. It has been deleted by moderated discussion once already. Replace with cited link to http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=68384 Twredfish (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

More cities in USA

Well, I found that a lot of cities(town) just have main street going through it and not in detailed, for example, Grand Islandand Miles City and the street view coverage of USA still needs to expand. Also, lots of rural roads don't have coverage. Also,some part of USA, especially Vermont,Ohio,Idiania.New York,Michigan,Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Mississippi. I also want to know why google like to seperate two cities buy not given some coverage in the middle of two cities. I want to have continous streetview and I and drive from New York City to San Francisco directly.

This text was recently added to the article: "On March 18, 2009, extensive coverage of the United States was added including most of the coverage of Delaware, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and South Dakota and more location at Michigan especially near Marquette, the date now have fewer coverage is in central-northwest USA. Especially Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Minnesota."

What the hell does that mean? Do they not teach English in Marquette, Michigan? Someone, please make heads or tails of this, or delete.24.18.218.123 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UK - well-known spots being blacked out?

I've heard rumours that several major public buildings have been blacked out already after "security" concerns, only a day after the UK launch, but I can't find much hard evidence of this. I have found one for myself, which gives the idea: it's the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool. The following links go directly to Street View images at Google Maps:

From the working photos either side, I can't see any obvious reason why the head-on shot has been blocked out rather than simply blurring the right places. It's only a guess that someone at the RLB itself has asked "for security, you know" (pretty pointlessly anyway, given the number of photos of this particular building around the web and in print!) so obviously that's no good as a source. Is there any solid coverage of this? I appreciate it's very early days yet, but if I notice this in the first 24 hours then if it's widespread I'm sure others will in due course. Loganberry (Talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now working again. *shrugs* Loganberry (Talk) 16:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

?

In what order are these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Areas_included) listed? Is it chronological? It's hard to skim through and look for any certain place in there. - Nessa Ancalimë ♥ (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

Wow Google Street view has just expanded greatly such that it covers much countryside in New York. The photos seem to be two years old (2 summers ago)-Anyone know the rules on that; I assume they have to be old enough for obvious reasons. see http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&q=stanley%20new%20york&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cities have coverage just in main roads

Lots of towns or cities have just coverage in main road and some just have little coverage for example Sioux Falls,Marqutte and Burlington, And even some big cites like Los Angeles, but still lack of coverage on El Segundo,Santa Ana,And there is no coverage in Grand Island too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.208 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer: That's when the Googlenetta just passes thru to get from Point A to Point B... most of the time drivers leave the hardware in scan mode. 79.219.115.63 (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

I have proposed a new WikiProject Street View. The purpose is to place in every article on a specific point, if available, an external link that shows the point on GSV. Sebwite (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...You're right..this section could be added in the templates and infoboxes . (for example: in articles about streets, cities, sport events, tourist attractions, buildings, disaster or any incidents locations) TouLouse (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe this article has expanded so much! So proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlegmbuoyant (talk • contribs) 11:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to commercial websites

I am Alexandre Poltorak from Elphel, Inc. We noticed the recent changes of this article on our access log. Wikipedia do not like direct links to commercial websites. (What I fully understand) We already got some problems with an article addition about our hardware on the Open_source_hardware as discussed here: User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_33#Removal_of_Elphel_camera_from_.22Open_Source_Hardware.22. After that incident we prohibited direct links from wikipedia.org. So as I understand the Wikipedia way to do is to link to this internal nonexistent article and add a request for this article: Wikipedia:Requested_articles, or write it ;). Regards. --Polto (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece flap?

Apparently Greece is getting pissy about the street view thing.

--98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rightfully so.

Go Greece! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.190.22 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Street View trike

Where should info about the Street View trike go? Here are some sorces: USA Today, The Guardian, CNET UK, and some pictures. -Lөv ө l 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC) You need to make the trike go thru malls and major parks. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.9.123 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Solving crime section needs a fix

As the article is locked down to anonymous editors, could someone please remove the reference to privacy advocates in the Role in Solving Crime section? It's almost word for word the same as the wording used in the linked article. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Google street view car made it to Hawaii? how can a car make from the US main to Hawaii when there's a Pacific Ocean in between? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.70.72 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

High Quality?

