Adrian

This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its
rival.

Firstly, the maps (like Google Maps) and 3D (like Google Earth) are
integrated so you can switch between the two.

Secondly, and more importantly, you can switch to viewing the
un-manipulated source images. Because these have not been twisted to
remove the natural perspective of the shot, the whole resolution is
available, providing far more detail. The upshot is that there's enough
detail to make out railway features such as signals, gantries and even
individual sleepers.

Here's an example :

a quiet Preston station, where a Pendolino is just visible poking out
from under the canopy, and a 57/3 in the north bay (can't quite make out
the number ;-) )
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...689462.6842358

that's a long link, so it will no doubt get wrapped, but I'm sure you
can fix that.

The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC
(like Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.

Adrian

airsmoothed@hotmail.com

On Jul 5, 3:17 pm, Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBits...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC
> (like Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.
>
> Adrian

???? i'm pretty sure I've neve rinstalled anything to use
local.live.com. There are certainly areas of the country which are
covered by much higher resolution photos on there than Google Earth,
much of Hants & Dorset for example.

Bob

However there is not any universal level of coverage on any of these systems
across the entire British Isles therefore it is potluck as to whether you
get good definition or a blurry mess like Rolf Hariss's paintings....





"Adrian" <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6iuhp$2qb9$2@energise.enta.net...
> This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
> Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its
> rival.
>
> Firstly, the maps (like Google Maps) and 3D (like Google Earth) are
> integrated so you can switch between the two.
>
> Secondly, and more importantly, you can switch to viewing the
> un-manipulated source images. Because these have not been twisted to
> remove the natural perspective of the shot, the whole resolution is
> available, providing far more detail. The upshot is that there's enough
> detail to make out railway features such as signals, gantries and even
> individual sleepers.
>
> Here's an example :
>
> a quiet Preston station, where a Pendolino is just visible poking out from
> under the canopy, and a 57/3 in the north bay (can't quite make out the
> number ;-) )
> http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...689462.6842358
>
> that's a long link, so it will no doubt get wrapped, but I'm sure you can
> fix that.
>
> The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC (like
> Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.
>
> Adrian

Chris Wilson

"Bob" <bcjs@NospaMiname.com> wrote in
news:WJaji.129033$hj5.125401@fe2.news.blueyonder.c o.uk:

>
> However there is not any universal level of coverage on any of these
> systems across the entire British Isles therefore it is potluck as to
> whether you get good definition or a blurry mess like Rolf Hariss's
> paintings....

Google ... clear picture that allows me to identify the car on my drive,
and on one memorable instance see myself in my own back garden (just).

M$ ... I can make out a grey ribbon that is probably the road outside my
house.

--
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

Jane Sullivan

In message <Xns9964CCC936DF0ulmbritwarcouk@62.253.170.163>, Chris Wilson
<4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> writes
>"Bob" <bcjs@NospaMiname.com> wrote in
>news:WJaji.129033$hj5.125401@fe2.news.blueyonder. co.uk:
>
>>
>> However there is not any universal level of coverage on any of these
>> systems across the entire British Isles therefore it is potluck as to
>> whether you get good definition or a blurry mess like Rolf Hariss's
>> paintings....
>
>Google ... clear picture that allows me to identify the car on my drive,
>and on one memorable instance see myself in my own back garden (just).
>
>M$ ... I can make out a grey ribbon that is probably the road outside my
>house.
>

Google - I can see all of my garden railway

M$ - I can only see phases 1 & 2 of my garden railway, the photo is so
old that phase 3 is not included.

Some joins are atrocious, see Proctor yard near Duluth USA (sorry, can't
give you grid reference (latitude & longitude) as M$ doesn't give them,
whereas Google does.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

Chris Wilson

Jane Sullivan <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cutL8ViUUWjGFAq$@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk:

> In message <Xns9964CCC936DF0ulmbritwarcouk@62.253.170.163>, Chris Wilson
....
>>house.
>>
>
> Google - I can see all of my garden railway
>
> M$ - I can only see phases 1 & 2 of my garden railway, the photo is so
> old that phase 3 is not included.

That's a point, google appears to update every few months, M$ image is at
least 18 months old+ (as noted via cars on drive and outside house)

As an aside it's not until you look that you (a) appreciate how many folks
in SE London have swimming pools and (b) just how many homes look near
identical in a lovely part of the world just outside of Bromley. :-)

--
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

Chris Wilson

Chris Wilson <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> wrote in
news:Xns9964EDD919702ulmbritwarcouk@62.253.170.163 :

....
> That's a point, google appears to update every few months, M$ image is
> at least 18 months old+ (as noted via cars on drive and outside house)

(I used PSP to magnify the image!)

