Talk:Google Street View

The Ukraine is in Street View

Just go to maps.google.com and look. Lviv and Odessa are all covered and maybe other cities also. Yet here it is in "rumored future" countries. This can be misleading. Someone who knows how to use these templates should change it

Future section

Is mention that in future will be added Chile and Argentina? In my opinion those sources are not credible. Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

longest update?

At 103 days without an update, is this te longest time we've gone without a new release, and are we ever gonna see Goggle release anything again? Nextbarker (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)nextbarker 106 days now.

I thnk the next one must be a big update or something. I guess there could be legal problems that are going on behind the scenes. If they were cancelling the service i'm sure they would have said. --ERAGON (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In November I think will be unveiled Germany. [1][2] - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New updates havn't happened because the remaining european countries to do are too strict with their privacy. Like even in the Czech Republic the Google ST cars were withdraw to stop any further mapping of the country. I was expecting Brazil to come out soon tbh :/ Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Street View in 3D

I have not seen any icon for Street View in 3-D lately. I think it has been removed. This removal may need to be included in this article. trainfan01 11:38, September 22, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.8.69 (talk)

3D Mode for Google Street View is still there. What you do is go into Street View and right-click anywhere then select "3D Mode On" 118.209.169.18 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Updates

So, eventually street view WILL release a new release, we don't know when but now we've hot 107 without an update, maybe they'll update by October. Nextbarker (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)nextbarker

Probably additonal of display user-submitted images in all locations around the world in blue spots is the end of the update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.123 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Update was added yesterday. Fortunately google hasn't given up google street view yet.

List of less google street view coverage villages/towns/cities in UK

I am now making a kmz file on the list of less google street view coverage villages/towns/cities in UK. It means the villages/cities/towns which has less than 50% in the coverage. Please post here if you find any less coverage's villages/cities/towns and the coordinates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.115.131 (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

First of all "you don't need references for something that has already been added" means absolutely nothing. If we follow that strange logic, I can now add that aliens are behind Google Street View and then because it has already been added no references are needed? Ridiculous.

Just to clarify: it's supposed to mean "you don't need references for something that has already been added on Street View" (i.e. you don't need to reference the fact that Mexico is available on Street View). Slasher-fun (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether those cities were added but the date on which they were added.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Now to this exact issue. I have found a reference that is from April, and we had an update in April, that says those cities were added back then. On top of that, official Google release on this update - you can find it here: Explore the world with Street View, now on all seven continents - has no mentioning of the Mexico update.

So with every right, I am asking for a valid external reference instead of an original research, to the claim that these cities from Mexico were added to Google Street View, now in September update. Not only that there is lack of reference to back up this claim, there is also counter reference that shows that this information, not only that it is unreferenced, it is also most probably completely wrong.

So I am asking you for the final time, do not remove maintenance templates, that is the rule violation. Find references or remove that information instead.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the previous dates then you can see they were not in the list, so they must have been in the September update --MSalmon (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"so they must have been" is original research, especially when we have an external source that says the opposite.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Right. You have The Wrong Version, and intentionally so. You need to sort this out here, on the talk page. You need to stop treating fellow editors as vandals and revert warring with the undo and rollback tools, start treating one another as grownups, and remember that a correct article is the goal here. Get your acts together, and sort this out. You have unsourced information that is contested for being inaccurate. 89.110.232.235 has cited a source that xe claims contradicts this unsourced information. The response to that is not edit warring and erroneous arguments that we can just overlook the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. (Verifiability is all about the ability to check the content of the article. Well someone has checked it, and is claiming that it turns out to be wrong.) The response is to look at the source, find better sources if necessary, and to make the article accurate as necessary. 89.110.232.235, you're not without fault here. You could have tried to put correct information into the article. Your task now is to work with other editors, here on this talk page, to determine what the correct content to put into the article is. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried to put the correct information into the article here, however as the other user insisted in keeping that content, so I added the refimprove and fact templates as that would give me the opportunity to remove the false content more easily if the other editor fails at providing a by the rules reference. But the only thing he did was removing the templates. Also I am not sure if the wrong version locking will really incite him into talking here as he is content with it and a quick look at all the blocks and warnings on his talk page, well I have some doubts over whether he is ever willing to talk so I would like to hear the strategy if he simply evades talking or tries to sabotage it? As for the topic itself, I've made my point on it earlier before, and now the only thing that I want to see is a reference, I am not interested in "it must be this way" talk and personal views without any proof as they fail pretty much every policy, most importantly WP:NOR and WP:V. Reference please, or the information really needs to go.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Come now! It should not have to be pointed out that in that that diff you did not add any content at all. Nor should it have to be pointed out that there is no single "him" opposing you. Please accord the other editors the good grace that you'd like them to accord to you. That way we might get somewhere. This is not about what is on people's talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There are two moments here. As for Mexico, the point is whether it should be in the article or not for the September 30 update. If I say that it is not supposed to be there, then what am I supposed to add? As for me not adding anything at all, that is where you are wrong because I have added content on this update before this Mexico thing, the content that I think is valid, based on Google release on this update, and those are Brazil, Ireland and Antarctica - [3] [4] [5] [6]--89.110.232.235 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from EstGun1, 7 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Add - In early october 2010, Google street view cars have been spotted in Estonian capital Tallinn. - to Europe list end. Also add Estonia to the Future chart.

