Talk:List of Google Street View locations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Google Street View, due to size or style considerations. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; default to keep. |
Why was "Indianapolis Motor Speedway" put in? Unless the actually inside of the track is Street Viewed (which actually would be really cool for all major racetracks, but, I just checked, and it doesn't appear to be), I'm not sure why that would be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I personally do not have any objection to listing highly notable landmarks on this list in addition to cities and towns. The title of this article uses the word "location," and a landmark is a type of location. The major issue with this article is that the list must ultimately be organized, which I have been working on. Also, all listings should be internally linked.Sebwite (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that is fine. My original use of the word "location" was more to encapsulate the terms City/Town/Village/etc into one term, instead of saying "List of Google Street View Cities, Towns, Villages...". Just IMO, it seems like we could be opening up a can of worms with "what is a truly notable landmark" for every town? (The Indianapolis Speedway certainly is a main attraction in Indy. So, do we also list the RCA Dome? The Coseco Fieldhouse? The AAA team Baseball Stadium? The Children's Museum? The Rigatoni Hall of Fame? OK , I made the last one up, but, you get the idea). The original intent of the article was to basically identify all locations where (at minimum) the main "downtown/business district" area is "Street Viewed" (many of the places listed have the downtown SVed, but, not many other neighborhoods, etc, so, that was my definition there). That description was also to NOT put in a location that might have an expressway that goes through the town Street Viewed, but otherwise doesn't have any surface streets Street Viewed, so, it really shouldn't be considered "SVed". Thoughts? Dletter (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- For starters, I agree that places in which only the expressway is SVed need not be listed. I am also doubtful if places that only have a few streets featuring only insignicant landmarks should be listed, though there are some exceptions. For example, in Elkton, Maryland, only a few streets are SVed, but since this is currently the only location in Maryland with SV, that is a special reason to list it. A way to deal with this is to indicate whether the city/town contains a complete or partial collection of SVs.
- I guess that is fine. My original use of the word "location" was more to encapsulate the terms City/Town/Village/etc into one term, instead of saying "List of Google Street View Cities, Towns, Villages...". Just IMO, it seems like we could be opening up a can of worms with "what is a truly notable landmark" for every town? (The Indianapolis Speedway certainly is a main attraction in Indy. So, do we also list the RCA Dome? The Coseco Fieldhouse? The AAA team Baseball Stadium? The Children's Museum? The Rigatoni Hall of Fame? OK , I made the last one up, but, you get the idea). The original intent of the article was to basically identify all locations where (at minimum) the main "downtown/business district" area is "Street Viewed" (many of the places listed have the downtown SVed, but, not many other neighborhoods, etc, so, that was my definition there). That description was also to NOT put in a location that might have an expressway that goes through the town Street Viewed, but otherwise doesn't have any surface streets Street Viewed, so, it really shouldn't be considered "SVed". Thoughts? Dletter (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As for landmarks, a landmarks can be listed if either, it has a SV area of its own independent from the main collection of streets, or otherwise has an identity of its own separate from the city. For example, in Massachusetts, Gillette Stadium does have a few outlined streets simply to show the stadium. However, it is obvious that Fenway Park, which is located in downtown Boston, can be found on SV.
It is also worth considering limiting the list of cities/towns surrounding a main city to those that have an identity of their own. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota is considered to be of practically equal importance to Minneapolis as a city, just like Dallas and Ft. Worth, and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Even some smaller places have their own identity, like Independence, Missouri, being recognized as the hometown of President Harry S Truman. Also, a location that extends a significant distance from the main city could be included on the list, such as Daytona Beach, Florida or Worcester, Massachusetts. Even small towns that fit this criteria, like Hutchinson, Pennsylvania, could be listed. But there is really no reason to list a place like Newton, Massachusetts or Skokie, Illinois, which are merely suburbs.Sebwite (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I somewhat disagree on the insignificance of listing suburbs, only because there are still many suburbs not done in the major metro areas. I.E., the Chicagoland example you gave, none of the suburbs north of Aurora, IL have really been SV'ed (St. Charles, Geneva, Batavia, etc). Also the entire NW Indiana area which is considered part of "Chicagoland" has also not been SVed. So, I think, at least at this point, it is significant to list the suburban cities/towns that have their main business area's SVed. Part of my reason for starting this article was because of the "tenticle" like nature of the Indianapolis area's (I use that loosely as I would not consider Gas City or Danville, IL as 'part' of the Indianapolis area in any way) SV coverage, and my almost incredulousness that they have actually SVed a small town like Gas City already.