--
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

kim

"Chris Wilson" <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9964EDD919702ulmbritwarcouk@62.253.170.163 ...
> Jane Sullivan <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:cutL8ViUUWjGFAq$@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <Xns9964CCC936DF0ulmbritwarcouk@62.253.170.163>, Chris Wilson
> ...
>>>house.
>>>
>>
>> Google - I can see all of my garden railway
>>
>> M$ - I can only see phases 1 & 2 of my garden railway, the photo is so
>> old that phase 3 is not included.
>
> That's a point, google appears to update every few months,

Not everywhere. It's still showing a row of historic buildings near me which
were flattened by the council three years ago. I'm only sorry Google Earth
didn't exist 40 years ago.

(kim)

manatbandq@hotmail.com

On Jul 5, 3:17 pm, Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBits...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
> Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its
> rival.
>
> Firstly, the maps (like Google Maps) and 3D (like Google Earth) are
> integrated so you can switch between the two.
>
> Secondly, and more importantly, you can switch to viewing the
> un-manipulated source images. Because these have not been twisted to
> remove the natural perspective of the shot, the whole resolution is
> available, providing far more detail. The upshot is that there's enough
> detail to make out railway features such as signals, gantries and even
> individual sleepers.
>
> Here's an example :
>
> a quiet Preston station, where a Pendolino is just visible poking out
> from under the canopy, and a 57/3 in the north bay (can't quite make out
> the number ;-) )http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...71&style=h&lvl...
>
> that's a long link, so it will no doubt get wrapped, but I'm sure you
> can fix that.
>
> The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC
> (like Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.
>
> Adrian

You just got lucky. Where I live the M$ image is just as out of date
and blurry as the Google one.

MBQ

Simon Judd

Looking at east Leeds, Neville Hill Depot has Stored class 141`s are there
( long gone now ),
And Midland Road Depot isnt there yet !
Kindest regards
Simon Judd
http://www.modeldepot.co.uk

<manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183708482.165570.234210@w3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 5, 3:17 pm, Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBits...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
>> Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its
>> rival.
>>
>> Firstly, the maps (like Google Maps) and 3D (like Google Earth) are
>> integrated so you can switch between the two.
>>
>> Secondly, and more importantly, you can switch to viewing the
>> un-manipulated source images. Because these have not been twisted to
>> remove the natural perspective of the shot, the whole resolution is
>> available, providing far more detail. The upshot is that there's enough
>> detail to make out railway features such as signals, gantries and even
>> individual sleepers.
>>
>> Here's an example :
>>
>> a quiet Preston station, where a Pendolino is just visible poking out
>> from under the canopy, and a 57/3 in the north bay (can't quite make out
>> the number
>> ;-) )http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...71&style=h&lvl...
>>
>> that's a long link, so it will no doubt get wrapped, but I'm sure you
>> can fix that.
>>
>> The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC
>> (like Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.
>>
>> Adrian
>
> You just got lucky. Where I live the M$ image is just as out of date
> and blurry as the Google one.
>
> MBQ
>

manatbandq@hotmail.com

On Jul 6, 11:58 am, "Simon Judd" <enqu...@modeldepot.co.uk> wrote:
> Looking at east Leeds, Neville Hill Depot has Stored class 141`s are there
> ( long gone now ),
> And Midland Road Depot isnt there yet !
> Kindest regards
> Simon Juddhttp://www.modeldepot.co.uk
>

It's like the fad for "wonder foods" and tabloid statistics. People
will believe something is the best thing since sliced bread, based on
the flimsiest of evidence, with no attempt to verify the facts for
themselves.

MBQ

Adrian

>>That's a point, google appears to update every few months,
>
>
> Not everywhere. It's still showing a row of historic buildings near me which
> were flattened by the council three years ago. I'm only sorry Google Earth
> didn't exist 40 years ago.

It looks like it's pot luck which system is best in your area. In
Preston, the resolution is good on both systems, but the ability to see
the raw, undistorted images makes all the difference on the M$ system.
Also, a very recent update to the Google aerials results in a change of
image set right across the middle of Preston station, and the two don't
even allign properly.

For Lancashire, there is the Mario Maps which include 1940s aerials,
which are very interesting.