link: http://rahvahaal.delfi.ee/news/uudised/foto-google-mapsi-pildistavad-autod-on-eestis.d?id=33690987

EstGun1 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. It also looks highly speculative. A reader sent in a picture of strange cars, and the article speculates that they may be Google cars, and Estonia may be being added to Google Street View. If there's consensus that an article like this is sufficient then re-ask, but I'm not doing it without a clear consensus. TFOWR 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You see I removed Serbia for an example, but someone put it back. The reference for Serbia says that some privacy commissioner said, when asked by journalists would a street view service be legal, he said yes, there are no legal obstacles. And someone added it as a future destination. Then you can add a list of UN members for all we know as Google plans to provide this worldwide, so why not list each and every country? Other places that are in the future section and that are not mentioned by Google at all are Argentina, Chile, Croatia and Latvia. Google says that this is the only official information on where they are driving or planning to drive - http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/maps/streetview/where-is-street-view.html

So for all we know, those cars could be in Estonia for repair because it's cheaper but then they are heading back to Finland. Or they are indeed there for the street view but we don't know that.

So I've made an edit that put those speculative places simply as

According to media, there are also plans to introduce Google Street View to Argentina, Chile, Croatia and Latvia.

So please restore that as someone removed it for no reason and added those places back to the official locations. And of course remove Serbia while you are at it as it's completely senseless to have it in the list of future locations just because street view would be legal over there.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Estonia

Please, add Estonia. [7]. 77.109.217.79 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See above, and note that you'll need to provide a reference from a reliable source. TFOWR 18:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not possible. I am DISGUSTED. Estonia should to be added at future places, as well as Mexico in September 30 update. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And it will be added, as soon as there's a source - a source that isn't based on speculation. TFOWR 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

77.109.217.79 gives a reliable source. If there's another source, it could be added only by an admin (1000 potential users). The protection should not keep. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Read 77.109's source again: the headline (translated) says "Google's camera cars will probably shortly be filming the streets of Tallinn." (my italics). The article continues in a similar vein: nothing is confirmed, it is still speculation. TFOWR 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Estonia source -[8] [9] - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the section above, and understand that I'm not going to edit the article until (a) there's a consensus for the change and (b) there are sources. The two links you've provided are just as speculative - and one is a blog. Find decent sources, get consensus, and use {{edit semi-protected}} to request the change. TFOWR 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR I appreciate your diligence but please read what I wrote above as it was basically an edit request. To sum it up here, you are not adding Estonia to the article (rightfully), however the same rumour referenced Argentina, Chile, Croatia and Latvia remain in the article as they are sourced with the same "Google might do our streets" speculations and even Serbia remains there which is sourced with the "The street view services are legal here" which someone thought was enough to add Serbia.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. The same applies, however: discuss here, get consensus, and use {{edit protected}}. The last part is important, as it'll make the request visible to every admin who checks the "edit protected category". TFOWR 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see anyone objecting to my comment so I suppose we have a consensus. It's not like this is the busiest talk page to expect a few pages of discussion or dozens of users showing up to sign their support for consensus. What else do you need, especially since Argentina, Chile, Croatia, Latvia and Serbia are to be removed from the list for the very same reason for which you are not adding Estonia.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'm not adding Estonia - or anything else, or removing anything for that matter - is because the article is fully protected to prevent edit-warring. Although I can technically edit the article, there are limits to when and how I'm allowed to edit the article. I can't, for example, take advantage of the protection to edit the article how I wish: I have to respect other editors.

I appreciate that this talkpage is fairly quiet - but that's all the more reason to wait and give other editors time to comment. My advice is to give it a few days more, then use {{edit protected}}. State clearly what changes you want made, and why. I missed your request above because it wasn't accompanied by {{edit protected}} and was buried within what looked like a reply to another editor. If you make a clear request in a couple of days, referring to this discussion, it'll be obvious to the admin who handles the request (admittedly, that's likely to be me... but it could potentially be someone else) that there's been sufficient time for other editors to object, they haven't, and that the lack of objections indicates consensus.

I apologise for "dragging my heels" over this, but the article was protected for edit warring and I don't intend to risk helping one side or other by rushing in to make an edit that may not have consensus. TFOWR 22:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} OK per discussion above here is the edit request. In the Future section remove Argentine, Chile, Croatia, Latvia and Serbia as they are only media speculations and add the following line below the table "According to media, there are also plans to introduce Google Street View to Argentina, Chile, Croatia and Latvia." Thank you.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done → here. TFOWR 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}

Thank you. You can add Estonia among those countries that media reports about but Google still doesn't officially acknowledge (Argentina, Chile, Croatia and Latvia). I forgot to add it to my edit request because I copied it from an edit before the information on Estonia became available. Thanks.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexico 2

Thanks, here is another one that we forgot about. It is a simple issue of consistency and contradiction.