Where are the sources that some areas are in high quality, or that you can take a 25 mph drive along streets that are in high quality? I will remove this if nobody provides sources, since I can't find any myself. Kak Dela? (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find no references to "Virtual drive" or anything similar. Concur, removing as unverifable. Twredfish (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair to use street view screenshots on Wikipedia?

Could I take a screenshot or a photo of my screen of a street view image and use it on Wikipeida??? MANY useful article pictures could be made this way... Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No. If you attempt to do that, Google will probably serve a Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act takedown notice on the Wikimedia Foundation, and your account will probably be permanently banned. A screenshot of Street View would be fair use only in the context of an article about Street View itself, but not anything else. Yes, copyright is a pain in the neck, which is why a lot of Wikipedia editors, myself included, use Wikipedia an excuse to develop photography as a personal hobby (see the huge list of photos I've taken on my user page). --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't misuse "part" in editing GSV Coverage Table

Don't misuse "part" in editing GSV Coverage Table. Cities just have main road in not counted as part. They shouldn't be listed in GSV coverage table! Every cities have part coverage is meant that have coverage at least 40% of the total streets in that city!. So I didn't addSioux Falls and Cedar Rapids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheuk18me94 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The section 'privacy issues' should made in an article 'Criticsm of Street View'

70% of this article is consist of privacy issues,so it'll better if we convert this section into an independant article 'criticsm of street view'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coercorash (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not having seen your comment before I moved it to Google Street View Privacy Concerns. Hope it's OK, please review, as this was my first fork (so I'm about 2 years old in Wikipedia years ;) . LMB (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of GSV images within Wikipedia articles

I have been trying to figure out how to use GSV images in articles in a way that complies with Google's guidelines for the free use of their images. There is a discussion I started on the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Embedding Google Street View images onto Wikipedia pages. Sebwite (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

GSV images would be very useful in Wikipedia articles. If allowed, this is a very handy way of providing images of many different location in their respective articles without going through the trouble of physically traveling to the locations camera-ready. Google actually allows street view images to be embedded in any website, provided that they link straight to Google's site. But they do not allow screenshots to be uploaded. (You can read about it here)

The question is, is there a way to embed an external image like this onto Wikipedia, thereby meeting Google's guidelines? Sebwite (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:GSVtable / Should it be a list article?

I notice that in the past few days, the list of coverage by US state / other countries and regions was externalized rather than included as a template, as had apparently been the original intent. I agree that it's probably long enough to be its own article, but it should be titled something like List of cities with Google Street View coverage. A reference that says just

Please go to Template:GSVtable

seems not really in keeping with the intended purpose of templates, because templates are not intended to be stand-alone articles. If no one objects within a couple of days, anyone may feel free to port that template to an appropriately-titled list article. - PhilipR (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009(UTC) - (EDITED)

Previously, this was just that. After two AfDs, it was deleted, and this had been agreed upon as a replacement. Because of that, it is a good idea that before going back to a separate article as this was, we discuss whether or not it can sustain itself as an article again. (see nomination #1 and nomination #2)

I am not against the idea myself. I am just concerned about the possibility of deletion on this basis. Sebwite (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That template is completely non-useful. In future GSV will add thousands locations in entire world. In fact, we have a development section in GSV article. That is useful. In my opinion, we should start TfD for GSV Table.TouLouse (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't opine in either AfD process, but I don't see it as unencyclopedic, non-notable, or inappropriate for inclusion in WP. I do agree with Sebwite that there's no point in shuffling things again and again without reaching consensus. AFAICT, the only sense in which the AfD discussions reached consensus was dependent on inclusion of the template in the article. But someone boldly removed the template instance from the article, so my inference is that consensus has now collapsed. - Cheers, PhilipR (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just added back the template instance, not because I think that's necessarily the best long-term setup but because it appeared to be a previous compromise that's now being called into question by a subsequent edit. - PhilipR (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a side of me that favors revisiting the issue. Under no circumstances should some list of areas included be abolished. It is actually very important information, as it gives a sense of what the service is like, and how it varies from one country to the next. But given the growth of the overall article, splitting somewhere is a serious consideration. Sebwite (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If one wants a sense of what the service is like, one should use the service. No reasonable person consults Wiki to determine if GSV has coverage in a given city or not, especially in light of updates to GSV which have not yet been discovered by wiki editors, or agreed upon over some arbitrary inclusion criteria. The list itself is unencylopedic, per Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. Twredfish (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think there's an undercurrent of possible compromise that a coarse-grained list could be preferable to a fine-grained one. I'd like to have a list to consult to see if Belgium is now on GSV, or that Alabama's coverage now includes most (all?) cities of 50k people or more. But I can see that maintaining a detailed list would be out of scope for an encyclopedia. - PhilipR (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