Adrian

kim

"Adrian" <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6lcnp$16n4$1@energise.enta.net...
>
>>>That's a point, google appears to update every few months,
>>
>>
>> Not everywhere. It's still showing a row of historic buildings near me
>> which were flattened by the council three years ago. I'm only sorry
>> Google Earth didn't exist 40 years ago.
>
> It looks like it's pot luck which system is best in your area. In Preston,
> the resolution is good on both systems, but the ability to see the raw,
> undistorted images makes all the difference on the M$ system. Also, a very
> recent update to the Google aerials results in a change of image set right
> across the middle of Preston station, and the two don't even allign
> properly.
>
> For Lancashire, there is the Mario Maps which include 1940s aerials, which
> are very interesting.

Bolton doesn't appear to be in Lancashire anymore? I'm sure it was last time
I was there. It must have moved.

(kim)

Adrian

manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:

> You just got lucky. Where I live the M$ image is just as out of date
> and blurry as the Google one.

Both systems tend to be better in urban areas, and the coverage is good
for both in Preston except Google now has a change of image-set right
across the middle of the station, which is quite nasty.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...&t=k&z=17&om=1

Adrian

Adrian

manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:

> It's like the fad for "wonder foods" and tabloid statistics. People
> will believe something is the best thing since sliced bread, based on
> the flimsiest of evidence, with no attempt to verify the facts for
> themselves.
>
> MBQ

Excuse me! There's no need to be pompous about it. I never said it was
"the best thing since sliced bread" or anything vaguely close to that.

I just pointed out that M$ has clearer, higher resolution images
available than Google. I believe that the area I am looking at is
covered by both M$ and Google at their highest quality, so my comments
are at least as valid as anyone elses.

For your information, I am not a tabloid reader, and treat claims about
"superfoods" with healthy scepticism.

Adrian

Adrian

kim wrote:

> Bolton doesn't appear to be in Lancashire anymore? I'm sure it was last time
> I was there. It must have moved.

Kim

I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home of
the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been part of
Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the Post
Office is concerned, the change never happened.

The boundary is between Horwich and Adlington (Chorley).

Adrian

MartinS

Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kim wrote:
>
>> Bolton doesn't appear to be in Lancashire anymore? I'm sure it was
>> last time I was there. It must have moved.
>
> I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
> Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home
> of the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been part
> of Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the Post
> Office is concerned, the change never happened.
>
> The boundary is between Horwich and Adlington (Chorley).

Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county in North West England
which has a population of 2.55 million.[1] Greater Manchester came
into existence as a metropolitan county in 1974 after the passage of
the Local Government Act 1972. The county consists of ten metropolitan
boroughs, including the City of Manchester and the City of Salford.

Greater Manchester County Council was abolished in 1986, and so its
districts (the metropolitan boroughs) are now effectively unitary
authorities. However, the metropolitan county, which is some 496
square miles (1276 km²),[2] continues to exist in law and as an
administrative frame of reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester

--
Martin S.

Graeme

In message <f6llqn$1nci$1@energise.enta.net>, Adrian
<adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
>Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home of
>the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been part of
>Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the Post
>Office is concerned, the change never happened.

Post Office, or Royal Mail?

The Royal Mail postcode checker shows a Bolton address, quite correctly,
without any mention of Lancs or Manchester. The Bolton News (local
newspaper) still shows an address in Bolton, Lancashire.
--
Graeme

MartinS

Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
>>Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home of
>>the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been part of
>>Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the Post
>>Office is concerned, the change never happened.
>
> Post Office, or Royal Mail?
>
> The Royal Mail postcode checker shows a Bolton address, quite correctly,
> without any mention of Lancs or Manchester. The Bolton News (local
> newspaper) still shows an address in Bolton, Lancashire.

Some individuals and businesses stubbornly cling to postal addresses as
they were before reorganisation in 1974, and even refuse to use Postcodes.
Some new counties (e.g. Humberside) later got changed back. I believe that
Royal Mail no longer requires the county, as long as there is a valid
Postcode.

--
Martin S.

MartinS

MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:
> Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> writes
>>>
>>>I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
>>>Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home
>>>of the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been
>>>part of Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the
>>>Post Office is concerned, the change never happened.
>>
>> Post Office, or Royal Mail?
>>
>> The Royal Mail postcode checker shows a Bolton address, quite
>> correctly, without any mention of Lancs or Manchester. The Bolton
>> News (local newspaper) still shows an address in Bolton, Lancashire.
>
> Some individuals and businesses stubbornly cling to postal addresses
> as they were before reorganisation in 1974, and even refuse to use
> Postcodes. Some new counties (e.g. Humberside) later got changed back.
> I believe that Royal Mail no longer requires the county, as long as
> there is a valid Postcode.

