Talk:List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data

Radical revision and/or deletion

This whole page is absurd and should be radically changed or deleted , imo. "Satellite map images with missing or unclear data "??? So this page is a list of every satellite map with unclear data on it? It obviously isnt, and can't be, yet even if it was, where would be the wiki value in such a list?

As far as the spectre of 'government censorship' that obvious magnet to irrelevant conspiracy theorists and armchair wannabe spies, most of the listings on this page are not censored and never have been. Every inch of google maps with a blur or a cloud in it that someone thinks is sooper top secret is going to be a candidate for this list. (like the supposed home of actor William Hurt)

If theres no point (or possibility of) listing every temporarily incomplete satellite image, something which NASA and ESA would be obviously better at doing than a bunch of kids scanning google earth, and the truth is that very few of the aforementioned incomplete images are actually examples of censorship, than what is the point of this page?

When it was just a list of places that were obviously censored in Google Maps, it at least had a clear purpose and focus and then we could concentrate on keeping the list accurate. Now its way too ambiguous to be worth the effort.

 Trefalcon (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Personal_Attacks before you spout more bullshit. Unfortunately your "opinion" doesn't mean shit. Do you have any logical reason why this page should be deleted? This page exists to publicly categorize images that have been blurred from public satellite imagery. Can you provide any evidence for the statement that "very few of the aforementioned incomplete images are actually examples of censorship"? No you can't, that's why this article doesn't make any explicit claims that they are or aren't, since you can't prove intent either way. 68.45.183.30 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point here was missed, this is supposed to be a collection of intentionally obscured sattelite images not of unclear images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.131.52 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

Not all images are from satellites. some imagery comes from aerial photographs, but the two are conflated. it should be retitled to "map images with missing or unclear data" wikiwhereto 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could add a high level description of what has been blurred.

Not to criticise eloquence, but List of places blurred out?? Is Censorship by/of Google Maps too extreme? Then you could merge the article with more general censorship / access restrictions. ...Besides, at least two of the incidents aren't actually *blurring*. taliswolf 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the name isn't perfect. But, it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... so feel free to fix the name, "blurred" is first thing that crossed my mind. --83.131.167.166 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which they blocked, it could be militairy airport Volkel or our nuclear powerplants. I think the former, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps this article should describe the blurs in Google Maps and why they exist, censorship, lack of data, etc.

I think the old name "List of places blurred out on Google Maps" was much better, because not all locations are necessarily censorship -- they can be simply erronous data. -Philwiki 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there are citations that show these are censored, the new title implies original research. —Ben FrantzDale 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now that from the topic is "Google Maps" removed, how about blurring out and witholding satellite photos in other map services than Google Maps? I have one example in my mind from Sweden (Eniro.se) vs. Google Maps. This imho would be great addition! http://www.ogleearth.com/2006/04/sweden_plays_hi.html

Additions

Notes on the format:

1)Additions should ideally include a wikilink to what is actually blurred out (see the last two in US ) - Francis Tyers · 12:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've added the Virtual Earth view on a couple of these for the purpose of comparing. This allows us to see if it is in fact an irregularity in Google Maps.--Dwaymire 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• FYI - The location in Russia cannot be viewed with Microsoft Live Maps. There seems to be a "dividing line" on Live Maps which covers this area.

List of recommendations:

1) I've found a blurred location that does not seem to be listed, could someone please identify it and add it? It is near Hawthorne, NY. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hawthorne,+ny&ie=UTF8&ll=41.087098,-73.80641&spn=0.003372,0.005504&t=k&z=17&om=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.211.2 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2) I see a Plano IL. No mention of the secure site near Plano TX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.129.186 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I found one in Upstate NY (Adirondacks) at 44.296156, -74.092119. I just don't know what it is to add it to the list. I didn't think there was anything important up there. Ghostalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

3) There's another blurred out part in Vlissingen (The Netherlands). It's an ammo depot next to Fort Rammekens. It's located at 51.455591, 3.649135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.82.176 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

4) Scott Base in Antarctia is obscured according to the google maps location of the base, the wikipedia article does not have any gps coordinates to check this.

