Talk:Google Street View coverage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A few tourist actractions from China are already on Streetview

A few tourist actractions in Beijing are already viewed on streetview. such as [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiemydog1 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add "Italy" and the Italian flag to Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco

Please add the italian flag to Monte Bianco/Mont Blanc update no. 179 of thursday Jan. 21, 2016. The peak of the Monte Bianco marks exactly the border line between Italy and France, and as you can clearly see with Google Streetview in many point the panoramical view are located in Italian territory. Please correct the post, because it can be a very annoying issue with italian readers. Thanks very much! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.185.102 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If it's a very annoying issue for Italian readers, I think you can make an account and add information by yourself. It's not a big deal. Thanks. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To add the Italian flag, copy and paste this code. {{flag|Italy}} For other countries, just replace the "Italy" with another country name. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Street View for Mars

The 5 panoramas were made by Curiosity (rover) for Google. Pretty visible that are edited by the Google Team. see: [2] . Please do not delete my edit. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

- Well Curiosity is clearly visible on the background. However, I'd like an official source from google. As of now, Google Maps' blog doesn't state anything about street view on Mars. The two sources both take me to the Papua province of Indonesia. Juliussasar (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that static image proves that at all to be honest. I've just removed this pending confirmation from reliable sources - if/when Google does release street view imagery of Mars, it will be reported in the media. At present, it looks rather odd for these images to be appearing as a photosphere in one of the most remote places in the world (and not on Google Mars). Googling the topic doesn't provide any reliable sources, but does return some examples of home-made street view-type images: [3] Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coverage of Google Street View. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110308061212/http://www.googleartproject.com:80/c/faq to http://www.googleartproject.com/c/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

edit request

Feb 2016 for Uruguay. "Florida" wikification needs to be changed to "Florida Department" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.139.222 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

Please change this line, because it does not mention Italy in it, while Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco is in Italy as well, the borderline is set at the top of the mountain. As you can see in the map, the covered path does actually crosses the borders between Italy and France many times. The line to correct is:

| 179 || style="background:#f0f8ff;"| Thursday, January 21, 2016 || style="background:#fff;" | Mont Blanc in France

Just add the Italian flag and the name of the country, nothing more. Thank you! :)

Tommolo (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source provided (blogspot page) is not considered reliable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

On the Wikipedia Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco page, the issue of the property of the peak is discussed, check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc (see "ownersip of the Summit") . The controversial status, should suggest to add Italy as a co-owner of the Monte Bianco mountain, or at least to remove the french flag. On this article of the Indipendent, they talk about the issue of the franco/italian borders: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mont-blanc-controversy-french-suffer-a-fit-of-pique-as-italys-prime-minister-reclaims-europes-10351349.html . Wikipedia and the Indipendent are amongst the many reliable sources I can mention. As you can see, it's a very delicate question, but beside the ownership of the peak, the fact is that Monte Bianco/Mont Blanc is divided between Italy and France, and it should be mentioned. My suggestion is to keep a "both or none" approach, you can mention the controversial status or simply not mention any country. Borders are not made for mountains :) Best regards and thank you, sorry for bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.189.241 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As a further support, I can mention that in all wikipedia pages about Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco, the co-ownership of Italy and France is always mentioned, for instance check out the spanish page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc , the german page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc , the french page too declares the Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco is both french and italian, and both flags are well visible on the headline of the french wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.139.100 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Is there anybody out there? Can you please explain me why there's still no answer to my question? I'm not going to give up, Monte Bianco is Italy too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.255.251 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Added both icons and a disputed notice --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Senegal is missing

Senegal is listed on Google street view's site as being captured, but Senegal is not under the section future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Senegal has been photographed last year. It is missing due to the fact that now Google reports only where cars are really taking pictures. Since 2016 Google doesn't list countries where cars are not driving at the moment. The absence of Senegal from the Google's list doesn't mean Senegal will not have Street View (aside privacy and/or security concerns, about which I don't be aware of at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabri88 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Staszek Lem deletions

I reverted the deletions that Staszek Lem made. These were drastic and done without any apparent discussion, and I missed the content, so I reverted. MesoCS (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Per wikipedia policies, unreferenced information may be deleted at any time. The article is tagged since December. Please explain how exactly you can rely on the content one cannot verify. Please don't restore information without references. This is a violation of basic wikipedia policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to get all legalistic here. This table seems to be a summary of all the changes in the first part of the article - it is not really independent information, just a compilation of information from earlier in the article--though the date of the oldest imagery is trickier. I should add that I was thanked for reverting the change. I am going to revert again and remove the tags. What would be more constructive would be to try to supply references that you think are missing rather than just doing wholesale deletions. I just added one citation and found older imagery than was listed. I don't have time to work on this but at least I'm adding something.MesoCS (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to be legalistis. The tables contain lots of various information which is impossible to verify. I am giving you one week to fix it. After that everything unreferenced is gone. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like some other users to add their opinions on this issue. I think this threat to delete everything unreferenced in a week is uncalled for. If other users think Staszek Lem is justified, then fine. If not, then deletions should not be allowed. Also - I was interested in starting to add references, but I'm questioning whether it is worth the effort, since Staszek Lem is liable to delete anything not meeting with this person's approval, and I really don't have time to devote myself to chasing references. The only reason I care is that this page has a lot of useful information that I refer to frequently, and I want to keep this page as useful as possible. Staszek Lem - I invite you to be constructive and start looking up and adding references yourself. If you don't like unreferenced material, please find references, don't just go making threats and deleting things. As I said, I invite others to weigh in on this matter and I will respect the consensus.MesoCS (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is if I see you are working on it in good faith, then of course I will not delete stuff. Otherwise, if it will continue sitting unattended, I will resume deleting. It looks like you don't understand that wikipedia policy about verifiablity of information is non-negotiable regardless how many people chirp in against it. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

There has been updated imagery to selected areas in New Zealand, including large areas of the main city, Auckland. This occurred on 12th Feb 2016.

Jo chambers (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Update #184 (2016) Thursday Feb 25th, should also include Auckland, New Zealand: "Updated scenery for Auckland, New Zealand". These now including images dated from Nov. 2015, plus new areas of Auckland (Including Mt Victoria and North Head) that were previously missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.95.128 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, photosheres only and which continent

Puerto Rico is now listed as having landmark coverage. But it has only photosheres. A lot of countries have photosheres without being listed for having Streetview coverage. And Puerto Rico is not listed in Google Street View in North America or Google Street View in the United States. And furthermore there seems to be an edit war on which continent Puerto Rico belongs to. The first issue might solve thae last one.--BIL (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible update on this week

Google Street View may have new update this week. 179.223.41.172 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Locations that can be added

• Dakar and more locations, in Senegal
• More locations in Mongolia
• More locations in South Korea
• More locations in Argentina

Edit war

There is an edit war involving myself and Eugen Simion 14. We need a solution. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes: please stop edit warring. You will be blocked if this edit warring continues. Continuing to edit war while asking for "a solution" here is terrible behaviour. Regarding the stuff you're edit warring in, Scotland is not an independent country or separate territory. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Scotland IS a country, and is similar to, say Aruba, from the Netherlands. As Aruba is in this article, Scotland should be too. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is involved. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)