~~My justifications are at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GSVtable. List/Template, either way, violates Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia:OR, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Twredfish (talk)~~

This should be neither a separate list article, nor a template. It has been deleted by moderated discussion once already. Replace with cited link to http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=68384 Twredfish (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO "areas included" is overkill for an encyclopedia article, and it can only become more so as Google gets closer to its goal of including the entire world. The "development" section does a good job of providing a decent overview of what's included, and there's the above Google maps link for anyone who wants something more detailed. Miremare 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that the list should not comprehensively include 100% of all areas covered by SV. Still, this is not something that should be all-or-none. We should try to strike a balance somewhere between giving no idea at all as to what is covered, and having a comprehensive directory, as is done with other aspects of Wikipedia. Sebwite (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TfD:GSVtable consensus resulted in to merge into GSV body text and delete template. It's been AfD'd as an article and TfD'd as a template. It appears the most reasonable future course of action is to preserve the content as a section in the GSV main article. Twredfish (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive created

Per Help:Archiving_a_talk_page I have moved some of the older and less relevant discussions to the archive page. Added archive link box at top. Twredfish (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GSVadditions

Template:GSVadditions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Per precedent of TfD:GSVtable. Proposed substitute template text into GSV body text and delete template. Twredfish (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of "List of areas included" per Wikipedia:BRD

TouLouse has been bold. Sebwite has reverted. It's time to Discuss.

I agree with TouLouse's edit which removes the table for the following reasons:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Item 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations ... like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.

I do not believe that the list of cities which have Google Street View is culturally significant, especially in light of a documented, verifiable map of coverage published by Google itself. GSV itself is certainly significant. During its development, when a select few cities were included, inclusion made those cities significant. Now that GSV coverage is ubiquitous, being included in GSV is no longer significant.

WP:OR - Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.

Creating this list and stating it is a list of cities with GSV is OR. If it is not OR, it needs to be cited against a verifiable source. No attempts to perform such citation have yet been seen. Secondly, some editors have stated that the purpose of this list is to provide "an idea of what major areas are covered". To do so is an explicit example of OR. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." The primary source is Google's coverage map of the GSV areas covered. Attempting to select a representative analysis which identifies "an idea of what is covered" is analysis. This is the definition of OR. On that grounds, I reccomend the removal of the table.

WP:Verifiability - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

The table did not cite any references or sources. Secondly, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As Sebwite has restored the questionable material, I encourage him to begin citing sources and removing locations for which no proper citation can be found. If the table cannot be properly cited, I recommend its removal in accordance with policy on verifiability.

I welcome discussion on my opinions stated here. Twredfish (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a final comment to Sebwite: Your reversion is summarized: "please DISCUSS before removing it and see if we really have a consensus". Consensus was not required for TouLouse to make their WP:BOLD edit. Please see WP:DRNC which expressly cautions:

Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire. ... Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit." (emphasis added)

In the future, please keep in mind that 'no-consensus' does not prevent a contributor from making a bold change to an article. In fact, per How to achieve consensus, the first step in building consensus is a bold edit. That is exactly what TouLouse has done. Please do not discourage them from being bold in the future. Twredfish (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To keep Areas included in GSV article is redundant. That stupid table makes very difficult to navigate the article, and also it's very hard to update that. In future, if GSV continues to develop, adding the entire world, that table will growing without control. I support to keep the GSV addition template and I support to delete the entire section of areas included. If I would to navigate with GSV in France, or United States, I don't need a list on Wikipedia to point me that the area is available or not, so I use directly Google Maps site for this job. 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)TouLouse (talk)

That was my principal reason to start TFD for GSVtable, not to be added again as GSV article body-part. TouLouse (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, the section of France wasn't updated since 2008 anymore :) TouLouse (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that there should be some list of places included, and I'm sure most people will agree with me on that. It is not an all or none situation here.

