Talk:Bing Maps/Coverage

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discuss Bing/Coverage here:

Global Coverage

Has someone already put all polygons of the high res images into a relation or something? I continuously find new high res areas (newest is Chargos Archipelago / Diego Garcia somewhere in the middle of the indian ocean) And it would be nice to have some sort of an overview. User:Quarksteilchen 11:26, 6 December 2010

No. read the top few sentences on the page. Drawing ways around boundary of coverage is debatable. Adding them to relations is probably a bad idea. Add all of them to 'massive relation is a bad idea. - Harry Wood 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Wasn't aware of this problem. But anyway, an overview would be great. --Quarksteilchen 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, this could be created as a .osm file which could be loaded into JOSM for reference purposes without including the relations in the database per se. I think this highlights the need for something like a namespace partition in the OSM database, where 'main' relates to the features which represent real world entities while 'supp' relates to supporting features which relate to mapping activities rather than real world entities. --Ceyockey 01:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have out of my own interest made such .osm file for Brazil, if there is any interst to share such .osm files, I might put put it on my web site. I have also made such files for Brazilian Yahoo and CBERS coverage. --Skippern 12:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

North America

I am wondering at the absence of North America on this page. --Ceyockey 13:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Added. From a quick look, it seems to be all covered, even the remote northern bits, but please correct me if I'm wrong -- Harry Wood 14:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'm sure you've surveyed more than enough to be accurate. I just thought it odd that NA was missing. --Ceyockey 01:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Übersichtlicher als eine Liste fände ich eine weltweite OSM-Karte, auf der die Abdeckung durch Luftbilder (Bing, Yahoo, etc) auf einem Layer als Flächen eingezeichnet ist, jeweils mit Angabe der Bodenauflösung. Gruss, --Markus 09:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

He asked for a map showing the available resolution. Das gibt es schon. Zusammen mit dem Alter der Bilder. Siehe auch den Link auf der Seite ganz oben: --Stephankn 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Author of ?

Hello! Who is the author of and how can I get in touch with him / her? --ALE! 10:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's me. You can email me or use my talk page. --Ant 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Areas in Yahoo but not in Bing

I was under the impression that Yahoo's coverage was always inferior to Bing's i.e. Bing will cover areas which Yahoo does not (most of the UK for example), or will cover an area at better resolution (London and most of the (all of?) the US for example)

But in fact there are parts of the world where Yahoo is better than Bing. Yahoo offers various cities in Pakistan for example: Yahoo! Aerial Imagery/Coverage/Pakistan. As far as I can see Bing has nothing in Pakistan. So that seems like something worth noting/listing. I've added a note there. Maybe we should adapt the Yahoo! Aerial Imagery/Coverage page to list only areas which are not better served by bing.

-- Harry Wood 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Coverage lists useless. Delete?

Most of this page is taken up by a big list of bing coverage details by country and city. Lots of effort gone into that and links to relations etc, but happily bing recently massively increased their coverage of the whole world I think. I imagine a lot of the info and linked boundary relations are out of date now. As a result the whole list become pretty useless, since you don't know if you're reading something up-to-date or not. Is there any point in trying to maintain this list here? I suggest we delete it, and just recommend people refer to the coverage analyser tool. -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right.--Geogast (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes imagery seems to have been removed

Strange enough coverage sometimes seems to have been removed by Bing - I noticed it with polygons being wrong/out-of-date or source=bing tagged ways created by myself where now there's only landsat imagery (and no mapbox imagery) (...and I'm really nitpicking with source tags...! ;) --katpatuka (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)