Mark Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 Microsoft now do their own version of Google Earth, Local Live. The first thing I noticed was how much clearer Leicestershire is, on Google Earth it seems the whole city is a big blur. Also the photos are a little newer. Here's a picture of the Walkers
macbeth Posted 1 June 2006 Posted 1 June 2006 am i doing something wrong this just looks like a map to me ; cannot get to actual photos of houses etc what do i install
Mark Posted 1 June 2006 Author Posted 1 June 2006 am i doing something wrong this just looks like a map to me ; not actual photos of houses Click Aerial
macbeth Posted 1 June 2006 Posted 1 June 2006 Click Aerial doh !! thanks ; i will get the hang of these things one day brilliant innit ? added to fave list
lookwhaticando Posted 2 June 2006 Posted 2 June 2006 looks like the UK is better mapped in Local Live - but my part of the world is incredibly poorly covered in comparison to Google Earth/Google Maps. So they're probably about the same overall - my advice, use both
Rincewind Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 Yes I found my house. If you zoom right in you'll be able to see through my sky-light window which happens to be my bedroom. I'd better take those photos down.
Deathside Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 Well it's a public beta but the maps certainly need some improvement For Example: MS Live Local view of Singapore - This is the highest level of detail available and a lot is obscured by clouds: By contrast Google Earth has this view of my hotel (I added the red ring):
stez Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 Well it's a public beta but the maps certainly need some improvement By contrast Google Earth has this view of my hotel (I added the red ring): have you been in the pool yet? how long are you there for?
Nationwider Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 My house hasn't got a roof on it, and there are other houses missing! I just checked and our roof is there, so it must be a photo at least 7 years old. Good quality images from what I've seen, and its very quick to use.
hairy Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 My house hasn't got a roof on it, and there are other houses missing! I just checked and our roof is there, so it must be a photo at least 7 years old. Good quality images from what I've seen, and its very quick to use. Your lucky Nationwider my house isn't even on there! Must mean the picture of Great Glen is over 3 years old.
stez Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 Your lucky Nationwider my house isn't even on there! Must mean the picture of Great Glen is over 3 years old. the picture of where i live-slash-work looks like it was taken in the sixties. i know, because we have the exact same picture at work.
macbeth Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 the picture of where i live-slash-work looks like it was taken in the sixties. i know, because we have the exact same picture at work. strange because i was looking for my old flat building and its gone ; the building was only about 20 years old
samingram_uk Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 well the walkers and filbert steet is on there so must b bout 2001.
stez Posted 8 June 2006 Posted 8 June 2006 well the walkers and filbert steet is on there so must b bout 2001. all they've done is get images off people from whenever they were taken. i know my work one is from the 60's because we are currently renovating it from the state it was in in the 60's. there is also a tree, which died in the early 70's, in full leaf
Phube Posted 9 June 2006 Posted 9 June 2006 If you look at the split at the bottom of South Wigston you can see there are tw levels of detail. One for South Wigston, Leicester etc. And one for the Fieldy bit to Fleckney. The Highly detailed ones are about 4 years old, the less detailed ones are at least 7 years old!!
Daggers Posted 13 June 2006 Posted 13 June 2006 The coverage of detail seems to be greater than google mind you - I like
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.