{{edit protected}} Please remove Mexico from the initial infobox template where the most recent update is listed. It is listed as {{MEX}} under |latest release date = Mexico was removed from the September 30 update in the article in a previous edit request but due to an oversight it was left in the template on the right.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look that simple - remember, admins coming here won't necessarily know anything about the subject. From my perspective, I can see Mexican states listed on Google's coverage map, and that's the extent of my understanding ;-) I'll leave a few days to check there's consensus for the change. As far as I can tell the change requested is to remove Mexico from the infobox, under the "More locations added:" heading? TFOWR 19:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple issue of consistency with this edit that was made to the protected article after a user that added Mexico failed to provide any external sources to counter the external source that place that update to April not September 30 and the official press release that didn't mention Mexico at all. If you don't want to remove Mexico from the "More locations added:" in the infobox, then please add the template {{contradictory}} at the beginning of the article as the infobox now contradicts the article and possibly add template {{refimprove}} as there are no references to back up the claim that places the particular Mexico to September 30 (on contrary, there are references that place the update in April which was the reason for the edit to the protected article) except for a claim by a single user. So Mexico in the infobox is an oversight and my current edit request is technical in nature as we've been through this before for this edit so there is no need to go through it again just because an admin that made an edit forgot one part.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of not "wanting to remove Mexico", it's a question of getting it right. From your perspective, that means providing as much detail as possible so that an admin with absolutely no prior knowledge can fulfil the request, and waiting for clear consensus to make the change. From an admin's perspective, it means having as much detail as possible. I understand very little about this subject - it isn't an article I normally edit. Other admins responding to an {{editprotected}} tag are likely to know even less than me. No admin is going to jump in and change a fully protected article without evidence of consensus, and without fully understanding what needs to be changed and why. That's the price that has to get paid for an article being fully protected - it hinders all of us. I'm not making any change until there's evidence of consensus - whether that means other editors agreeing, or simply not saying anything. So at this point: no, I'm not going to add {{contradictory}}, and I'm not going to remove Mexico. I'm going to wait. In a few days, if no one's disagreed with your proposed change, make an {{editprotected}} request. TFOWR 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we are not understanding each other. This edit request is not new, it is just me asking for an admin to fix a small oversight to a previous edit by an admin, to which you were linked. You are asking for a consensus on the issue removing Mexico, which is wrong as that was all done previously before the admin made an edit and removed Mexico after he was satisfied with presented evidence. Asking for a consensus again on the whole issue to finish the edit that unintentionally left out one flag template is what I can't understand. Unless you are trying to cast some doubt over the decision of a fellow admin from the other day, I don't see why would you seek for the consensus on the issue to be reexamined in the middle of a technical edit request to fix a small oversight. And it is contradictory, because now when someone reads the template he thinks that Mexico got an update on September 30 but when he reads the article he can't find any mention of this in the appropriate place. If I made this edit, I would actually tick the minor edit box, because that is what it is, a technical edit of removing one flag template left unintentionally in the article. And for whatever reason you are turning this into a content issue, an issue that was resolved a few days ago when the admin decided to make that requested edit.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, we aren't understanding each other. I'm asking for evidence of consensus. Above, you've shown two diffs: this one and this one. All they show is that this should be discussed on the talkpage. I am not trying to cast doubt on the decision of another admin, I am asking for evidence of consensus that the change you are proposing is OK. You say it's minor: I have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't - all I know is that there was edit warring, and the article was fully protected. For all I know you were one of the parties in the edit war. You need to understand that editing a fully protected page is not as minor as you think it is: I need to be extremely careful that the edit you're requesting has consensus. If you don't like that - tough. Incidentally, if a previous admin made an small oversight, why didn't you raise the issue with them? Presumably they'd be more familiar with the edit they made than an admin who hadn't made the edit? TFOWR 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did raise the issue immediately but the other admin never replied. And even if I didn't it wouldn't be an excuse to keep the article like that forever. I explained why it is a minor edit in detail and all you are trying to do is exclude yourself from reality by seeking a consensus on a technical edit. Basically you are not requesting a consensus here, but reestablishing of the consensus that already exists, as the admin didn't make that edit out of the blue but based on consensus and evidence provided. You can't solve a problem if you exclude yourself from the reality like that, pretending that you are completely clueless and that we need to establish a consensus each time, for an example if you now make this edit but forget a bracket {, per what you've said so far, I expect that you would ask me to establish a consensus that this bracket should be removed but if we have consensus to remove what is inside brackets, it is only natural that brackets should be removed too as they are connected. What is the point of leaving a bracket in that case? You are making this look like a request to remove Mexico while it's not, that was all done before, Mexico was removed by an admin and that is your proof of consensus (unless you are saying that the admin that made that edit acted against consensus), and all I am asking for is to finish it, the decision was made to remove Mexico and it was done but one flag template was left standing in the article, for the love of God there is nothing more to it. I think the problem is that you are not even looking at what I show you, that is why you think those are two different edits that I've given diffs for, but it is the only one edit, only that I mentioned it twice. If you took a slightly closer look, as the issue is so simple anything more than a slightly closer look doesn't even exist here, you would see that the thing I am asking for is finishing the edit by fixing an oversight.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"all you are trying to do is exclude yourself from reality by seeking a consensus on a technical edit" - no. I'm trying to impress upon you that any change to a fully protected article is a major edit, and not one to be taken lightly. If you want further edits to be made you have to be more cooperative - provide full details for the benefit of an admin who may well have no background with the article. I've explained above what I expect in the way of consensus - no objections from other editors is fine, but it does mean waiting to give other editors a chance to object: I'm not going to jump every time you snap your fingers. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I have been looking at what little information you provide - I apologise for not realising that two diffs were identical. What you need to realise is that this article was protected due to edit warring: the admin who protected it did not do what you claim ("Mexico was removed by an admin and that is your proof of consensus") - they removed disputed text in its entirety. That's sufficient reason for me to be extremely cautious about edit requests here - over and above the fact that the article is fully protected. As you a participant in the edit war that led to this article being protected, the onus is very much on you to demonstrate clearly (a) what needs to be changed, and (b) that there is consensus to do so. Smart-arsed comments about volunteers "trying to do is exclude [themselves] from reality" achieve neither. TFOWR 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tentatively suggest that if there is no opposition then this edit can be made. If there is opposition subequently it can always be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Still no opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm inclined to agree. I'm still concerned about the IP editor's attitude, as I've now discovered they were part of the problem that led to this article being protected. I'm also struggling with what Google say and what the ediotr says, but hopefully the editor now understands the need for clarity. TFOWR 13:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please try not to generalize? I was not part of the problem as you say just because I was having a zero policy tolerance on arbitrary removal of maintenance templates and adding information without any sources at all. I was doing an admins work when someone kept inserting some information based on "I say so" and consistently declined to provide sources. If you took a closer look you would have found that all out but let me now go into details since that seems necessary.

