Google Ocean

[spatman]

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9931412-7.html?tag=bl

[mancub]

Sounds pretty slick. I would definitely enjoy playing with that. Not only will we be able to locate our homes, but now our favorite dive spots via online bathymetry. And who said google isn't taking over?

[lamont]

been there, done that... =)

http://www.scriptkiddie.org/bath

[Tangfish]

So cool! Thanks for the heads up, spatman.

Lamont, I'm pretty sure that someone had already come up with a search engine before Google came along. The only thing is, they did it right. (also, the site you linked to is based off an existing Google maps API and the data are rendered very poorly)

[Nwbrewer]

Lamont, I'm pretty sure that someone had already come up with a search engine before Google came along. The only thing is, they did it right. (also, the site you linked to is based off an existing Google maps API and the data are rendered very poorly)

Uhhh Calvin, you do know that's Lamont's site right?

[Pez7378]

Lamont =

Calvin =

Pez =

[airsix]

Google's might be rendered in beautiful 3D, but to give Lamont some credit he DID get his 2D version done first, and he completely skipped the raising $1.8 Billion in an IPO part.

-Ben

[Tangfish]

No, I didn't know it was his site. What I was saying was that the efforts of a multibillion dollar company to offer the public maps of the ocean floor shouldn't be derisively sneezed at, even if others have put forth efforts in advance (albeit using Google's own technology). I work for Google's primary competitor (well, 50% of me does), and I was enthusiastic to read the article linked to by spatman. Maybe sarcasm was lost in translation and Lamont actually does respect/appreciate Google's intent.

[CaptnJack]

What I was saying was that the efforts of a multibillion dollar company to offer the public maps of the ocean floor shouldn't be derisively sneezed at, even if others have put forth efforts in advance (albeit using Google's own technology).

I'm curious how much will be "restricted" ala Google Earth and military installations. There are definately some expensive (miltary) toys "hidden" out there in the ocean.

[Joshua Smith]

No more or less than is restricted on Google Earth, I'm guessing.

[CaptnJack]

No more or less than is restricted on Google Earth, I'm guessing.

Depends on the resolution. I know some of the UW mapping of the Strait is restricted and/or intentionally degraded, areas alot bigger than a military base too. Its also alot easy to tell when a satellite photo is intentionally limited vs. when topography is.

[sheahanmcculla]

Depends on the resolution. I know some of the UW mapping of the Strait is restricted and/or intentionally degraded, areas alot bigger than a military base too.

New dive site???
What are they hiding? Iteresting stuff. It sucks not being in the know!

[CaptnJack]

New dive site???
What are they hiding? Iteresting stuff. It sucks not being in the know!

All sorts of classified toys are "out there" between the UW applied physics lab, Bangor, Everett, and Bremerton naval facilties. And I'm not a conspiracy nut either, lol. I would guess most are far too deep to be relevant to divers tho.

[Burntchef]

And I'm not a conspiracy nut either, lol. .

you sure about that, seems like that white "plumbers van" has been parked across the street for a long time now!!

[Tangfish]

Pretty soon Chef will have to start whiper-shouting and we'll hear a digital clock beeping noise every 15 minutes as he mobilizes his tactical team.

[lamont]

I've been working on improvements. I've figured out how to do delaunay triangulation of non-gridded points to grid them and interpolate to get triangles as good as the underlying NOAA data (what i've got now is just 10m DEM of puget sound, 30m DEM extending out to the san juans, and 3m/4m DEMs of the river heads -- and the 10m/30m DEMs throw away a lot of better resolution info -- plus the ArcInfo connection to the LIDAR data screws things up sometimes). I've also been working on better visualization and playing around with color schemes and shading.

A lot of the bathymetry out there just isn't very good though.

And yes, I'm sarcastic. I'm sure if google throws a billion dollars at it, they can do Google Bathymetry better than I can.

[Sounder]

I've been working on improvements. I've figured out how to do delaunay triangulation of non-gridded points to grid them and interpolate to get triangles as good as the underlying NOAA data (what i've got now is just 10m DEM of puget sound, 30m DEM extending out to the san juans, and 3m/4m DEMs of the river heads -- and the 10m/30m DEMs throw away a lot of better resolution info -- plus the ArcInfo connection to the LIDAR data screws things up sometimes). I've also been working on better visualization and playing around with color schemes and shading.

A lot of the bathymetry out there just isn't very good though.

And yes, I'm sarcastic. I'm sure if google throws a billion dollars at it, they can do Google Bathymetry better than I can.

But wouldn't it be a better idea to have Google throw a billion dollars at you and the resources you need to do it properly?

[lamont]

But wouldn't it be a better idea to have Google throw a billion dollars at you and the resources you need to do it properly?

For a billion dollars, I'd do just about anything for Google...

If you want to see something slightly more exciting, here's the Section 13 (PNW) AWOIS database over the bathymetry:

http://www.scriptkiddie.org/bath/awois.html

[airsix]

If you want to see something slightly more exciting, here's the Section 13 (PNW) AWOIS database over the bathymetry:

http://www.scriptkiddie.org/bath/awois.html

Hey, that's great! Nice addition. :smt038

[sheahanmcculla]

Has anyone seen this.....http://www.gearthhacks.com/downloads/go.php?file=28420