I ask, because as a result of a recent thread, I noticed that a
right-angle on my own home is about 80 degrees on the satellite photo
'map', because it was taken from slightly to one side, and such
inaccuracy if generally applicable would surely make the title site
generally useless?

This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Google.jpg

Presumably, Google maps must have some way of correcting the photos
for the distortions of perspective, but clearly this can only do so
much, because my home will never look as though it was taken from
directly above, as the plan of a true map would represent it.

Does anybody know what processes are involved by Google, and whether
dishpointer does any further corrections for the distortions of
perspective when constructing the direction pointer?

How many have used the site successfully (by which I mean they used
the site's direction pointer to land on the correct satellite first
time)?

How many unsuccessfully (by which I mean they used the site's
direction pointer but landed on the wrong sat)?

Note: This was second attempt to post this (think the first take,
posted about 9 hours ago, may have died because I put semis instead of
commas between the newsgroups  -  apologies if more than one copy
arrives).

Sorry, that link only gives the picture without the explanatory
description, try this ...
	http://tinyurl.com/6yukgh
... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=Google.jpg

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:37:50 +0100, Java Jive  wrote:
> 
> This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Google.jpg

who gives a damn idiot !

"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
news:e5j594ljcefrin54v2omaich2sksaoupsj@4ax.com...
> Sorry, that link only gives the picture without the explanatory
> description, try this ...
> http://tinyurl.com/6yukgh
> ... standing in for ...
> http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=Google.jpg
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:37:50 +0100, Java Jive  wrote:
>>
>> This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
>> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Google.jpg

-- 
Best Regards

Mark & Diana

In article ,
   Java Jive  wrote:
> I ask, because as a result of a recent thread, I noticed that a
> right-angle on my own home is about 80 degrees on the satellite photo
> 'map', because it was taken from slightly to one side, and such
> inaccuracy if generally applicable would surely make the title site
> generally useless?

> This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Google.jpg

> Presumably, Google maps must have some way of correcting the photos
> for the distortions of perspective, but clearly this can only do so
> much, because my home will never look as though it was taken from
> directly above, as the plan of a true map would represent it.  

Dunno really, but I'm not too sure that Google maps 
are yet particularly reliable enough to take a very 
fine directional course from.  There are other factors 
involved, not the least the vagaries of lense shift 
and slight movement in the aircraft as it flies 
overhead snapping it's shots.  This may amount to a 
visually invisible metre or so, but could ..I'm 
surmising.. be enough to set one off course by a 
margin..

> Does anybody know what processes are involved by Google, and whether
> dishpointer does any further corrections for the distortions of
> perspective when constructing the direction pointer?

Might it be a question for those who are presently 
designing and refining DishPointer?  You might even 
get yourself an invitation to join the team!  Now 
that would make it worthwhile.. :))

> How many have used the site successfully (by which I mean they used
> the site's direction pointer to land on the correct satellite first
> time)?

> How many unsuccessfully (by which I mean they used the site's
> direction pointer but landed on the wrong sat)?

> Note: This was second attempt to post this (think the first take,
> posted about 9 hours ago, may have died because I put semis instead of
> commas between the newsgroups  -  apologies if more than one copy
> arrives).

It doesn't appear - at least to me - to have arrived 
in alt.satellite.tv ..so I'm cross-posting the whole 
of your post + comments back on the same path to see 
if it arrives from here..

Hopefully it will ..and we won't get told off my 
someone for unnecessary cross-posting!  

hh.. :))

Bill ZFC

-- 
Adoption  InterLink  UK with  -=-         http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet  -=-  http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

In message g6uoat$o05$1@aioe.org,
Marcussy  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> who gives a damn idiot !
>
Anyone that is trying to align a Sat. dish using that method...

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Both  -  they were taken from different angles, and the shadows are in
different directions.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:42:49 +0100, Alan 
wrote:
> 
> Are they from different angles or just a two photos from the same origin 
> taken at different times on the day and hence the shadows are in a 
> different direction?

In article , Alan wrote:
> >> This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
> >> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Google.jpg
> 
> Are they from different angles or just a two photos from the same origin 
> taken at different times on the day and hence the shadows are in a 
> different direction?

Have a closer look - even the lamp posts are leaning in different 
directions. It usually takes longer than a day for that to happen. :-)

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Mind you, on the stretch of road alongside, much abused by youths on
motorbikes ...

