7/23/05 | 10:44 am | All of Indiana Mapped?
This is more a curiosity than anything else. While I was checking out the new Hybrid feature of Google Maps I zoomed sort of far out and took a look at the U.S. Interestingly, my eye was immediately drawn to Indiana of all places, because the entire state looked like it was a “grey” color. I zoomed in for a look and saw that they appear to have mapped nearly the ENTIRE state in “High Res”. I don’t believe this was here before (but someone correct me if I’m wrong).
Now, this is no slap at Indiana but there are only 2-3 larger “red dot” cities in the state so it was surprising that the entire state would be mapped at super High Res. That’s why it stood out for me. And it was distinctive because the color of the mapping seems to have very little green in it. Right next door in Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan, everything is green and also not mapped in high resolution.
I took a look around and saw that Massachusetts also seems to be mapped entirely in that same shade of grey/brown, but not sure if this was there before. I don’t know what this means, but I think it is Google getting new satellite data or at least switching some of it out. Maybe Indiana was a test or something first before switching out the rest.
In any case, this is generally good for Scavengeroogle if they are going to make more High Resolution mapping available. That’s more potential places for clues to be found in rural areas. The one interesting thing is going to be that as they switch out the maps, our “temporal” clues (such as google map defects that were clues), are going to disappear! That’s OK though, because I had noted this eventuality when we first started playing. So I guess don’t be surprised if you come across an old clue that is not longer in the current Google Map…
July 23rd, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Some of us in Indiana just happen to have a lot of clout!
Just kidding. But seriously, there’s not much here, so it’s pretty easy to map. And, for the non-red dots, all one really has to do is pick anywhere, and copy and paste until the state’s filled in. Even if you lived here you’d never know the difference!
July 23rd, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Judy - Hehe, I actually thought about you after writing the article… seriously I’m not bagging on Indiana! =)
So, did you happen to notice if all of Indiana was mapped before at high res? I was just wondering… I don’t remember it being like that plus it is a really different color than the surrounding states…
P.S, did you get the map prize I sent yet? I sent it a little while ago but I forget how long it takes usually…
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:57 pm
If you want to bag on Indiana, you’ll have to get in line! I can’t speak for the entire state, but where I am is truly the land of cows and corn. It’s very very flat and very very farmy. I miss the left coast more and more! The one true benefit of being here in the middle-land is that I can afford a house for a smaller monthly payment than my rent was in Ventura County.
And no, A good deal of Indiana was still lower-res, although I was seeing bits added here and there. The weird part is that even with the newer hi-res parts, the images are still about a year old, at least up in my neck o’ the woods. Why anyone would start with Indiana is beyond me, unless my cut and paste theory is true (=
And yes, I received the package today, thanks. I’m putting together a nice assortment of stuff for you to turn into prizes, and I’ll be sending it off sometime in the coming week.
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Judy - hehe… wow Ventura County. I am quite a ways southeast from there but I used to go up every so often along the coast. Yeah, I can imagine the rent being much lower anywhere else but southern Cal.
That is interesting that the new parts are a year old. Did you see Massachusetts? It looks like it is completely mapped too… very, very weird. I don’t know why they would do that, but I expect some experimenting is afoot. Either that or they’re about to launch some other feature… maybe one that has to do with individual states which is why they’d want to get all the state data together.
Cool, I am actually needing some prizes for bounties so I will be awaiting your package eagerly!
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Interestingly, both the satellite images and the mapping are outdated for north-central Indiana (I can’t really vouch for the rest except that the counties due south seem to be last summer as far as satellite, and the roads haven’t changed enough to alter mapping). In St. Joseph Cty we’ve had several roads relocated as the Notre Dame campus expands, but none of those are reflected on the maps. Additionally, the satellite images show a not-quite-finished performing arts building that was completed in June 2004. So, I’m not sure what Google means when they say the maps are not real time, but are “current”. Obviously, they can’t be updated daily, or probably even monthly, so how current is current? Enquiring minds want to know (= And exactly how much time do I have on my hands anyway!?
July 25th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I can comment on Massachusetts…it has had the high resolution pictures probably since the beginning of satelite maps on google maps. I remember back some months ago when my roommate commented on the fact that Massachusetts was a different color than the rest of the contry. That was a funny conversation…
July 25th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Well, I’ve noticed that Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Indiana had been all hi-res for at least a month or two if not longer, I think. Missouri is also, I believe, but they are very green. You can zoom all the way in and they are hi-res shots, just not as good quality.
As for the age of the images some are quite old 3-5 years, while others are fairly recent (1.5 yrs). I went to NC State, graduated 2 years ago, but some of the images around there are close to 4 yrs old. My parents recently built a house ~30 miles away and the land there is cleared away to build which leads me to believe the image is only about 1.5 yrs old.
July 25th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Indiana and Massachusetts’s hi-res maps have been up for a couple months. It looks like they have recently added New Jersey as well. Sometimes the hi-res maps are announced in the keyhole forums http://bbs.keyhole.com. I went there looking for a release date list, but I think it is less formal. It seems to be first person who notices a new map posts it because Google doesn’t release what is to come. Great post about Google’s satellite data http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/50982/page/0/vc/1 Missouri also has a higher resolution than most places except it is green. The grayish color of the hi-res areas is most likely due to the time of year. Satellite images show much more in the winter time because there are no leaves on the trees. The Missouri trees seem to have all their leaves and are a deep green.
July 25th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Alex - thanks… I thought I remembered Massachusetts being mapped as well, but I wasn’t 100% sure because they change things so quickly..
Mike M - Yeah, I saw New Jersey too. I have also noticed the age of the satellite photos varying. It is like a patchwork of older and new pics in some places. Me and Judy were wondering why they would do this… like why would they have one entire state only in one color to start with?
Trecherus - thanks for the links… so according to them it seems the mismatch is due to the available data they can buy from outside companies. And also, depending on high priority and low priority areas - so major urban areas would get more coverage. This still does not answer for me why certain states are completely mapped, because certainly there is a ton of non-developed areas. I would have thought they would have mapped all of New York, for instance…
That is very interesting what you said about leaves on trees obscuring stuff. I’ve also been wondering about the clouds as one of the other posters mentioned - how is it that they avoid clouds? There seems to be a lot of cloud cover missing…
August 5th, 2005 at 6:23 am
Missouri is all hi-res now as well, it’s true, and they seem to be filling in state by state. What’s really interesting, and strangely telling, though, is that the color of each state seems not to be only seasonal, but that each block of hi-res data seems to get averaged out to roughly a single color. This must have something to do with the data compression on Google’s end. However, it seems if there’s one thing those Google chaps could do with, it would be someone expert at color correction. It would be far better for the colors to be slightly falsified in order to blend together, than to have every region so ridiculously separate from the ones around it.
August 5th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Josh - i agree it is a bit strange to have the color off like that… Someone said it may have something to do with them using older maps. But I still don’t see why that would make them always brown/gray…