To put it in a subject that you do know, imagine the creation of the United States Declaration of Independence article. Some user comes in and puts that it was made on January 20. I make an edit and give a source, a reliable external verifiable source that says that it was made on July 4 and I also supply a source that implies that it couldn't have been made in January as it was written in June. The other editor comes in and reverts but doesn't give a counter source, just claims that "this is correct". I say "OK if that is correct, please add references" and I do not revert but just add {{fact}} template next to January 20. He reverts that too, and says nothing. Who is creating the problem?

Here we had the same situation. I updated the article with the information supplied by Google on what was updated on September 30. The other user added a few cities from Mexico as part of a September 30 update. I removed it and gave a source from Mexican news, that places that update to April update (which officially contained Mexico). So not only that Mexico was not in the list provided by Google press release, those cities were featured in media news from April as an April addition to the Google Street View service. He reverted my edit without providing any source for that. I said "OK if that is correct, please add references" and I did not revert but just added {{fact}} template next to Mexico. He removed the citation needed template and gave no source or reason. Who is creating the problem?

Just before you exclude yourself from reality and tell me that we should have talked (with a user whose talk page is consisted of pretty much only warnings and previous blocks for such behavior) may I say that first of all it is not my job to warn users not to remove maintenance templates yet I did it and now I am suddenly part of the problem just because I am not kind to people who violate rules. And that is not my view, removing maintenance templates is rule breaking, there is an official warning template for that.

So there you go, you complained that I didn't give detailed information and now I have. I just hope that you will read it all.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Read it all, and this article is now off my watchlist. TFOWR 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I hope the misunderstanding is now gone. Please add Estonia as per above request. And don't take it off your watchlist, in couple of days the new update will be made so some edits will be requiered.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

India?

[10] Not sure if this is a reliable source though, and it is more than a year old. Kanzler31 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another link but too far to be official - [11] - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

They saw a van with cameras and immediately wrote that it is Google. Pure speculation IMO.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

sources

Where are the night images of Taipei? I would like some sources please. 124.184.106.165 (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATED ANIMATIONS

There is a update to the way Google Street view advances to the next image when you click on the arrow. It seems to be a little bit smoother and now blends in the next image as part of the animation rather than stretching the original image and then revealing the next image. Could a mod please add this to the "Development" section? Thanks, also if a mod has a problem with Google then please leave it to a mod that doesn't have a problem. That way we won't have any bias when writing the new development in the article, Thanks very much !! 118.209.169.244 (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• And apart from your claim is there an external source to verify this?--89.110.232.235 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • LOL are you thick? .. just go to Google Maps and see for yourself if that isn't a "external source" then I don't know what is. Maybe you should get out more whoever you are and see how the world really works. 118.209.169.244 (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • 89.110.232.235 THE source-MAN - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Due to this IP the article is blocked right now. Sigh :( - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No. It is due to you as well that the article is protected. You were supposed to sort out the issue that you were edit warring over, here on this talk page. But your only contributions to discussion so far have been unproductive, at best, Eugen Simion. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research please. There you will find out what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as a source (per Wikipedia rules not per me). There you will find out that next to each thing you add to Wikipedia you are supposed to add a reference within <ref></ref>. I don't see anything of that sort here. --89.110.232.235 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chris the speller, 20 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Change "developping" to "developing".

