Birdseye imagery - poor in places

[+zpyder]

So I upgraded to a 62S and have taken out the subscription to make use of the Birdseye service. Annoyances aside on the limitations of how much you can download at a time and the speed of the download, I decided to pre-empt a trip to the Lake District next year and download the imagery now (who knows, it might actually finish downloading the tiles by then!)

 

Imagine my surprise to discover the central lake district tiles to be 100% under cloud cover, making the imagery useless if you want to use it for anywhere between Keswick and Windemere, which is a pretty large area of the Lake District. Given how it's a national park and a prime location for people to be using their GPS, you'd have thought Garmin/Birdseye would have sourced imagery not under cloud cover for the area.

 

Do you think it's grounds for a refund if you buy the subscription only to find out that the imagery gives you less detail than the stock basemap, for the areas you want to use it for? The basemap is fine for my usual home use, I only really wanted it for the lakes!

[+Red90]

What is the point of asking us? Why don't you ask Garmin?

[+zpyder]

Because I like to discuss interesting topics on discussion boards?

 

Maybe this and the fact I'd like to add an extra hit to any google searches regarding birdseye and cumbria / the lake district (assuming these forums are crawled by google - if not it's still searchable by other cachers if they're deciding upon buying a subscription prior to a trip there)

 

Don't get me wrong, an email to Garmin is in order, but I would also like to know the views of others who either have found themselves in a similar situation or at least have an interest in the subject.

 

I mean, should you expect a mapping product to have 100% usable coverage, or is it reasonable to expect a small margin of error, and if so, do you just chalk it up to bad luck if that margin of error is smack bang in the middle of the area you most need the coverage?

 

This isn't a subjective problem like the squeaky 62 case. This is a pretty major problem, I'd post a screenshot of the large area in question if it wouldn't contravene copyright law. We're not talking patches of cloud covering a large area, we're talking a solid white mass that obscures any sign of land covering the inner 50% (and possibly the most popular 50%) of one of Britains major national parks.

 

I find myself with a weird stance on the subject...I accept that you can't expect high quality coverage of the globe. But I also feel that National parks should be prioritised as highly as major cities are in terms of being the first to have the best imagery, especially given Garmins targetted marketing for off road trail users, special map products just of national parks etc.

Edited October 6, 2010 by zpyder

[+splashy]

The squeek you solve with a piece of paper plastic inside the case.

 

The birdseye? Try a refund and use

http://mobac.dnsalias.org/index.html

[+Team Yianni]

The squeek you solve with a piece of paper plastic inside the case.

 

The birdseye? Try a refund and use

http://mobac.dnsalias.org/index.html

 

 

WOW.. Very nice.. TY..

[+zpyder]

Well just heard back from Garmin, I guess it's buyer beware:

Dear Chris

Thank you for contacting Garmin Europe. Unfortunately our Birdseye subscription service is non-refundable. This is the reason why we offer (and recommend on our website) that customers use the free preview service, so that customers can check the coverage and quality before they pay the subscription fee.

 

Please help us improve the service we offer you by taking our Customer Support survey. Please click the following link -

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GarminSupportSurvey

If there is anything else I can help you with then please let me know. Alternatively you can search for a solution on our forum: https://forums.garmin.com or our online knowledge database here: http://www.garmin.co.uk/support

 

It would have been helpful at the time to actually have the preview service working. I kinda assumed that they'd have coverage of the UK, and not just massive amounts of cloud in places.

[+zpyder]

The squeek you solve with a piece of paper plastic inside the case.

 

The birdseye? Try a refund and use

http://mobac.dnsalias.org/index.html

 

This was bugging me a little, as I remembered reading something on the Google TOS when I was developing something using their API.

 

From: http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html

 

Use in Software including GIS software, flight simulators etc: You may not scrape or otherwise export Content from Google Maps or Earth for use within another application. For offline imagery or mapping with your own datasets, please learn about our Google Earth Enterprise product.

 

So basically all these applications that are pulling out google imagery (and of which there is an increasing number), as far as I understand it, are breaking the rules set out by google. I'd love to be corrected as I think it's a very cool and useful feature but it's a bit iffy if you're breaking the law if you do it.

[mtbikernate]

imagery quality is enormously variable. image acquisition is limited to the satellite's schedule, and if it's always cloudy when the sat passes your area, the imagery will be poor quality. spatial corrections also vary from place to place. an image scene covers a large area and some portions of the scene may be spot on, while others might be off by a bit. It is buyer beware.