I do agree that per WP:NOTDIR, there should not be a comprehensive list of places covered. But there should at least be some places listed.

The Verifiability and OR problems that Twredfish is concerned about can easily be solved. There are indeed sources other than Google itself that verify many different places have SV coverage. I have not undertaken the effort yet to find them because we are still in the middle of a discussion on the topic, but by doing a search with "street view" along with the name of a major city, it is very likely you will find reliable sources stating that quite a lot of places do indeed have coverage. On that basis, it would qualify for inclusion. Sebwite (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll note I have already encouraged solving the Verifiability problem through citing. Please cite what can be cited and remove areas that cannot be cited. Twredfish (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added refs for two cities. Since it is an exhaustive effort to cite all the cities listed, and it cannot practically be done by one person, I recommend everyone looking in the way I suggested above do find sources for the places where they live or are otherwise to their interest.

I think it is better to start from the top down rather than the bottom up, and to remove those places for which no source can be found after searching "street view"+the city name. Most likely sources will be found for most major cities (500K+), and sources will not likely be found for small towns of 2000 in the middle of nowhere. Sebwite (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on this discussion

I have been working one adding references that show many places are included in SV. I have also removed many places from the list after I have determined there are no sources other than SV itself showing they have SV. I am not finished doing this. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I am hoping others will help.

It has gotten to the point that per WP:SIZERULE, this article should be split. It is almost 100K already, and in a matter of time will reach that point. Does anyone think the included locations should be split onto a separate page (in mainspace)? Given that there are now more than 40 refs (and counting), this may help it stand and not be deleted. Sebwite (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It has already been split out once, and AfD deleted as an indiscriminate list, to quote admin jonny-mt. Being cited does not make it stop being indiscriminate. I maintain that the list should be deleted outright. The list has proven history of not standing as an article on its own. Verifiability is certainly getting better, thank you sebwite, but nothing is being done to address the root problem. Cited or not, this list is still not encyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Twredfish (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A list that is comprised either of directly writing down all the places that are covered in blue (as it was before), or of copying straight off their site a lengthy list that Google provides themselves may run afoul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But according to these two guidelines, use of a variety of sources to list these places does not seem to. This is simply the provision of sourced information on the subject. Sebwite (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. A list that is comprised either of directly writing down all the places that are covered in blue (as it was before), or of copying straight off their site a lengthy list that Google provides themselves may run afoul of ~~WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE~~ WP:Verifiability. Fixing citations fixes Verifiability, but not the encyclopedic nature of the content in the list itself. Per your argument on citation, "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" would suddenly become encyclopedic if it were cited. WP:NOTDIR says that cross-categorization such as that is not encyclopedic. Whether or not it is cited properly is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it contributes to the state of human knowledge. It must both be cited, to pass WP:Verifiability (which has been improving greatly, thank you editors!) and also be worthy of inclusion, to pass [WP:NOTDIR]] and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I do not believe, per WP:NOTDIR and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE that the information in the list is worthy of inclusion. Twredfish (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapse Box

I've tried a strategy of putting the list of areas covered into a Collapse box. This does, in my opinion, a good thing for the article navigation, allowing interested users to delve into the details, while bringing a better balance in the overall length of the article as first loaded. Please comment on how you feel about this as a compromise. Twredfish (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed like the idea of a collapse box. I do not oppose its use myself, but I have never seen collapse boxes in mainspace, and I do not know how others will feel about it. Sebwite (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Template mergers and page history

As a point of record, two templates were merged into this article, {{GSVtable}}, per this discussion and {{GSVadditions}}, per this discussion. To preserve the edit history for both of these sections, these templates were first move to article space as Google Street View locations and Google Street View development, merged with the article with the articles turned into redirects. Hence, the early history is preserved in the edit history of each of those individual pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flags