Chris the speller (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Uncle G. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Key needed for the map of American states

A key needs to be added to the map of American states under the 'Areas included' section. Without a key, the colour coding of states on the map is pointless. I have no idea what the colour coding on the map is meant to represent and I'm sure that a number of other readers would not understand the map either. You'd never see a map published without a key, or at the very least, a textual description of what it is representing.

It's still there without a key, or at least a brief description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.13.66 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to make an edit request for it otherwise it won't be done --MSalmon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - removal of full protection

Does anyone else believe full protection should be removed? This article has been fully protected for more than 2 weeks now. This was supposedly the result of edit warring between two registered users and one IP, altogether a very small group. Most others have made only good-faith edits.

Protecting this article is more harm than good, and altogether is not productive. This is an article that needs frequent updates, and protecting it makes it harder to update it as needed. A better solution to the edit warring is to deal with those engaging in that activity, not the article. Sebwite (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however, someone needs to step in and explain how sources work on Wikipedia otherwise it will get locked again or will descend into a poor article where those who ask for references will be mocked ("THE source-MAN"; ''"LOL are you thick?") and the no original research policy will become original research policy where seeing for yourself will be enough to include anything ("just go to Google Maps and see for yourself if that isn't a "external source" then I don't know what is"). All of these quotes come from this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google_Street_View#UPDATED_ANIMATIONS

It shows a total lack of understanding for how Wikipedia sourcing policy works and for as long as an admin doesn't step in and gives a clear explanation of the rules for sourcing, the article will stay locked. What is also needed is a clear explanation of what happens to those who insist on adding unreferenced original research and to those who remove maintenance templates as the dispute over the removal of maintenance templates is what got the article locked, not the content dispute itself. For as long as it's not pointed out clearly and directly these users will continue to believe that sources are not needed, and this will be the problem not in this article but in any article they edit.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude you opened yourself up to being mocked by saying stupid things. Do you really think someone would sit down and write a document on a minor change to web-based software? "OMGZ GOOGLE TWEAKS STREET VIEW ANIMATIONS" is not a very newsworthy headline is it ?? Go and untether yourself from your computer chair and get a life. 118.209.169.244 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If we find a source must find another source for sourcing first source. Or what. Big LOL, IP 89.110.232.235. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments above are all very nice, but remember, what we are suppose to discuss here is whether or not to remove full protection from this article. IPs are welcome to comment too. Short, simple explanations, preferably starting with "support," "oppose," or similar, make it easier to understand. Sebwite (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, what you are supposed to be discussing here is the issue that caused the edit war in the first place. I've told you once. I tell you again. Stop timewasting with these repeated unprotection discussions, and put your effort into fixing the actual problem. There's a discussion of the dispute on this talk page. Participate in it. Eugen Simion 14's discussion participation there is less than impressive. But you have not even attempted to partipate at all. You still have zero participation in the dispute at hand. Currently, the editors with accounts, such as you, Eugen Simion 14, and Msalmon, are being badly shown up by the editor without an account, 89.110.232.235. Xe's attempted to have a talk page discussion of the issue that was edit warred over. None of you have. Stop timewasting and get the issue sorted out. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is whether sources should be added or not to back up the claims of users. These users believe they should not be added. It seems that Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR are too long for them so here is a video.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

Core Wikipedia rules

WP:POINT edit request:

Please add to this article that Google has published new images for London on October 1, 2010. I saw it, they are new, brand new. I am telling you, before October 1 they were different. Please trust me.

I hope this explains to you why sources are needed or otherwise anyone could come up with any claim. And this is not a problem of this article, who knows what Eugen Simion 14 is adding all over Wikipedia with this attitude.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute solution

Hello, I think this issue seems a bit stuck and unresolved, perhaps if you will allow me, I will look for a solution with involved users, we should really sort it and get the article unlocked, so ...

• - What is the ongoing issues, sourcing? Please if you have a problem about content, spell it out nice and simply for me. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tap, tap , tap .....well? Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1 - according to Wikipedia rules, should sources be added to the articles or not?
• 2 - per Wikipedia rules in general, is a simple claim by any user considered a valid source? Are user claims considered good enough to add dubious and unverifiable information to the article?
• 3 - if I find content without a reference is it a right thing to add template {{fact}} next to it if I consider the information dubious? Can this template be removed by a third party without providing any reference instead?--89.110.232.235 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• - reply

• 1 - If some content is disputed and is not covered and supported at least somewhere in the article then Yes.