Deletions

Why the submarine base in UK was deleted??

comment on edit was: "removed entry as it is not actually censored, just happens to sit on the edge of high-res footage." 217.227.44.62 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is censored. It is Faslane sub base, and the white fluffy things strategically place over the dockside are not clouds. 199.43.13.101 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. Look at the same join further down on the other side of the loch, the road has the same type/colour distortion. The distortion also matches up with the location of the dock concrete/large white building in the aerial picture on the Faslane entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMNB_Clyde.jpg). It's not censorship, it's just an unfortunately placed join. 81.171.197.237 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this. I'm going to delete again. Rawling4851 10:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Westchester County Airport, White Plains, New York

This place is not blurred any more. I can see it just fine. -- 65.67.98.193 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoom in close and then you can see the difference jak 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramstein Air Base, Germany

... does not seem to be blurred (any more), does it? http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&ie=UTF8&ll=49.43925,7.599277&spn=0.018864,0.03974&z=15&om=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.126.15 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain, Castell de Montjuïc

Hello, the one Spanish listing, the Castell de Montjuïc, isn't censored anymore (if it ever was, can't imagine why it would be). I'll remove it if noone has any objections. Trefalcon (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S.A., Dutch Island, RI

Dutch Island is visible in google maps, it doesn't appear that it was ever censored. --66.30.179.86 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Isn't this original research?

I'm a little puzzled about this list. How is this not original research? I'm not against the idea of this list; I just want to be certain that this list is the product of applying an objective & uncontroversial set of criteria, because it would probably take only one edit war for this to be drop-kicked into the shredder at AfD. -- llywrch 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This list seems to be original research. Do any WP:RS comment on satellite map images with missing or unclear data? There has to be a conspiracy book or two on the subject which can be used for the article. -- Jreferee 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Did you see the sources at the beginning of the article. 2) This article has now had three separate titles. This latest one does not mention in its title anything about the missing data being purposely removed. If you read the rename section below this was more originally focused towards images that were intentionally blurred, censored, modified or otherwise distorted. Some users (to be honest, and this isn't mean to say anything negative, but it was only one editor) said that this was POV and the title was taken into question. Even tho several sources mentioned google maps being censored -- none had a direct quote saying such, only offhand remarks about how they censor not a flat out quote... thusly the name change and what we have currently. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Laos

I'm looking at the laos-thailand border, and I can't see a difference. Why is one listed and the other not? Novalis 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was bogus. I removed it. It's just a lot of low resolution maps. See [1] for the edge of the high-resolution map that fades, then goes to "no information at this zoom level".—Ben FrantzDale 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The page should include some example places. That might quell the objection to this page. The blurred-out places are clearly blurred, not just low-resolution pictures.—Ben FrantzDale 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Skywalker Ranch

I checked today using google earth, it looks like a bunch of buildings with something of a sandstorm over them, terrible quality. Google maps has a way better version though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Cleanup

I've never really assembled a list in Wikipedia. But it's obvious we need some sort of common format for entries. Some have a link that's LAT and LONG, some just have a normal link, some have a link what a description. It's pretty much a mess. Would like some input on how it should be formatted, or I'll just pick a format and clean things up myself. I was thinking of adopting the definition list format which would create entries like this:

*; [http://maps.google.com/maps?z=16&ll=37.979775,-84.418881&t=k 37°58'47.1901" 84°25'7.9716"] : Southeast of Lexington, Kentucky

where we have *; [link lat and long in DMS format] : What's there

which would look like:

• 37°58'47.1901" 84°25'7.9716"

  Southeast of Lexington, Kentucky

For reference, you can use this tool to convert your lat and long from the decimal format used by google maps to the more readable format of DMS. Or just do the math as described in Wikipedia's page on latitude and longitude.

The value of this format is we rely on consistent, easy to understand and format latitude and longitude list that will be clean and easy to organize. If this page survives AfD I'll organize it like this. --Crypticgeek 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improved format

• In addition to giving the Google map link as a source, each item should also have a link using our coor template family so that other sources can be easily consulted.
• Every item should give links to relevant Wikipedia articles to provide context.

Thanks for compiling this! AxelBoldt 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't know if there was a manual of style for coordinates. I'll keep it in mind. The problem comes in when we're trying to link directly to the area in question. I worry that having both a direct link to google maps or where ever and a link to the coord page would be confusing. I'll have to give it some thought on how best to use it. --Crypticgeek 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ramstein airbase in Germany is simply flared highlights

I think this is a issue with the type of provider and that whatever they use has simply got overexposed (See Exposure_(photography)#Highlights ). If you zoom in on the Ramstein eventually you can see the sharp shadows of aircraft. If it was blurred out like the blatant Dutch ones then you shouldn't be able to see such sharp shadows and it would be more obvious so I think is just a flaw in that particular image provider i.e. Cnes/Spot. e.g. see the horticultural glasshouses at, [2] for similar flaring. Ttiotsw 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not clear whether this is censored or not. I removed them to be safe. This is the problem with this page, we can't have editors doing image analysis and making determinations based only on what they think something should look like from the sky. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reims AFB