PS Bolton was still in Lancashire c 1966 when someone counted 4,000
potholes in the roads.

--
Martin S.

kim

"Adrian" <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6llqn$1nci$1@energise.enta.net...
> kim wrote:
>
>> Bolton doesn't appear to be in Lancashire anymore? I'm sure it was last
>> time I was there. It must have moved.
>
> Kim
>
> I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that Bolton
> is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home of the
> Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been part of Greater
> Manchester for many years now, although as far as the Post Office is
> concerned, the change never happened.

It shows how long it's been since I was last there. The old town was already
being dismantled piece by piece. You may find this hard to believe but there
was once railway running right through Little Lever. Soon after the line was
closed BR dynamited the bridges to prevent it ever being reopened and then
they have the nerve to complain about vandals!

> The boundary is between Horwich and Adlington (Chorley).

Is there a polite name for a lady who comes from Horwich?

(kim)

kim

"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message
news:UTtji.3325$Oz7.2567@newsfe19.lga...
> MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:
>> Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
>>>>Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford (home
>>>>of the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have been
>>>>part of Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far as the
>>>>Post Office is concerned, the change never happened.
>>>
>>> Post Office, or Royal Mail?
>>>
>>> The Royal Mail postcode checker shows a Bolton address, quite
>>> correctly, without any mention of Lancs or Manchester. The Bolton
>>> News (local newspaper) still shows an address in Bolton, Lancashire.
>>
>> Some individuals and businesses stubbornly cling to postal addresses
>> as they were before reorganisation in 1974, and even refuse to use
>> Postcodes. Some new counties (e.g. Humberside) later got changed back.
>> I believe that Royal Mail no longer requires the county, as long as
>> there is a valid Postcode.
>
> PS Bolton was still in Lancashire c 1966 when someone counted 4,000
> potholes in the roads.

That was Blackburn!

(kim)

AdrianB

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RrudnZVeR-RC9xPbRVnyhwA@giganews.com...
> Is there a polite name for a lady who comes from Horwich?

Yup, my sister! careful now...

Adrian

MartinS

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
> "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote...
>> MartinS <me@my.place> wrote:
>>> Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Adrian <adrian_bradScrubThisBitshaw@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>I come from Bolton (in fact I'm there now!) and I can confirm that
>>>>>Bolton is NOT in Lancashire, in the same way that Old Trafford
>>>>>(home of the Lancashire cricket team) is NOT in Lancashre. We have
>>>>>been part of Greater Manchester for many years now, although as far
>>>>>as the Post Office is concerned, the change never happened.
>>>>
>>>> Post Office, or Royal Mail?
>>>>
>>>> The Royal Mail postcode checker shows a Bolton address, quite
>>>> correctly, without any mention of Lancs or Manchester. The Bolton
>>>> News (local newspaper) still shows an address in Bolton,
>>>> Lancashire.
>>>
>>> Some individuals and businesses stubbornly cling to postal addresses
>>> as they were before reorganisation in 1974, and even refuse to use
>>> Postcodes. Some new counties (e.g. Humberside) later got changed
>>> back. I believe that Royal Mail no longer requires the county, as
>>> long as there is a valid Postcode.
>>
>> PS Bolton was still in Lancashire c 1966 when someone counted 4,000
>> potholes in the roads.
>
> That was Blackburn!

So it was! And Blackburn is still in Lancashire.

--
Martin S.

Chris Wilson

MartinS <me@my.place> wrote in news:ldvji.625$Sb4.395@newsfe21.lga:

> So it was! And Blackburn is still in Lancashire.

"And now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert hall ... "

Not that it means much but I went to school in Blackburn and college in
Bolton. Just thought I’d try to contribute a little to the discussion on
this important model rail related topic. :-)

--
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

John Turner

"Adrian" wrote

> This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
> Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its
> rival.

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggesting Microsoft have
produced something worth using - since 'Word' that is, and didn't they buy
that in from someone else?

John.

AdrianB

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:138un6o3oq98b56@news.supernews.com...

> That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggesting Microsoft have
> produced something worth using - since 'Word' that is, and didn't they buy
> that in from someone else?