• 2 - The claims of a user are not reliable at all.

• 3 - If a user finds uncited content and adds a citation required template in good faith the template should not be removed without either adding a cite that supports the content or discussion on the talkpage, where the person that has added the template either accepts the template is not required or the discussion and clear consensus in the discussion asserts that the content is somehow cited elsewhere in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this page with interest for a while and unfortunately think this kind of dispute will be inevitable, because there is no way of even knowing from 'original research' when imagery was added or changed (except in a minority of higher profile examples where google has put out official announcements), let alone finding a source. I guess a good chunk of the development section is impossible to justify which is a shame because it is potentially worthwhile information.

As an example I'm pretty sure the sentence "On September 30, 2010, most of Alaska was replaced with high-resolution imagery" is incorrect - from memory only Anchorage and Fairbanks ever had low-res imagery, but there will be no record of this one way or the other except in google's internal systems perhaps. 81.104.173.21 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why resolution of one images worse than the resolution of other ones?

I compared resolution of some images and found that some images are much worse than others. For example downtowns of San Francisco and Chicago have much better resolution than downtown Branson, Missouri for example (36°38'31.22"N 93°15'20.32"W) and some other more rural areas, like downtown Nevada, MO for example. Is this maybe because the earlier technology didn't allow higher resolution? Or because Google treats rural areas as less important? Or because of some privacy concerns because in rural areas houses maybe are much closer to the roads and have more visible details? Article only mentions that on June 10, 2008 Google lowered resolution of all photos which doesn't really explain the difference. Is anything known about this? Yurivict (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is simply due to different generations of camera in use (see 'Cameras' section further down the article). The limited high res areas in the USA are mostly where previous low res imagery has been replaced, which is generally in bigger cities. It's unclear whether there are plans to upgrade the whole country (or Australia, NZ, Japan which are also earlier generation cameras). One clear difference is that low res images can only be zoomed to 2 layers (which is a bit pointless), high res to 3.

The paragraph re. June 10, 2008 is dubious - it is true that there were some earlier better images of SF but these were taken with a black van rather than a car, and presumably for whatever reason were later replaced with standard car camera generation 1 images. I don't think there's any evidence that face blurring ever actually lowered the resolution. 81.104.173.21 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Map marks some areas as covered when they are not

I noticed that islands of Kauaii and Molokai on Hawaii aren't actually covered, but marked as such. Is it known if they are at least planned? Yurivict (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is it marked that they are covered, in the article or on Google Maps itself ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.3.187 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

World coverage map in the article shows that Hawaii is covered, every Hawaiian island there is marked. Yurivict (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That map is to show which countries have Street View coverage not specific areas. 118.209.3.187 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that it is a tad misleading. It makes it look as though there is coverage all through the northern territories of canada and the amazon rainforest, where there evidently isnt. Might it be an idea to put in a map with smaller divisons, splitting up the larger countries by region?--ERAGON (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the most practicle way to display the data, hilighting every single place with street view is too tedeous (especially since it updates so often). Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Australia HD Update - When it happens

As we all know Australia is one of the places with a pretty dense street view coverage so we are safe to say that it is covered. But when the Australia HD update comes out (which I hope will be in the next 2 weeks, but that's just speculation) how should we handle it, should we just bold the areas in the "Areas Included" section and leave it at that or do we treat it as a new update because it will be a very significant update ??

This is of course assuming Google rolls it out all in one go and not separate sections of Australia. 118.209.3.187 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This might not happen so soon - http://www.cio.com.au/article/366213/google_street_view_cars_no_longer_operation_australia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.232.235 (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's very disappointing 118.209.3.187 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Germany (November 2 update)

There is no street view for the Brandenburg Gate, but there is for the Bundestag. Correct list available here - http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2010/11/street-view-germany-part-2.html Settler14 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg

If you want this list to be exhaustive, there should be a listing added for Luxembourg as a few very small border areas have been imaged. If you check out the Street View images, you'll see the cameras clearly crossed the border because the address indicator shows Luxembourg, although it doesn't appear the cameras went any further than maybe half a block into the country. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Terschelling (later cancelled)"

Why the cancellation? It should at least be explained in a footnote, if not in the main text. 86.130.99.187 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Because there was $@&# all to see in Terschelling. Only a couple of dirt roads with dense trees, almost exactly the same as other parts of The Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.65.91 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I did "visit" Terschelling on Street View, and it was quite poorly done, the roads were only half complete, and they were in an imcomplete fashion, one would get 20m, then 50m later the road would start again, then another 4m, it would stop again? Maybe it was because it was done poorley? Maybe it was an accident? Maybe it was like Germany and the Island compaigned to remove it for privacy reasons? I don't personally know. And haha the comment above it sooo intelligently thought out -.- Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No one lives in Terchelling though I don't think. Maybe a grumpy old man who whinged enough for it to be removed and yeah it was poorly done. 118.209.65.91 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

German debate on Street View

Hi! I am rather astonished not to read anything (not even a little bit) in the Google Street View article about its heavily debated introduction in Germany as well as Google's special measures to pour oil on troubled water, meaning the blurring (Verpixelung) of houses of residents that demanded a certain privacy for their facade. This led to the nickname of Blurmany. By the way, it also led to a counter movement of Panoramio disciples, which took up the cause of "deblur" the blurred houses by taking pictures of those and putting them on Panoramio. This whole story should not be unmentioned! -- Clearmaker (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany: Only Berlin, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Bremen, Dortmund, Dresden, Duisburg, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg, Hannover, Cologne, Leipzig, Mannheim, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Wuppertal.