I removed Reims AFB from the list. It does not have obvious censorship in that area, and we cannot be in the business of image analysis. If this page is going to stay all items on the list must be obviously censored otherwise it really is original research to say this area does not look right it must be censored. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the trees to the immediate east there is a very large difference in blocking. The immediate surrounding area is in significantly higher resolution, in fact if you zoom out and look west you can see the point where the road to the base is the point where the blurring stops and where the rest of the higher resolution is. I suppose the case could have been made if the airfield was square or rectangularly shaped that google just didn't get an image of it... but the airfield is a much different shape. Take a look at the crops all around the airfield and there is a point where the blur stops and you get clean looking fields and not a mush of color. MrMacMan ^Talk 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however it is not clear enough to be included without citation. In my mind if you have to look for it it is not clear enough. We can't be analyzing images and drawing conclusions about censorship. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing of unsourced information

Since the claim that Google Maps intentionally censored the blurred or obscured area is inherently POV, I will be aggressively removing unsourced sites per Jimbo Wales' instructions. Note that a link to a blurred area of Google Maps is not enough information to establish that Google Maps intentionally blurred the area, which is the claim that the article makes. - Chardish 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have incorrectly intercepted that suggestion's application to the matter at hand, and are attempting to use it to effect an article deletion against the official AfD's conclusion to keep. I am reverting your changes; in the future please discuss widespread changes prior to implementing them. - Davandron | Talk 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

POV information without a source should be removed. The AfD said "keep the article," not "keep all the unsourced POV information in the article." - Chardish 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Having un-sourced comments doesn't require immediate removal. In any case I believe I have shown that with the amount of effort you are using to get the content removed you could have WP:BB and helped fixing up the article. I'm adding a tag to the page -- yes we need a bunch of sources, but lets see if someone will be willing to look for them. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the page with more references. Took a really long time to do. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! But those aren't references for the individual locations in question. Remember, we can only use locations that are verifiably known to have been censored by Google. - Chardish 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The qualification now is images (of some source) that have missing or unclear data, not censorship (at least it is now since you moved the page). Censorship implies intent, this article gives direct statements when talking about censorship. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about stating the factual point that these images have been tampered with. If you're so allergic to the word "censored" then it can be "digitally blurred" which is clearly the case in the example I looked at (GE plant, accessed feb 7 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.138.42 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing article name

Re some people's comments here and here about possibly changing the article's name -- I'm fine with a name change, anyone suggest a possible name for the article? It would have to be something like list of google maps images that have ____ (unexplained/unnatural/unusual/purposeful/) distortion, bluring or are censored... I know that that was a very bad title and not a place to start -- just trying to spitfire ideas here. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a name change as well. How do people feel about List of satellite images on Google Maps with missing or unclear data? I know it's kind of lengthy, but I feel it's a very NPOV title. - Chardish 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of satellite images on Google Maps with probably altered data. Maybe we should change it to List of sattelite images that appear to be altered on some Aerial Mapping Services or something like that because some of them have been altered on other sites like msn maps, maps.ask.com, etc.. too. --helohe (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like "probably altered" is still making a claim that would require verification. Whose definition of "probably" would we use? "Appear to be altered" suffers from similar problems - that's a subejctive definition. "Missing or unclear data" is pretty objective, and can be verified from observation. - Chardish 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok for me, I just thought that we should maybe change Google Maps to Aerial Mapping Services because the censoring is sometimes not specific to google. --helohe (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How about List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data? I kind of feel like the title couldn't get much longer than that without being unwieldy. Though it would be nice if the title had something to do with the fact that the images are publicly available. - Chardish 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike my last - that should be Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. This is far more interesting and broad of a topic than just a list. - Chardish 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This sound ok for me. I assume that as soon the article is renamed you are not longer deleting its content? --helohe (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the content will no longer be libelous (as it will no longer be making unsourced censorship claims), I think it's fair for the content to remain. As I've said before (elsewhere), if it's evident from observation, it doesn't need a 3rd-party source. It's evident from observation what map data is missing or unclear. - Chardish 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel your a little too bold in this page move, I feel that your really really aggressive about this article so I'm not going to challenge it... but we wanted a bunch of people to agree to a name change for the article and we had 2 editors. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. However I felt that backing off the edit war was more important than waiting to establish a larger consensus. And there was absolutely no way I was going to allow libelous material to remain in the article - it was easier to change the article title than to constantly revert. Does anyone object to the new title? - Chardish 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an objection thing -- its that a lot of people commented on the deletion review that haven't spoken out here, i felt it is a bit hasty. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Looking through maps.google.com and seeing missing data draws on your personal knowledge that such information is missing. Including that personal knowledge information in this Wikipedia article is original research. If someone else notices the missing data and comments about it in a published source, then it is material that may be added to the article. I added a reference column to the US list. A reference column should be added to each list and the reference for each entry in that list should be provided. If no reference is available for an entry, it means that that entry is original research and may be removed per original research policy. Wikipedia policy does not permit keeping unreferenced material while waiting for a future WP:RS to address that material. -- Jreferee 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, we have been working on it. I had a tag at the top of the page, but it has since been removed. I hope that you will help us in making this article by being bold and helping us find our needed sources. If you review the history of the article you can wee that there have been many a discussion and a small group of editors including myself has been adding sources -- i hope that you can help us in making this article better and better sourced. Also sources don't have to be 'published' to be reliable. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. -- Jreferee 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors., anyway who really cares? Can you please help us find sources for this article -- it would be most appreciated. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter one way or the other? It is popular and therefore it stays regardless of the "rules". I guess people should just keep adding blurry images.MikeURL 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true... Popularity is only one aspect of the reason that articles get a place on wikipedia. Check the WP:NOT policy for more reasons popularity doesn't matter in specific cases. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