Yes, it's very trendy to bash Microsoft.and easy to pick fault with things
that go wrong, but the silent majority are quite happy using their products
despite the fact that there ARE alternatives. My job includes evaluating
software, and despite the cost implications, I still can't finda valid
reason to dump Word, Excel, Accss, Visual Studio, SQLServer, not to mention
Windows XP (Vista can wait though).

Admitting you like a Microsoft product in public seems to be about as
socially unacceptable as standing in a crowded room and saying "My name's
Adrian and I'm a Railway Enthusiast".

Adrian

John Turner

"AdrianB" wrote

> Yes, it's very trendy to bash Microsoft.and easy to pick fault with things
> that go wrong, but the silent majority are quite happy using their
> products despite the fact that there ARE alternatives. My job includes
> evaluating software, and despite the cost implications, I still can't
> finda valid reason to dump Word, Excel, Accss, Visual Studio, SQLServer,
> not to mention Windows XP (Vista can wait though).

That just about sums up my position too. Never had any problems, so never
felt the need to switch away.

John.

beamendsltd

In message <b76dnVreyfqx_hLbRVnyhAA@brightview.com>
"AdrianB" <adrian_scrubmebradshaw@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:138un6o3oq98b56@news.supernews.com...
>
> > That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggesting Microsoft have
> > produced something worth using - since 'Word' that is, and didn't they buy
> > that in from someone else?
>
> Yes, it's very trendy to bash Microsoft.and easy to pick fault with things
> that go wrong, but the silent majority are quite happy using their products
> despite the fact that there ARE alternatives. My job includes evaluating
> software, and despite the cost implications, I still can't finda valid
> reason to dump Word, Excel, Accss, Visual Studio, SQLServer, not to mention
> Windows XP (Vista can wait though).

I would have said the same until I tried Ubuntu Linux (never having
even seen Linux before) simply to try out an accounts/stock control
package.
I and my bsusiness are now Linux only (or will be, when the data is
transferred out of my Risc-OS package and validated). I still have
to have XP to run Templot under Wine though (NOT a complaint Martin!).

>
> Admitting you like a Microsoft product in public seems to be about as
> socially unacceptable as standing in a crowded room and saying "My name's
> Adrian and I'm a Railway Enthusiast".

Nah! Admitting one is a train nut attracts a certain amount of sympathy!

>
> Adrian
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb

John Turner

"beamendsltd" wrote

> Nah! Admitting one is a train nut attracts a certain amount of sympathy!

On the contrary, admitting otherwise just proves to others what you're
missing! ;-)

John.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

MartinS

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Adrian" wrote
>
>> This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered
>> Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over
>> its rival.
>
> That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggesting Microsoft have
> produced something worth using - since 'Word' that is, and didn't they
> buy that in from someone else?

Now they've been caught with their pants down concerning the Xbox 360.

--
Martin S.

scoot

But its a lot older, the view of my workplace shows it as it was 3 years
ago. The buildings have been demolished and new ones built since then! At
lease maps.google.com are only a year out of date .......

shane

John Turner

"scoot" wrote

> But its a lot older, the view of my workplace shows it as it was 3 years
> ago. The buildings have been demolished and new ones built since then! At
> lease maps.google.com are only a year out of date .......

Some photographs in http://maps.google.co.uk/ are at least a couple of years
old. The close up picture of my Hull locations shows my car parked where my
third garage was built a little over two years ago!

John.

Lester Caine

John Turner wrote:
> "scoot" wrote
>
>> But its a lot older, the view of my workplace shows it as it was 3 years
>> ago. The buildings have been demolished and new ones built since then! At
>> lease maps.google.com are only a year out of date .......
>
> Some photographs in http://maps.google.co.uk/ are at least a couple of years
> old. The close up picture of my Hull locations shows my car parked where my
> third garage was built a little over two years ago!

I think it depends on the area of the country. My own house is a very nice
clean picture but is several years old. Image copyright says 2007, but the
picture is possibly last century, since I can see the blue plastic sheet
covering the roof of the workshop which was replaced with a new roof in 2000!

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Wilson.R.Adams

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:13925pqrlp40t6f@news.supernews.com...
>
> "scoot" wrote
>
>> But its a lot older, the view of my workplace shows it as it was 3 years
>> ago. The buildings have been demolished and new ones built since then! At
>> lease maps.google.com are only a year out of date .......
>
> Some photographs in http://maps.google.co.uk/ are at least a couple of
> years old. The close up picture of my Hull locations shows my car pa