- Some other thoughts:
- I noticed on the Danville, IL there is "(part of Indianapolis icon)" next to it, which is true at this point. I guess my thinking is that, at some point, those designations are really not going to be that important, or even practical (I think the whole Chicago/Milwaukee/Rockford/Madison "blob" of Street Viewable area is a good example of that, it really is insignificant to identify if a certain town is "part" of an 'icon' in that case, as the whole area is basically Google Mapped). Of course, at some point (maybe even possibly relatively soon, like within 2-3 years at the rate Google is going), even having this list might be overkill, as 60-70% (or more) of the U.S. at least might be mapped. So, I'm OK with certain designations like the Danville one for now since it is still in "Blobs" of areas where Google Maps is deployed, just something to keep an eye on.
- Should we just split out all the states right now (I noticed we've grouped together some of them). At some point, we might even need to make a separate page for each state for this, since at some point it might otherwise get unwieldy. I wonder if at that point, putting the city/town/village articles in a category called "Google Street Viewable Municipalities" might not be a better way of organizing the list(?) Dletter (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- For now, let's agree that any blue-linked location (and even some red-linked locations that could one day have articles) can be listed here, but if there is concensus to remove a certain location, it should be removed. Also, locations other than the place the icon is named for should be indented when listed below the main one for better organization. It may be useful to describe whether the area has all or most of its streets covered by SV, or just its major street. Also keep in mind that there is no need for the list of places to be complete just because it is there (which was one reason I took the word "complete" out of the title). Wikipedia is never complete, and many lists on Wikipedia are not complete. Besides, Street View, the very topic this page is about, it far from complete. Sebwite (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just thoughts of a solid, finite limit we can impose of cities to list... only list cities that are listed on the Google Map at Zoom Level 9 (this is one more zoom level in than the first level that you actually see the blue markings for the SV). If we want to agree on that, we can list that stipulation in the article, and make sure we have those cities listed, and remove any that do not apply. Google is generally pretty good at designating those cities that appear at a zoom level appropriately based on population, density, etc.Dletter (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Of course, there can be some exceptions, to be decided on a case-by-case basis, for a place that is very small, yet is a part of household vocabulary to those living far away may deserve to be listed. Anyone who adds a listing and feels such an exception exists should make a note of it, either with a hidden comment, or on the discussion page. The same rules could apply to landmarks. Sebwite (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just thoughts of a solid, finite limit we can impose of cities to list... only list cities that are listed on the Google Map at Zoom Level 9 (this is one more zoom level in than the first level that you actually see the blue markings for the SV). If we want to agree on that, we can list that stipulation in the article, and make sure we have those cities listed, and remove any that do not apply. Google is generally pretty good at designating those cities that appear at a zoom level appropriately based on population, density, etc.Dletter (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- For now, let's agree that any blue-linked location (and even some red-linked locations that could one day have articles) can be listed here, but if there is concensus to remove a certain location, it should be removed. Also, locations other than the place the icon is named for should be indented when listed below the main one for better organization. It may be useful to describe whether the area has all or most of its streets covered by SV, or just its major street. Also keep in mind that there is no need for the list of places to be complete just because it is there (which was one reason I took the word "complete" out of the title). Wikipedia is never complete, and many lists on Wikipedia are not complete. Besides, Street View, the very topic this page is about, it far from complete. Sebwite (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Update on the above: I just tried looking at Level 9 for Baltimore, where I live. Baltimore does not have SV yet, but this will be applicable when it does. When I did it for Baltimore, the suburb Pikesville showed up. Pikesville is the area where I live. It is an unincorporated suburb of around 10,000 just outside the city limits. Mailing addresses to Pikesville are written out as "Baltimore." I would never view Pikesville as belonging on this list in terms of global importance. At the same time, Bel Air does not show up. Belair is a town about 30 miles away from the city. It is the seat of Harford County and is well known as the hometown of Olympic skating champion Kimmie Meisner. Currently, Baltimore has no SV, so this is not an issue yet, but situations like this are worth considering. Sebwite (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I won't argue there isn't issues with using the Zoom Level as a Guide, but unless I am mistaken, Bel Air does show up at Level 9: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.468005,-76.533508&spn=1.488441,2.554321&z=9&layer=c (I might have been off in my Zoom level # or explaination, I mean 1 more zoom level closer from the first zoom level that has blue markings). As far as that goes, I guess we could use a combination of other qualifications to be on the list (Having either higher than a minimum population level we designated, be a county seat, or have some other specific special reason for being listed, like Speedway, IN has for being an incorperated town specifically for the Indianapolis Speedway). Dletter (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Now that this is kept...