In the list of locations added (in the "Development") section, locations in the UK are split into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Something similar happens in Finland, where the Åland Islands are listed separately. With regard to the UK in particular, why aren't they all simply under the UK flag? It can't simply be a case of areas having autonomy, since Barcelona is simply flagged as Spain, rather than being listed separately under the Catalan flag. Is there any logic to this, or has it just happened? Loganberry (Talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, in the case of Aland is about autonomous, demilitarized, monolingually Swedish-speaking region and historical province of Finland, and UK split exist for particularity, because for example Wales, Scotland are countries in United Kingdom. As your example Catalonia is part of 17 Autonomous communities of Spain, and is only about administration within, not separate entities. TouLouse (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Universal Studios Orlando coverage

I guess it really isn't necessary to list the date every time a theme park or attraction that involves non-public roads is added but Universal Studios Orlando in Florida, US is fairly well known and is a major attraction. Should it be included in the list of covered areas? Link to coverage here: [1]Aurora30 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

UK and Netherlands, March 2010

If anyone has the exact details, could they update the "Expand to show list of areas covered in Europe" section?--212.183.140.48 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Coverage Problem in China

As I know, Google Street View is ONLY applied in Hong Kong and Macau so far. Because I've tried to use it on some major cities in mainland China before, it still doesn't work there. Can anyone correct the coverage file later? I mean adding Hong Kong and Macau only(to avoid any misleading for other users). Thanks a lot. ME31 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are part of China MSalmon (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know! And I saw someone've already noted about what I mentioned above. It's better now. Thanks^^ ME31 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Presence of China Mainland of the map could generate confusion. By the way, Beijing or Shanghai are not spotted. Macau and Hong Kong are usually treated as separate entities in PRC. - TouLouse (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is corrected now. When will google enter China and spot the image? It can be possible because a china verson of street view city 8 www.city8.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.171 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems. First, China is big. Second, the CCP is paranoid and doesn't like foreigners revealing "state secrets." Third, Google is threatening to withdraw from the Chinese market anyway, so it makes no sense to spend money to photograph a country it's about to leave. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Remainder of Canada and Mexico???

The article says that street view the remainder of Canada and Mexico were added, it implies that there will be no more street view addition for Mecico and Canada! How can the writer know that?There is still pretty much area for Canada and Mexico to add street view in, especially for Mexico! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.166 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This is a factually wrong comment to be making in the article and I wish people would stop. I just removed this statement from the Mexico section because I confirmed in about 15 seconds that there is not 100% coverage of Mexico. Some towns only have one road imaged. Likewise there are many locations in Canada -- including cities -- that have scant coverage at best. Someone gave a percentage for UK coverage. That works. But unless Google confirms that every single road in every single province and town of Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else has had a camera go down it, we can't say "complete". There are still places in the US that don't have full coverage (or any coverage) yet. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think about the number 95%/99% is too subjective. It is not accurate expect you really know. I have changed it and makes it to be more objective.

Safety issues for Google cars

Have there ever been issues raised regarding safety issues for the Google cars? I bring this up because, amazingly, they've uploaded extensive coverage of Ciudad Juarez in Mexico - murder capital of the world - and have also imaged many rather seedy and dangerous areas in places like New York City, Chicago, London, etc. This might be worth noting i.e. how they make sure the drivers are safe. If you look at the images taken on the Dalton Hwy in Alaska and Dempster Hwy in Yukon, two very remote areas, a second Google car is often visible, suggesting they don't send the drivers out alone in remote areas. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates photos were taken

Having read through this article it appears that Street View has added many new features but the one thing I have not seen them add yet are the dates that there photos were taken. It is quite hard to figure out what day each photo was taken on however I can find 2 hints in different places that may have been when the photos (in that area) were taken.

1. In Vancouver BC when they passed the clock counting down to the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony it appears to be at 289 days,8 hours and 47 seconds (46 seconds in the next shot) which means it was in late April 2009 (unable to give an exact date).

2. In the Orlando area there are christmas wreaths hanging on the tolls at the entrance to the Walt Disney World Resort indicating it was around late fall or winter and the same camera was used for the Cape Canaveral area and there is a sign marked "4 days to launch" (referring to the next Space Shuttle launch) indicating because it looked recent and was around winter it was taken 4 days before the launch of STS-129 which means this was november 12th 2009.

I wonder if it will be possible this would happen.

Surely a Twitter post isn't a reliable source?