San Clemente Island

• North end of San Clemente Island, west of San Diego, is blurred out. There is a naval base there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.240.96 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

San Clemente Island plus 'not original research'

• (not original research): Less obvious censorship of aerial images can also implemented by pictures taken late in the day and/or a time period with cloud-cover Kopytoff, Verne. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco Chronicle May 18 2007. Periodical TOP SECRET, IN PLAIN VIEW; Censorship is spotty for aerial shots of vulnerable sites. Additional info: Here is a specific example using google maps: on 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) for san Clemente island the entire north half of island contained a spliced-in image taken during, what appears to be, late day (dark). Also the northwest quadrant was entirely obscured with clouds. The 1 mile scale google maps link was here and the 2 mile scale (zoomed-out)image showing low details of the single runway airport could be found here Gert4gt. Could the main page maintainer move this to the main page chart?

How to get coorditanes from google map link

1. Open the google maps link
2. Look at the URL and find the part which says "ll=something,something", for instance ll=42.82479,-73.869967
3. copy the something,something part (without the "ll=") to the search box and hit "Search Maps"
4. copy/paste the coordinates to {{coor dms}} template

Please keep entries sorted by coordinates. Thanks.

government != country

If my moving the word 'government' out of the link was appropriate, please do so for the rest. Else revert. Thanks.Jidanni 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

world wide paragraph placed under US.

Why is this paragraph in the United states section? Please move: "Some governments have asked that portions of Google Earth to be blurred so that sensitive sites are not compromised". Jidanni 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to come here and ask the same thing. "How many governments does the United States have?", was going to be my slightly tongue-in-cheek question. I was going to move it to the India section (that's what the reference states), but it is already mentioned there, and the same reference is used. So I just removed it. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, but the answer is that the United States has thousands of governments: 1 federal, 50 state, 100s of county, and 1000s of municipal governments. —Nricardo (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

the white house

the article says that the white house is cencored in google earth and google maps. this is not the case any more ass the white house image has been uncencored for quite a while now. (anyway, it is the image providers that alter the images, not google themselves) --Alphamone 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Name again

I noticed that Satellite images censored by Google Maps redirects here. Isn't this article mostly about Google's censoring of places? Rmsuperstar99 (as 68.198.226.195) 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Basra air base link

The Basra air base listing needs to be updated, as I just clicked on the link and no censoring appears evident. Perhaps it was just temporary? 68.146.47.196 13:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference found - blurring of images prior to APEC meeting

The Sydney Morning Herald has a story today, but unfortunately it back-referenced this article [3]. Anecdotally, I can't zoom in as far as I could in (say) April of this year, but since I didn't save any searches I did of the Circular Quay area in anything other than Google, I've only got my memory to compare it with. Lou 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you re the blurring. What makes a mockery of Googles claim that it is part of a "commercial issue" is the fact that the pleasure craft on the water appear sharp, but the boat wake does not. [4] It's also not possible to cross-reference with Live Earth because the MS imagery does not have the resolution that the Google imagery does. Byrnesr 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obscured White House??

I noticed that the statement saying the White House has been obscured is false. I discovered this when i searched Google maps and it displayed the White House in clear view as well as the address. I have therefore removed "Including the White House"

After looking over the source again it mentions nothing of obscuring images of Washington, therefore i have removed the statement.