 

related to the Google API, there is a fine line between what you can and cannot do. Google wants to charge more for access to its Enterprise product for people to use its imagery in a GIS mapping (professional) environment. They say that because some services offer internet mapping service (IMS or WMS) servers you can enter into some programs that will allow the program to pull the imagery straight from the server hosting that imagery. Topofusion is an example that does this in consumer software. But note that TF does not use Google map data. It pulls its data from other servers. This is the sort of thing Google is mentioning in its TOS for the API.

[+dfx]

imagery quality is enormously variable. image acquisition is limited to the satellite's schedule, and if it's always cloudy when the sat passes your area, the imagery will be poor quality.

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

[+splashy]

If taken from an airplane, they are pretty darn bad.

[+The Ravens]

imagery quality is enormously variable. image acquisition is limited to the satellite's schedule, and if it's always cloudy when the sat passes your area, the imagery will be poor quality.

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

 

WOW! Google must have it's own high altitude spy planes. Or is someone in the back airbrushing in clouds viewed from over 30,000 feet?

[+dfx]

WOW! Google must have it's own high altitude spy planes. Or is someone in the back airbrushing in clouds viewed from over 30,000 feet?

but you believe google has their own satellites?

[+The Ravens]

WOW! Google must have it's own high altitude spy planes. Or is someone in the back airbrushing in clouds viewed from over 30,000 feet?

but you believe google has their own satellites?

 

S!o.... no spy planes... and no satellites... hmmm... THAT means they must use crayons! That's it... crayon! Silly rabbits. I'm sure glad we now know the truth about that.

[+user13371]

Garmin & Google have neither spy planes nor satellites of their own; they buy their imagery from others. To insist it's all one thing or the other is overly broad; it's a mix of satellite and aerial imagery from multiple providers. In Google Earth, you can often see who provided the imagery by a legend at the bottom of the screen.

Edited October 21, 2010 by lee_rimar

[+northernpenguin]

Google Earth uses satellite imagery, aerial photos and imagery from GIS 3D globe. The Google drone imagery is a new addition.

 

It's a case of they use the best imagery they have available (and have properly licensed).

I'm still waiting for the Google Street View cars with the camera wielding kite attached.

[+The Ravens]

imagery quality is enormously variable. image acquisition is limited to the satellite's schedule, and if it's always cloudy when the sat passes your area, the imagery will be poor quality.

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

 

Look at the 5th paragraph.

[+dakboy]

Garmin & Google have neither spy planes nor satellites of their own; they buy their imagery from others.

Google more or less does have their own satellite; they have an exclusive license to all the imagery produced by another company's satellite, and ponied up enough money to get their name on the rocket that put it up. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/...-resolution.ars

[+dakboy]

Well just heard back from Garmin, I guess it's buyer beware:

Dear Chris

Thank you for contacting Garmin Europe. Unfortunately our Birdseye subscription service is non-refundable. This is the reason why we offer (and recommend on our website) that customers use the free preview service, so that customers can check the coverage and quality before they pay the subscription fee.

 

Please help us improve the service we offer you by taking our Customer Support survey. Please click the following link -

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GarminSupportSurvey

If there is anything else I can help you with then please let me know. Alternatively you can search for a solution on our forum: https://forums.garmin.com or our online knowledge database here: http://www.garmin.co.uk/support

 

It would have been helpful at the time to actually have the preview service working. I kinda assumed that they'd have coverage of the UK, and not just massive amounts of cloud in places.

Even if the preview service was working, what if the preview imagery was all hand-picked for being "perfect"? The preview still wouldn't match the results you got.

 

IMHO, this is a cop-out by Garmin. They're selling something which appears to be useless. At best, it's poor quality control. At worst, it's downright deceptive.

 

For the record, I've yet to see a cloud on the imagery I've purchased from DeLorme. Most of that (in the US) is sourced from various government agencies doing aerial photography for mapping & agriculture.

[+dfx]

Look at the 5th paragraph.

... which isn't the high-res imagery i was refering to. color images at 1.5 meter resolution isn't that great really. well, for a satellite it is (if they're even allowed to use that), but all the pretty stuff you see in google earth/maps has much higher resolution than that (most of which is also available through birdseye btw, since it comes from digitalglobe, albeit from my experience less well aligned).