I note that in the "list of introductions by date" expandable box in the "Development" section, somebody has added May 25, 2010 as the introduction date for South African GSV to go live. The citation given goes to this French Twitter post. I've no problem with the language, but it's surely stretching things ridiculously to consider that a reliable source. The best I can do apart from posts based on that, unverifiable blogs etc is this page on the MyBroadband.co.za site, which is no more specific than "later this month". Personally I'd be inclined to remove the SA line from the box entirely until either it actually launches or there is a better source giving the May 25 date. Loganberry (Talk) 02:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I've now realised that "Zorgloob" is in fact an official Google feed. In that case, you can disregard what I said above! I didn't actually edit anything, so no problem. Oops! Loganberry (Talk) 02:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not official. See below. rainfrog 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainfrog (talk • contribs)

Brazil

Google has mistakenly added Street View for Brazil on May 24th (removed on the same day)[2].DVoit 23:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There SHOULD be a paragraph written about this on the North American section, in the link to that Brazilian newspaper is very, very interestin and is a MUST to be writen about because of its importance to the next upload of countries. Oh by the way, use google translate to translate the paragraphs in the newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismartyparty (talk • contribs)

List of introductions by date

I see that the list of coverage already has an ongoing discussion, but a separate issue I don't see mentioned yet is the other expandable list, that of the date of introductions. There are no citations for these dates. Completely aside from citing the lists of places covered, can these dates be verified? Would the dates have to be verified for each place individually? It basically reads like a copy of the coverage list sorted by different criteria, and that itself is kind of a problem, because then we have 2 lists to question what locations to include or not, and those lists would end up being different, when they should be more uniform in their inclusion. I wanted to bring this up because there seems to be a little bit of a battle going on over whether to include, in that list of dates, a vague date of a future update (South Africa) that Google has not officially announced or released yet, or whether to keep that info hidden until it actually happens. In wondering what source from which the editor(s) is/are getting that future date, I realized the entire list of dates has no citations at all. Rainfrog (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Aerial View

You can see Durban and Johannesburg on Google Aerial View now. (You have to enable Google Aerial View in the "New!" menu at the top on Google Maps) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.57.108 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also to all those idiots who constantly vandalized the article by removing the section on the upcoming Google Street View South Africa, IN YOUR FACE, they ARE going to release it in June !!! All those people who visited the article in the last month could have been informed about the upcoming updates. 118.209.57.108 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Us idiots were hiding (not removing) un-cited speculation of uncertain future events, promoting use of proper citation. (A tweet wasn't good enough and turned out to be wrong anyway.) A citation was added -- only very recently, not a month ago -- and us idiotic vandals were then more okay with it being unhidden. Poking fun at lack of WP:Civility and continued misuse of the word WP:Vandalism aside, saying that unverifiable speculation should have been left untouched on this page for the past month is simply a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Check out WP:CRYSTAL, which other of us idiotic vandals mentioned as a reason for removing that content. Also, next time you have a disagreement with others' edits, try taking it up in discussion, as I suggested once before. WP:Dispute resolution, WP:Disruptive editing, and WP:Edit warring are good reads. Rainfrog (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you need to follow your own advice there. The source of the information WAS verifiable and the tweet WASN'T wrong its just that the press event was CANCELED because of continuing dispute Google has with Governments over collecting data from WiFi networks. So the fact that the information WAS credible and likely to happen makes you a vandal because of some hidden personal agenda (Do you hate Google or something? Who Knows...) Wikipedia has a long history of posting material that has some uncertainty to it anyway, I suggest you check out some upcoming video game articles which contain information that is totally baseless (unlike in this situation where we had credible and verifiable information). Now because of you casual visitors to this article in the last month will not be informed that a Street View update is happening in South Africa and the majority of visitors to this article wouldn't check this more than once every two months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.57.108 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess all we can do now is once again wait for THIS update to be true. It should be since it will be 3 days before the world cup, the same situation as with Canada and the Winter Olympics. But if this update is also false I think we need to remove any further 'crystal ball' suggestions since we are just otherwise handing out incorrect information. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I said above in the "So .." section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.57.108 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Bezuidenhout, however I would go further and say there's no basis for making the removal of further 'crystal ball' speculation conditional to whether any one case turns out to be true or false. Future events are not the primary concern of an encyclopedia, and inclusion needs to be scrutinized, not based on the accuracy rate of predictions. In this case, even completely ignoring the 'crystal ball' policy, the multiple published articles or press releases one would expect to be out there for us to use as citation, whether in the article or even here in discussion, are simply not to be found. To paraphrase the concept repeated throughout policies here, if something is notable, it has already been reported -- not by just a tweet here or questionable blog post there, but significant coverage -- which is a basic standard for notability that we should maintain. Holding to even lower standards, such as whatever is happening in article X or Z, is -- you guessed it -- against yet another policy that can easily be found by serious editors ("inclusion is not an indicator of notability.")Rainfrog (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Although this hasn't got to do with this article, coverage is also available in Cape Town, PE and Bloemfontein. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Its got everything to do with the Article. 118.209.57.108 (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of wording in this article