On 10 April 2011, Google announced that no plans existed to expand the area covered by Street View in Germany. Also, an update of the existing recordings was not planned.

--Dr. Markus Vogel (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Art Project"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could we please remove the "Art Project" from the list of updates? This article is about Google Street View and yes it uses Street View technology but its doesn't come under the context of viewing public roads through Street View which is what this article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.65.91 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No we can't remove the Art project. The "walk-through" feature of the project uses Google's Street View technology. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it uses Street View technology but it isn't actually "Street View" per say. 118.209.65.91 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

you surely meant per se, didn't you, 118.209.65.91? -- Clearmaker (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, duh!!118.209.65.91 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears on the street view maps, therefore it IS street view.

I can't see "streets" on it, therefore it ISN'T street view. 118.209.65.91 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Street View is a technology - right there in the opening sentence, so Art Project stays. Case closed.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australia Imagery

Australia has street view now in lots of places.I think the article should be updated to show this. For proof you can go to http://gmaps-samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/streetview_landing/streetview-map.html or just check it out in google maps. Some areas don't have it, some just have pictures,and some have actual street level viewing.--Nyswimmer (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a newly update?? The last was in 2008. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you search at http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/search/label/imagery almost every single update since March 30,2010 has had updated imagery from Australia.--Nyswimmer (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This blog is about Google Earth, not Google Street View. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, but it is the official blog from Google, and it posts all the imagery updates and where the updated imagery was from.--Nyswimmer (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Should collapsed introductions by date table remain in article?

Within the past week, I broke down this article into several smaller articles because it had grown to be more than 160K, and it was taking a long time to load on even fast computers, and wasn't loading at all on some older slow computers. I felt doing something about this was long overdue. Given AfDs formed over other splits, I decided to best way to split now was on geography. Each new geographic-based article lists the introductions by date and areas included for that region.

When all was said and done, this article was down to around 50K, and it loaded easily on fast and slow computers alike.

I realized that the introductions by date chart has an important history, so to preserve it, I placed it here. I left a note in hidden text so others could find it.

Soon after, an IP added it back.

My question is, should it remain in this article? The split-off articles contain the parts of this information pertinent to the respective regions. I did provide a link to the chart for anyone who wants to see it. If it were added back to this article, it would nearly double the size to around 100K, making it slower to load. What to others think? Sebwite (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were some sort of historical information that is no longer needed I would support this, however Google Street View is an active service and it will keep on expanding and what are we supposed to do in the future, edit the subpage in talk? To whom does it serve any purpose by being in the talk subpage? You could have created a subarticle called Google Street View development timeline with that content and that would have made some sense but this doesn't make any at all, it's just an abrupt removal of valid content. I will return the content until and if consensus changes but I would suggest that you try to seek a compromise and ask for the subarticle rather than total removal of content as that will hardly get any support from regular editors. This information indeed has been the integral part of the article ever since it was made and it was the most heavily edited section so a simple removal indeed violates consensus.--Avala (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I like your Google Street View development timeline idea. Whether that be the exact title or something else can be discussed. Sebwite (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I just created it as History of Google Street View. Anyone can discuss how you like that idea either here or there. Sebwite (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

History suggests that it's something from the sealed past but it's not. I will rename it and give it a more prominent link space.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wish Google would release a proper Street View update.

As the title says I wish Google would release a proper Street View update. All the landmarks are getting a bit old.

I think that should be included in the article. 118.209.246.196 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, since that's just your personal opinion. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh is it? Thanks for telling me 118.209.65.75 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What do the "data collectors" earn?

Anyone know what they earn?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.197 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the country of which they are collecting. I know the Brazilian ones earned the equivilent of 40 - 50 USD a day while a collector in Europe typically earns around 25 - 30 USD an hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.66.139 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New blue thing.

Does the new blue thing warrant an update to the article? 118.209.66.139 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What new blue thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

They changed the shade of blue that indicates where coverage exists when you drag the pegman onto an area of coverage. Zoom out to see the entire world and drag and hold the pegman to see what I mean. 118.209.66.139 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See the difference between Google Maps and Google Map Maker. On Google Map Maker they keep the old layout - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Streetview 1st Gen-1-.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Streetview 1st Gen-1-.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Streetview 2 Gen.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Streetview 2 Gen.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Streetview 3.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Streetview 3.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New Update in Australia?