We need to either allow all places or come up with a good criterion, stated in the article, that we use for inclusion. Otherwise we're breaking Wikipedia:No original research. --NE2 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone had suggested all places that come up in blue at zoom level 9, which sounds like a good idea. Of course, the list may not be complete for all places. This is a volunteer effort.Sebwite (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- So places like Canby, Oregon and Westfield, New Jersey should be listed? --NE2 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Westfield, New Jersey at the present has special signifigance as it is one of the few places in the minute coverage of New Jersey that exists. If I had created this list myself, I would have suggested that it be limited to cities and towns that are at least somewhat well-known to people who live outside the region, such as San Bernardino, CA, Arlington, TX, or Provo, UT. It is hard to determine what could fit into such a subjective category, so there has to be a definitive guideline.
- So places like Canby, Oregon and Westfield, New Jersey should be listed? --NE2 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Frankly, I never heard of Westfield until I started looking at GSV in the New Jersey area. I have family members living in that part of New Jersey, have traveled to that region frequently, and have spent long hours reading maps of that area, yet still I never took notice of Westfield before it got my attention as one of the few places in NJ covered by GSV. Surely, this is only temporary until Google adds more coverage of NJ. When that happens one day, the NJ list will be rewritten accordingly.Sebwite (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "rewritten"? Westfield should be on the list whether or not other places are, since it's visible at zoom level 9. --NE2 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I never heard of Westfield until I started looking at GSV in the New Jersey area. I have family members living in that part of New Jersey, have traveled to that region frequently, and have spent long hours reading maps of that area, yet still I never took notice of Westfield before it got my attention as one of the few places in NJ covered by GSV. Surely, this is only temporary until Google adds more coverage of NJ. When that happens one day, the NJ list will be rewritten accordingly.Sebwite (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sources/references and should this be a category?
Most of the article does not include sources/references on if they are in fact included in Street View. It came to my attention as within the last few days, maybe today, Google added all of Contra Costa County to Street View.[1]. There's a lot of cities in there and I'm thinking this may be better served by converting the article into Category:Street view locations much like the existing Category:Street view services. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea that this page become a Category because then we can just default ALL cities/suburbs/towns/districts/places into the page and not have to debate over which is more significant than the other. I just expanded the Minneapolis-St. Paul list because consider that in terms of miles, there are MORE SVed streets OUTSIDE of the major city. And most suburbs of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are larger than some of the "cities" listed in other midwestern states. So there is no criteria in which to say this place is less than the other. some "suburbs" of New York contain over a million people. .:DavuMaya:. 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you make a category called "Google Street View locations" or something similar, it'll become more and more cluttered as more locations are added, thereby requiring subcategories. Also, there may be the temptation to list the category on the pages for individual neighborhoods and possibly landmarks, thereby cluttering the category even more.Sebwite (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Connecticut?
It looks like parts of Connecticut are now available in Street View, although they are a little old (>1 year). --JPP355 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