I just corrected another statement claiming "the remainder of" a certain area had been added. Google Street Maps is aiming for 100% coverage, so until they attain that, it is wrong to use such wording. For example, I just changed a statement that said the remainder of Canada had been added. Bzzzt! Until you can view all the streets in, say, Rosetown, Saskatchewan, or how about the completely omitted major city of Fort McMurray, Alberta, we just can't say that. And now that they've introduced cameras mountable on snowmobiles, we frankly can't make the statement until they get around to imaging places like Iqualuit. Likewise, we can't say the complete US has been imaged until we get to see Barrow, Alaska, or Puerto Rico, for that matter. Other countries have their own examples, including the UK which stands at about 95% covered, but still has a number of blank spots. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So in otherwords we can never use 'remainder'? Should we stick to statistics (95% etc.) or use more general words such as 'vast majority' or 'most'? Because there will always be for example new housing estates under construction so not everything can be covered. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Need partial protection

I think this page must be semi-protected, due to vandals like this [3] - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Is it against copyright to use printscreens of google street view and use them in Wikipedia articles. Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm SO sorry but I stress that I can't think of any other way of saying this, shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismartyparty (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To Ismartyparty: The reversal of the words "it" and "is" that begin Bezuidenhout's sentence indicate that it is a question. Why would you tell someone who's simply asking a question to shut up? To Bezuidenhout: It appears there's something called a free use rationale that allows such images to be used in English WP articles, at least. The screnshots already in the article all have this template or some allusion to it. However, it's beyond my expertise as to how many are appropriate to include in an article. But I hope that link helps! Rainfrog (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fair use to use low-res pictures of a Web site to illustrate what that site looks like. However, it's almost certainly not fair use to use Google Street View pictures anywhere else on Wikipedia besides this article. One easy way to understand fair use is to ask whether the purported fair use could successfully substitute for the original publication. If it does, then it's not fair use. For example, a still image of the Street View Web site in this article would not substitute for the full interactive experience of using it. But a picture from Street View of AMC Theatres headquarters in the article on that company could substitute for having to go visit Google Maps directly and search for that address. In other words, if you can look at the Street View version on Wikipedia, then you don't have to go to Street View any more. That's why it's not fair use, so the image borrowed by some well-intending idiot from Street View was quickly deleted by the admins. Eventually a Kansas City editor did find the time to photograph the AMC Theatres building and now we have a properly licensed photo.

Keep in mind that it's a huge pain in the butt to go out and actually photograph things (I know this personally; check out my user page and see the large number of places I've photographed for Wikipedia). It cost Google A LOT OF MONEY to go around photographing large parts of the world for three years. Google (and most intellectual property owners, for that matter) will NOT take kindly to frivolous claims of fair use. It is because we have copyright protection that the Google is able to risk spending so much money on building such a useful service. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New

It seems Google Street View has contracted a bout of the measles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.63.140 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What this is are hundreds (if not thousands) of links to individual photographs that can be called up and manipulated to a slight degree like the 360-degree images of the main street view. I agree this new feature -- added at the same time as the South Africa update -- needs to be discussed. It must be controversial because I'm finding it very difficult to navigate around without accidentially hitting one of these photos when I want to check Street View. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Its also annoying me! But these new images range in quality, some are poor and some of like those of street view. The only problem is that they are EVERYWHERE, so what do we just say that every country in the world has 'street view' because techniqually speaking some images are at street view (on roads). Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the new images are just the ones from Panoramio, and are not street view. You can see the distinction between them in Google Earth.--ERAGON (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)