According to this link. - 2:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.15.89 (talk)

It has been added --MSalmon (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Bans" section

Is the "Bans" section really needed? The bans are already mentioned in the Google Street View privacy concerns article. I prefer keeping the section and either removing its content and link it to the privacy concerns article, or otherwise noting the current bans in this article. HeyMid (contribs) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

street view in NJ

Is street view done with going through NJ they haven't taken there car through NJ in over a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.56.118 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to create separate article for Google Street View competitors

As I believe much can be written in the "Competing products" section of the article, I think it would be a great idea to create a separate article about Google Street View competition. Also, alot of competing products/services seem to have been started as a result of Google Street View. I would suggest creating it under the article title Google Street View competition. Any thoughts? HeyMid (contribs) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I will support this. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did it. Sebwite (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Street view cars in Street View itself

Somewhere in the article it should be noted that it's rather common to see Google Street View cars in the images themselves, due to two (sometimes three) vehicles riding in convoy (or alternately being reflected in building windows). Does anyone know why some routes use more than one vehicle? Does Google take multiple shots on a route and then pick the best images? I used to only see multiple cars on remote routes (like some of the Yukon and Alaska routes, for example) but I've since seen them in urban areas, too. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Belgium missing on Google Street View's Future Template

I know Google has yet to release Street View for Belgians, but the country appears to be missing from the Street View's Future Template. Any explanations? Stewdio333 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this count as a new Google Street View Update?

Does the recent "Business View" count as a Google Street View Update? (Sorry for lack of refrence, for some reason, Wikipedia isn't letting me put it down, and the CAPTCHA or whatever isn't appearing. You can just type in "Google Street View" into Google News, and you'll see.) Stewdio333 (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: If anybody is reading this, apparently, according to the only person to sort of respond in any way, the "Business View" is not considered a part of Google Street View, despite using the engine. Thanks. Stewdio333 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it the most recent update in the bar to the left of the page? I have no opinion, but we need consistency... LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And now another note, apparently, there has been yet another Google Street View Update lately (on the 3rd of November if I'm correct), this one centered around parks. Shall I (or anyone else) update the Wikipedia article to current information? Stewdio333 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Various proposed additions.

Hi all,

- I think Google Street View as a whole is unappreciated by the general community. I think they feel that some nasty big corporation is "spying" on them and fail to understand the usefulness/significance of Google Street View. They also don't understand any historical significance to Google Street View, can you imagine looking at all the Google Street View imagery 70 years from now? I think somehow, this fact should be integrated into the article.

- It seems that nearly all of Florida, United States has been updated with HD imagery. Maybe point out that Florida has had the most HD imagery in the continental United States.

- Could we also say in the article that you don't need Adobe Flash anymore to view Google Street View using the new WebGL powered Google Maps. It also has updated "fly in" animations that are really well done.

118.209.220.239 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 118.209.220.239 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

SVG Map Columbia

The SVG map needs to be updated if Columbia is an official future Street View destination. Id do it but Im too lazy so I'll let you 1337 wikipedians do it.

Check if other countries need to be added as well. 118.209.32.209 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 118.209.32.209 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany: Only Berlin, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Bremen, Dortmund, Dresden, Duisburg, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg, Hannover, Cologne, Leipzig, Mannheim, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Wuppertal.

On 10 April 2011, Google announced that no plans existed to expand the area covered by Street View in Germany. Also, an update of the existing recordings was not planned.

--Dr. Markus Vogel (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Next Update.

So ... where do people speculate will be the next update? I'm thinking the rest of Portugal and the Azores.

118.209.46.154 (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right...Portugal and maybe Luxembourg. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a little impatient for the next update, hurry up Google ;) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.1.129 (talk)

Where is the latest HD Update for the United States ? 118.209.124.239 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably exist but is to hard to find because US is great. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But surely someone must know if they added it to the article. 118.209.8.230 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

World Map - Chile As Available??

Why does the world map donate Chile in a dark blue colour, so as to denote that it has Street View coverage? It doesn't have Street View coverage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrychown1989 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have it, the thumbnail just hasn't updated. --MSalmon (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

World map - Needs to be updated!

The world map is now out of date. Thailand now has street view coverage. Many countries for example Israel or India now have museum view but don't say so. I would update it myself if I knew how, but I don't, so it would be good if a more experienced user updated it. (91.20.70.132 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)) (91.20.70.132 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.20.70.132 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian Images

The article states that 'in October 2010, Google Street View ceased operations in Australia, so the new images were never released'. This can't be correct, can it? The HD release of Australian images in 2011 contained a lot of images dated well before October 2010, some presumably taken while they were gathering the WiFi data they got into trouble for. They were required to delete the WiFi data apparently, but not the images themselves. Unless I'm overlooking something technical and there are objections I think we need to correct the statement: 'the new images were never released'. Welham66 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Palestine?

Is there a image available on Google Street View for Palestine? I can t found a link that demonstrate this. On Google Maps, the border between Israel and West Bank (Palestine) is not so accurate. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)