Edited October 21, 2010 by dfx

[+t4e]

I kinda assumed that they'd have coverage of the UK, and not just massive amounts of cloud in places.

 

i don't know why you are surprised, it rains in UK 90% of the time, and rain happens to come out of clouds

Edited October 21, 2010 by t4e

[+coggins]

Even if the preview service was working, what if the preview imagery was all hand-picked for being "perfect"? The preview still wouldn't match the results you got.

 

IMHO, this is a cop-out by Garmin. They're selling something which appears to be useless. At best, it's poor quality control. At worst, it's downright deceptive.

 

For the record, I've yet to see a cloud on the imagery I've purchased from DeLorme. Most of that (in the US) is sourced from various government agencies doing aerial photography for mapping & agriculture.

I been using the "preview" from day one and it's worked fine any time I used it here. I just activated it and didn't have to redownload any images, they are the same images. In fact the international images I downloaded have been more current than Google Earth, I've posted examples in the past. To compare DeLorme's US coverage to a BirdsEye image from the UK isn't very fair. Would you like to compare the same area in the UK from both sources? That would be fair.

[+The Ravens]

Look at the 5th paragraph.

... which isn't the high-res imagery i was refering to. color images at 1.5 meter resolution isn't that great really. well, for a satellite it is (if they're even allowed to use that), but all the pretty stuff you see in google earth/maps has much higher resolution than that (most of which is also available through birdseye btw, since it comes from digitalglobe, albeit from my experience less well aligned).

 

So you just refuted your statement above.

[+dfx]

Look at the 5th paragraph.

... which isn't the high-res imagery i was refering to. color images at 1.5 meter resolution isn't that great really. well, for a satellite it is (if they're even allowed to use that), but all the pretty stuff you see in google earth/maps has much higher resolution than that (most of which is also available through birdseye btw, since it comes from digitalglobe, albeit from my experience less well aligned).

 

So you just refuted your statement above.

no? wat?

[+dakboy]

To compare DeLorme's US coverage to a BirdsEye image from the UK isn't very fair. Would you like to compare the same area in the UK from both sources? That would be fair.

I wasn't comparing the images directly. It's not even about the images, but rather the attitude Garmin is projecting toward their customers via the imagery the OP downloaded.

 

I am saying that I have never seen a cloud-obscured image from DeLorme. So why does Garmin think it's acceptable to be selling pictures of clouds to their customers?

[+zpyder]

I kinda assumed that they'd have coverage of the UK, and not just massive amounts of cloud in places.

 

i don't know why you are surprised, it rains in UK 90% of the time, and rain happens to come out of clouds

 

True, I think I just got used to the near 0 cloud cover coverage that google provides in earth/maps. This is the equivalent of having clouds covering all of London, pointless.

[+TotemLake]

Look at the 5th paragraph.

... which isn't the high-res imagery i was refering to. color images at 1.5 meter resolution isn't that great really. well, for a satellite it is (if they're even allowed to use that), but all the pretty stuff you see in google earth/maps has much higher resolution than that (most of which is also available through birdseye btw, since it comes from digitalglobe, albeit from my experience less well aligned).

 

So you just refuted your statement above.

No he didn't. I'm under the impression you're purposely misunderstanding what GE uses for their imagery and using only one source as your proof.

 

GE's usage of imagery depends upon availability and sources they contract from. The usage is not solely or exclusively dependant upon one type. The zoom level determines which imagery type you're going to be seeing depending upon availability for the area. Closeups wil typically use high resolution imagery taken from low flying aircraft where it is available. Availability of the high res imagery over specific countries and areas are regulated by local laws and obsurity requirements enforced by the country's military.

 

Types of imagery being used range from satellites, medium and low flying aircraft, and street level drive-by cameras with limitations of the usage being enforced by applicable local laws.

Edited October 21, 2010 by TotemLake

[+Avernar]

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

Some of it does: GeoEye

[+dfx]

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

Some of it does: GeoEye

as explained above, i don't consider 1.5 meter resolution to be "high-res".

[+northernpenguin]

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

Some of it does: GeoEye

as explained above, i don't consider 1.5 meter resolution to be "high-res".

 

Ok, granted we can't read the TB sticker on the back of your window at that resolution, but surely that's *plenty* for viewing on a 2.5" screen?

