Google Earth!

<br>While the satellite imagery in the hinterlands on Google Earth originates from Landsat 7 (a government product), the actual image that Google is using is a product that has been mosaicked, color balanced, and enhanced by a third party. That company, along with all of the other commercial remote sensing image providers, have some fairly restrictive use licenses so I would expect that Google is going to have to cough up some money for this at some point...

I do not think that Google is using a product from a third party (unless you call the US government the third party). From my experience with WorldWind, it is clear that the photos are being stitched on demand. NASA is the source of the image engine on this baby, including the false 3D effect that is so useful whether viewed from directly overhead or at angles closer to typical land views.<br><br>WorldWind accesses multiple satellites (you choose what you want to view) with the best for non-urban areas being the USGS digital 1m ortho. For urban areas the USGS Urban can be chosen and is likely the same data that Mapquest used to offer for free and that Microsoft now charges for. The pseudo 3D effects are done by a processing of any of the chosen satellite images using radar mapping data on elevations, this includes even the photos of the Urban areas!<br><br>The image shown on the first post looks like the standard colored LandSat data which WorldWind accesses also. But the 1m ortho views, while colorless are so clear as to clearly show crevasses, roads and trails for most of the areas we frequent. In 3D, it is stunning.<br><br>It is interesting that for areas of NY state, WorldWind accesses an arial photo collection (Spy Plane?) that has a higher res than the Urban USGS. You can see kids playing on Jones Beach. Such data from England and now other countries may now also be available.<br><br>What is amazing is how the data is seamlessly (usually) stitched together on the fly, even when viewed at angles other than directly overhead. Also amazing is how once a view is chosen using one set of satellite data, that you can switch to another satellite and the view is recreated exactly in register to the view set.<br><br>Alan

Having spouted off about WorldWind and the Google Earth product (not having yet tested the Google product!), I finally downloaded Google. I really like that it didn't take an hour and a half to download, unlike the NASA program. Yet it has exactly the same system demands, go figure!<br><br>Very similar products. WW is less restrictive lots more features and potential future features, but google is more oriented towards non-techies, whether of the computer or outdoor types. Some of googles databases are more current, including urban Bellingham and oddly a small slice of Baker covering the Coleman glacier that is unbelievable! Why can't they cover all the Cascades like this? I say this because unfortunately, the sat data that Google Earth uses for most rural areas of the country seems to be landsat, which is far inferior to the 1m ortho that WW uses.<br><br>Google takes the same urban data (plus some updated scenes not found on WW) and renders the colors more vivid than WW does. On the other hand the resolution with WW is just a tad better. Same photos, wonder why that is? The colors and the details of the Coleman is just great. Frustrating to see the relatively lousy Land Sat res of the rest of Baker.<br><br>Google is a nice compliment to WW and offers stuff like directions and ammenities for the traveler. Great stuff.<br><br>I stick by my assertion that Google is not buying the info displayed, but assembling it just as WW does, using the radar topography database publicly available to render the 3D.<br><br>Also check our WW for the 1m ortho perspective. Maybe the pro version of Google Earth will give it to you, but WW is free. Hey if you paid taxes, you already bought it!<br><br>Alan