Noordwijk aan Zee

Is the blurred region in Noordwijk aan Zee really an ESA site as stated? I've been to the European Space Agency's Technology Centre (ESTEC) at Noordwijk. ESTEC is down the coast a little at [5] but is not blurred out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.24.249 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The blurred region is definitely not ESA/ESTEC [6], which is indeed unblured as described above and situated a little further down south at Keplerlaan. I therefore edited the page. To me, it seems the blurred area is a pure residential area (but I cannot confirm 100% as I have not enough detailed knowledge of Noordwijk). Notaris (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png

Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

Just stumbled across one in Cape Town, South Africa at -33.923705,18.451238 where something has been whited out. Very interesting. SteveCoppock (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like buildings /factory? now --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood, Texas, USA

Can anyone tell if this is an accidental inclusion of a cloud that just happens to cover a portion of a US military base, or a censored image? Google maps link Oanjao (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

William Hurt's House

There are several other websites that reference this page's claim that the home of actor William Hurt has been intentionally blurred (link 26). One blogger was even outraged at the censorship. However, the actor William Hurt never lived here. A review of the Fayette County property records web site (http://www.fayettepva.com) shows that the blurred image contains two houses; the one on the northwest parcel owned by William Pearce and the one on the southeast parcel owned by Robert & Tina Gray. They have owned these properties for at least a decade, and the previous owners were not William Hurt. Consider also that these houses are appraised for less than $200,000 - Not where you would expect a celebrity to live. The houses are visible on maps.live.com, Google street view, and the Fayette County page. They're just typical middle-class houses.

The urban legend may have come about because a lawyer named William Hurt apparently owned some nearby property. In order to quell the rumor, I will leave the entry in the US table (since it is "missing or unclear data") but change the text to note that this is not the house of the actor William Hurt.

Savastio (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2002 imagery on Terraserver shows that both of the blurred-out houses had swimming pools. In 2005, it looks like the pool at the house on the left has been filled in. Odd. 64.130.183.199 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see I was somehow responsible for that wrong information then. I guess I mistook the lawyer named William Hurt with the actor because it appeared on some list of the houses in the same street. :S Its definitely wrong. I guess the there is another reason for the censorship. --helohe (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramstein Air Base

Doesn't seem to be whited out specifically, just looks like some very white concrete. Microsoft and Yahoo both have different images from Google, and you can clearly see they have the white concrete too (although yahoo doesn't have the same resolution). Danny252 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea, MA

Not seeing any blurring here - can go into maximum zoom on GE and it's still perfectly sharp. Danny252 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Chelsea facilities were blurred earlier this year, as were the power station and scrap-metal processing plant next to the LNG terminal. They were not blurred today. Perhaps Deval Patrick's administration is less paranoid than Mitt Romney's. --RadioTheodric (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New stuff

On [7] also: westpoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.56.125 (talk • contribs)

Is Google removing the blurs?

I was about to put a note in the article about how Google blurs many buildings in Qingdao, but I just looked at the city again, and the buildings aren't blurred anymore. Has anyone else noticed Google relaxing its censorship anywhere? I mean, those buildings were clearly blurred until recently.Worldruler20 (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Missing or unclear data"?

This is a pretty silly title for things which are alleged to be intentionally censored or obscured—it makes it sound like the article is about places where Google Maps has poor resolution, where in reality the issue is places where the surrounding areas are very high resolution making it look like the place in question was intentionally put at low resolution.

And is it worth making it "generic" if every example is from Google Maps or Earth?

How about this for a new title: "Google satellite map images alleged to be intentionally obscured"? That's NPOV but a million times more accurate. --140.247.42.240 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton, New Zealand

The city and west of the city is blurred but surrounding pastures are of fairly high quality. There are some significant interests based in Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.188.20 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Others with blurring

Buffalo Niagara International Airport, Cheektowaga NY [8]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Dunkirk, NY [9]

141.238.109.77 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point: Glenwood powerstation and oil storage south from Glenwood Landing, New York - similar to other blurred coastal facilities in NY state. WTF? NVO (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced table

Most of the table for US locales seems to have been inadvertently moved to the very bottom of the article. I don't have experience with Wiki table formatting, so I'll leave the correction to a more experienced user. Trasel (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia: Europe or Asia

Friends, we have 2 places now in Russia: one obviously in Europe (near Moscow), and one at Far East, and so obviously Asia. Should we keep them both in one country section (then probably in Europe), or should we have 2 "Russias" in Europe and Asia sections respectively? I'm personally for the 1st approach, but I wonder what more experienced wikipedians would say =) Arseni (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)