 

GeoEye boasts they have the "highest resolution satellite ever launched" according to this website. The satellite is capable of 0.5 meter resolution, and we're not 100% sure what products Google has, or has not purchased from that source.

 

For the previous comments on Google not owning spyplanes, technically that drone of theirs could be called a spy plane. Pretty sure they wouldn't own it for long if they flew it over, say, Iran.

[+dfx]

Ok, granted we can't read the TB sticker on the back of your window at that resolution, but surely that's *plenty* for viewing on a 2.5" screen?

 

GeoEye boasts they have the "highest resolution satellite ever launched" according to this website. The satellite is capable of 0.5 meter resolution, and we're not 100% sure what products Google has, or has not purchased from that source.

actually it's got "only" 1.6 meter resolution when taking color pictures (0.5 m is for b/w). at that resolution, a car would be only a couple of pixels and so barely recognizable. if you zoom in to pretty much any random spot on google that has high-res images, be it in a city or in the countryside, then those images have much higher resolution than 1.6 meters. in our area here, you're looking at the 2006 ortho imagery (also available via the local GIS site) which has a resolution of 30 cm. there's also 2009 imagery with a resolution of 10 cm available, but google doesn't have that (yet). those are not satellite images, and google didn't make them either.

 

i wouldn't be surprised if the imagery of some of the not-so-cooperative areas (middle east?) came from geoeye though.

[+user13371]

...For the previous comments on Google not owning spyplanes, technically that drone of theirs could be called a spy plane. ...

Sorry, it's not a spy plane (or spy sat) unless it's actually used for, well, y'know, spying. Like these Edited October 22, 2010 by lee_rimar

[+Avernar]

And now the BirdsEye server is not responding. So I can't download anything new or transfer what I have to the GPSr.

[+dfx]

And now the BirdsEye server is not responding. So I can't download anything new or transfer what I have to the GPSr.

download is running here. one of the downloads froze once, so i hit pause and then start again. that fixed it.

[+Avernar]

download is running here. one of the downloads froze once, so i hit pause and then start again. that fixed it.

Started working not long after that. Could have been BaseCamp having a brain cramp.

[mtbikernate]

imagery quality is enormously variable. image acquisition is limited to the satellite's schedule, and if it's always cloudy when the sat passes your area, the imagery will be poor quality.

no matter what google wants to make you believe, the high-res imagery they're using is not taken by satellites.

 

the imagery the OP is talking about (re: cloud cover) comes from satellites. Sure, the high res urban stuff is from other sources. your point is? oh right...maybe I should just admit you've got a bigger wang than I do so we can get that part over with.

[+zpyder]

I'm a little more intrigued about the google alternatives, still, rather than the satellite/aerial debate...

 

related to the Google API, there is a fine line between what you can and cannot do. Google wants to charge more for access to its Enterprise product for people to use its imagery in a GIS mapping (professional) environment. They say that because some services offer internet mapping service (IMS or WMS) servers you can enter into some programs that will allow the program to pull the imagery straight from the server hosting that imagery. Topofusion is an example that does this in consumer software. But note that TF does not use Google map data. It pulls its data from other servers. This is the sort of thing Google is mentioning in its TOS for the API.

 

Sorry, could you explain this again? For some reason I'm not quite following you. Basically the geo guidelines are saying unless you want to pay for the Enterprise product, you are not allowed to import/scrape any data from google earth/maps. And how many people using the tools posted earlier are going to have such a licence?

 

My interest in this stems not only from the situation with birdseye, but the fact I work in a university and one of my main interests is in GIS, a result of which is frequently coming up against various copyright and usage restrictions on different data. One of the lecturers is a proponent of open source GIS applications and has started to use an application with an extension which allows for the google scraping. Obviously this is a bit of a tricky situation until we're absolutely certain on the legality of the situation, as we don't want to be teaching students how to illegally obtain aerial imagery. Maybe it's a good enough reason to finally get Google Enterprise?!

[+user13371]

The Google license agreements comes up here repeatedly. If you go by the exact wording of the license, yeah, just about ANY re-use of Google's imagery is against their license, unless you've paid for the pro version.

 

In practical terms though (and this has been mentioned by someone who works for Google and reads these forums), they're not going after individuals grabbing imagery for personal use (e.g., reloading onto your Garmin). They're much more concerned about folks who would repackage Google's imagery for sale.