Talk:Google Street View coverage/Archive 3

Saint Pierre et Miquelon
When did this imagery get added. As an update been missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.194.32.58 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeju
change ((Jeju)) to ((Jeju Island|Jeju))
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Goseong
Under #220 at Coverage of Google Street View, please disambiguate Goseong to Goseong County, Gangwon. (The map in the source cited shows that Goseong County, South Gyeongsang isn't covered.) Thanks, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coverage of Google Street View. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315204803/http://www.geoinweb.com/2008/10/14/google-street-view-en-france-et-en-europe/ to http://www.geoinweb.com/2008/10/14/google-street-view-en-france-et-en-europe/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917124142/http://www.googblogs.com/uncategorized/happy-nunavut-day-snowy-iqaluit-comes-to-street-view/ to http://www.googblogs.com/uncategorized/happy-nunavut-day-snowy-iqaluit-comes-to-street-view/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804090327/http://skift.com/2013/08/01/google-maps-takes-to-the-skies-with-virtual-tour-of-the-massive-airbus-a380/ to http://skift.com/2013/08/01/google-maps-takes-to-the-skies-with-virtual-tour-of-the-massive-airbus-a380/
 * Added tag to https://www.google.ro/maps/%4019.0711545%2C72.8721976%2C3a%2C75y%2C235.04h%2C83.44t/data%3D%213m7%211e1%213m5%211s8EMi-3JUQOKNILIZBxFqXw%212e0%216s//geo0.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=8EMi-3JUQOKNILIZBxFqXw&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=79.415291&pitch=0%217i13312%218i6656%3Fhl%3Dro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  00:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Coverage of Google Street View. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622141706/http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/n4tuSuxCIbxWj4-QqKgX3aI2lctLCn8u to https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/n4tuSuxCIbxWj4-QqKgX3aI2lctLCn8u
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160224115838/http://laist.com/2007/08/07/google_maps_streetview_los_angeles.php to http://laist.com/2007/08/07/google_maps_streetview_los_angeles.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302161731/http://stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=4694 to http://stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=4694
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914151142/http://news.cnet.com/2300-1023_3-10011303.html to http://news.cnet.com/2300-1023_3-10011303.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122092917/http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/350898/google-to-offer-doha-street-view-soon to http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/350898/google-to-offer-doha-street-view-soon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Coverage level
Hi all, I fear this may be opening a can of worms, but how are the coverage levels ("mostly full coverage" etc) in the article defined and is there a source for these levels? I don't see a cite for these, and looking at the archive this seems something discussed rather than cited. Without a source, these categories seem to be original research to me. Dbsseven (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

2018
So, does anyone know if there is anything new for 2018 yet? 86.125.62.44 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018
Laos is the first Communist Nation Available MoisesTheLibrarian844 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is arguably true, but I can't see why that fact is germane to this article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Releases 232, 233, 234 and 235

 * Release 231 took place on March 6 and added 11 disney parks
 * Release 232 took place on April 9 and added off-road views in Gold Coast, Australia
 * Release 233 took place on April 18 and added Christmas and Cocos islands
 * Release 234 took place yesterday (April 19) and added 7 more canadian parks
 * Release 235 took place today (April 20) and added Jordan and updated street images

CreatorWiki (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the time being April was the month with the most versions in the year 2018, although in the first three months only had a monthly version, probably in the future version Release 235 Google expands coverage or updates street images. According to social networks, the new generation cameras have been spotted in the US, UK, Japan and Singapore. These cameras may be in other countries too but we do not know which countries. CreatorWiki (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Christmas and Cocos Islands are now accessible directly from Google Maps. CreatorWiki (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed coverage
Noticed that Ceuta, Melilla (Spanish enclaves in northern Africa) were removed after Jordan was added on SV. Also everything that was added in West Bank, Palestine, on Release 228 (Saturday, December 16, 2017) is now removed. May edit the page according to this sad news. I see it's already done for the Spanish enclaves in the addition list.

Similar thing that happened long time ago is the full removal of Longyearbyen coverage in Svalbard. Was added on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 (Release 67).

Google keeps randomly removing coverage, mostly tiny bits without any logical reason (even privacy isn't justifying this as it can be a small part of a mountain road in the middle of nowhere) and I can't find why this is happening. Last impacted place was Nuuk, Greenland, losing many bits of its streets. That's annoying as it breaks the link between the different blue lines. If someone finds something about this... that would be nice to share!

KillerMapper (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: US Virgin Islands also lost their coverage from Release 228. It's like Google decided to remove everything added on a certain period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:623:7C00:68F2:6EB5:C8B:7E4F (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Everything seems to be back now. Palestine, Ceuta, Melilla and US Virgins are now accessible like before. KillerMapper (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I see the page doesn’t mention the boys of North Cyprus added in April. Anything else missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.3 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@82.132.232.3 This coverage is not made by Google so it's not official. If I understand correctly, only official additions made by Google are listed here. Otherwise we would also add the coverage made in western Austria, Oman, Tonga etc. KillerMapper (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Date of most recent imagery
I replaced the "Date of newest additions" column with "Date of most recent imagery", I still cleaned all column data for editors to see the dates of the latest images and re-fill the column with dates. CreatorWiki (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Street View Graz, Austria
I been on Google Street View maps in the "understand" section where I've discovered more roads in Graz have more street view. I have also been on instantstreetview.com I can actually use my finger and touch any road that's highlighted in blue to bring some roads in street view. Previously there were just a few roads that were predestrianised, but there a few more roads that are actually are roads. Unfortunenatelly I don't have a reliable source as I still don't know my ins and outs around Wikipedia yet. But still good to know that Graz has finally has a few roads now online. Sorry if my spelling isn't very good.

DoctorStrange97 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This coverage is not made by Google but by an external party. This is similar to the unofficial coverage in western Austria and many other places around the World. You can tell it's not made by Google by looking at the name on the top left corner of your screen. Also the picture quality is lower than Google's data and you can notice you'll travel slower on unofficial coverage (photospheres are usually slower to load). KillerMapper (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Northern Territory National Parks
Street View added yesterday the national parks of the Northern Territory in Australia. 177.143.135.169 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disputed statement
In the 'Coverage by country or territory' table, the statement: "First West Asian country available, along with Israel."

has an accuracy warning. The  tag near this statement has been remaining intact since late-2016, as the dispute was not yet resolved. I have a question, though. Was this tag added by a vandal? I feel like the addition was made as a mistake. And here's a big difference. The statement, "First West Asian country available, along with Palestine."

has no accuracy warning at all. So, I'm seeing that the first statement appears to be already resolved, not because there is something wrong with it. Could it have recently been dealt with? 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:9112:9678:8358:6295 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
- Portugaltg (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Portugal is included in update images on October 5 2018.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Are you saying that Portugal is included and shouldn't be or that Portugal should be  included and isn't? Please clarify by mentioning the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and by providing a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo   18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is the view in Curaçao, Vietnam, Bahrain, Tonga, Armenia and Myanmar seen as vandalism?
I really don't understand. There is street view coverage of the public streets in Myanmar, Curaçao, Vietnam, