Newbie
October 2016 - Dec 13, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
|
Post by redrooster on Oct 9, 2016 6:28:01 GMT
Hi all, First post here! I know how to read geological maps but I cant work out whats what with Google Earth under the oceans? I can see the plate boundries,seafloor spreading etc, but how do I tell the photo stitching artifacts etc,from everything else? Is there a geological index type of thing available to explain photographic artifacts from geological features,etc?
|
|
Trusted Member
account is disabled
“ Google Maps | Google Sky | Google Mars „
|
Post by ET_Explorer on Oct 9, 2016 6:50:54 GMT
Hi all, First post here! I know how to read geological maps but I cant work out whats what with Google Earth under the oceans? I can see the plate boundries,seafloor spreading etc, but how do I tell the photo stitching artifacts etc,from everything else? Is there a geological index type of thing available to explain photographic artifacts from geological features,etc? Hi as you should know that this is community is about sharing kmz files from Google Earth. Its not a community to get support for issues with Google Earth, The top of the page shows a link to a support group that deals with Google Earth. Google Maps and Earth Help Forum
|
|
Cartographer
April 2015 - Nov 3, 2024 2:30:25 GMT
|
Post by washi on Oct 9, 2016 9:05:30 GMT
Hi redrooster, I'm not sure I understand your question, so I'm not sure that you'll find a better answer in the GE Help Forum. As the post New Sea Floor Map for Google Earth in the Google Earth Blog points out, the ocean floor imagery, all of which is computer generated as opposed to photographic imagery, comes from a variety of sources, and is of varying accuracy. Certainly the sonar generated imagery in the heavily traveled sea lanes has generated a lot of misleading artifacts, which in turn have lead to a lot of head scratching, as well as scores of "discoveries" of Atlantis. washi
|
|
Newbie
October 2016 - Dec 13, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
|
Post by redrooster on Oct 9, 2016 12:03:14 GMT
Hi redrooster, I'm not sure I understand your question, so I'm not sure that you'll find a better answer in the GE Help Forum. As the post New Sea Floor Map for Google Earth in the Google Earth Blog points out, the ocean floor imagery, all of which is computer generated as opposed to photographic imagery, comes from a variety of sources, and is of varying accuracy. Certainly the sonar generated imagery in the heavily traveled sea lanes has generated a lot of misleading artifacts, which in turn have lead to a lot of head scratching, as well as scores of "discoveries" of Atlantis. washi Yes thats what Im talking about! So it looks like you cant rely on the ocean map to identify anything reliably? I was thinking there would be a video,tutorial or something explaining the geological interpretation of the seafloor. Thanks anyway mate.
|
|
Newbie
October 2016 - Dec 13, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
|
Post by redrooster on Oct 9, 2016 12:07:42 GMT
Hi all, First post here! I know how to read geological maps but I cant work out whats what with Google Earth under the oceans? I can see the plate boundries,seafloor spreading etc, but how do I tell the photo stitching artifacts etc,from everything else? Is there a geological index type of thing available to explain photographic artifacts from geological features,etc? Hi as you should know that this is community is about sharing kmz files from Google Earth. Its not a community to get support for issues with Google Earth, The top of the page shows a link to a support group that deals with Google Earth. Whats the chance that I get a nasty on my first post! Ha! Pathetic! Im out of here. Google Maps and Earth Help Forum
|
|
Cartographer
April 2015 - Nov 3, 2024 2:30:25 GMT
|
Post by washi on Oct 11, 2016 14:04:58 GMT
We'd be sorry to see you go. The fellow with the stomach-churning avatar is really only trying to help the administrators and moderators of this forum. I honestly don't think he realizes that every query he doesn't understand should automatically be referred to the GE Help Forum.
Regarding your comment
Just because I only referred you to one discussion of the ocean floor imagery does not mean that there are not other sources which may help you deepen your understanding. I don't recall much discussion in the nGEC (since Google cast us free to drift on our own without their support) that is specifically related to your area of interest, but (although seafloor geology is not a specific interest of mine) I do recall enough discussion in the old Google Earth Community on that topic to make it worth your searching there. Indeed, I can't imagine any geologist who doesn't use in some way the Google Earth tool, so I would think that it would be well worth your time to do a general search for work that never found its way to the GEC.
One point I was trying to make in my reply is that the seafloor imagery is of limited use when it comes to fine-grain detail. No one can use it to find Atlantis, or sunken treasure ships, or the dwellings of mermaids, but in large scale, it is pretty darned wonderful. I delight is seeing mid ocean ridges, subduction zones, undersea volcanoes, and other things which were totally unknown when I was a lad. To me, that's more than worth a couple of mermaids!
Indeed, the photographic imagery in the landform side of Google Earth, while possessing more fine-grained detail, is also ultimately subject to the same limitations, and much of what is observed there even at the highest resolution is also ambiguous and not completely knowable.
I often think of Google Earth in terms of the old adage of whether the cup is half full or half empty. Google Earth is a tool for modeling the world, making that model searchable and annotatable. While it can become increasingly more refined (like, for example, adding higher resolution imagery and features like Street View), I suppose it can never be totally accurate and precise. I do not bemoan its limitations. I celebrate its triumphs. For me, the cup is more than half full, and I can be easily reconciled to the limitations of the tool and accept what is indistinct, ambiguous, and undecipherable without filling in the blanks with my more than ample imagination.
|
|