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:23:43 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:
> 
> Have a closer look - even the lamp posts are leaning in different 
> directions. It usually takes longer than a day for that to happen. :-)

Just another, even more striking, example:
	http://tinyurl.com/692yc8
... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=Google2.jpg

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:37:50 +0100, Java Jive  wrote:

> This picture illustrates the sort of thing that worries me.
>	http://tinyurl.com/6yukgh
> ... standing in for ...
> http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=Google.jpg

On 14/08/2008 11:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> If I type in my full post code I get totally the wrong pic on the sat
> align thingie. My address gives the correct one.

It seems to prefer the street/town instead of a postcode, it only seems 
to take the first digit after the space if you do give it a full postcode.

Yes, I also land several streets away, probably the best part of a
mile, I should think ...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:12:03 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:
> 
> If I type in my full post code I get totally the wrong pic on the sat
> align thingie. My address gives the correct one.

That's interesting Tony.  Could you elaborate on the procedure you
used? For example:

1)	When you used GE find the direction initially, could you then see
the other end of the link to align accurately too, or was it done
blind just using GE?  Naturally, sighting the satellite directly to
get final alignment would not be possible with a satellite dish.

2)	Presumably, unlike satellites, there weren't other links within 2
or 3 degrees either side that could lead to aligning on the wrong one?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:21:40 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:
> 
> I've used Google earth several times now for lining up Microwave links
> and in one instance we swore that GE was wrong when in fact we were
> given the wrong location!..
> 
> Anyone else used it for this sort of thing?..

"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
news:at18a450g3jmo6ev46r1au0gn0gb35hto6@4ax.com...
> 1) When you used GE find the direction initially, could you then see
> the other end of the link to align accurately too, or was it done
> blind just using GE?  Naturally, sighting the satellite directly to
> get final alignment would not be possible with a satellite dish.

Why they don't put a light on the satellite I'll never know.

Bill

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:04:34 +0100, "Bill Wright"
 wrote:

>
>"Java Jive"  wrote in message 
>news:at18a450g3jmo6ev46r1au0gn0gb35hto6@4ax.com...
>> 1) When you used GE find the direction initially, could you then see
>> the other end of the link to align accurately too, or was it done
>> blind just using GE?  Naturally, sighting the satellite directly to
>> get final alignment would not be possible with a satellite dish.
>
>Why they don't put a light on the satellite I'll never know.
>
Or even a radio transmitter. Um, er, er, ... ignore that!

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe)

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fceab5870dave@davenoise.co.uk...

> If I type in my full post code I get totally the wrong pic on the sat
> align thingie. My address gives the correct one.

That'll be because like me you went straight to the input boxes and did 
the obvious. But later I noticed on the same page "For the UK, only the 
first part of the postcode is considered, the second part disregarded. 
So don't be suprised when the marker is a few miles away from your home. 
But you can click and drag the marker."

Which makes the postcode option useless but at least the matter can be 
explained.
-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:05:26 +0100, Peter Duncanson
 wrote:

>Peter Duncanson, UK
>(in alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe)

Sorry that is the wrong signature. The newsgroup a.p.i.h.n.a is
genuine but it isn't uk.tech.digital-tv.

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe)

In article ,
   Malcolm Knight  wrote:
> > If I type in my full post code I get totally the wrong pic on the sat
> > align thingie. My address gives the correct one.

> That'll be because like me you went straight to the input boxes and did 
> the obvious. But later I noticed on the same page "For the UK, only the 
> first part of the postcode is considered, the second part disregarded. 
> So don't be suprised when the marker is a few miles away from your home. 
> But you can click and drag the marker."

> Which makes the postcode option useless but at least the matter can be 
> explained.

 Thanks for this explanation.

 Other slightly strange thing is it just asks for street name but putting
in the house number gave the exact location.

-- 
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fced98c9adave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Malcolm Knight  wrote:
>> > If I type in my full post code I get totally the wrong pic on the 
>> > sat
>> > align thingie. My address gives the correct one.
>
>> That'll be because like me you went straight to the input boxes and 
>> did
>> the obvious. But later I noticed on the same page "For the UK, only 
>> the
>> first part of the postcode is considered, the second part 
>> disregarded.
>> So don't be suprised when the marker is a few miles away from your 
>> home.
>> But you can click and drag the marker."
>
>> Which makes the postcode option useless but at least the matter can 
>> be
>> explained.
>
> Thanks for this explanation.
>
> Other slightly strange thing is it just asks for street name but 
> putting
> in the house number gave the exact location.

Thanks for that but it was four houses adrift for me. Better than at the 
end of the road though, as it was before.
-- 
Malcolm

Thanks for the explanation.  Seems to be a vote in favour then!
Perhaps I'm being too cautious ...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:53:05 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:

> In article , Java Jive
>  scribeth thus
> 
> Well as to satellites of course you can't know, but for some other
> terrestrial links it has proved very accurate:)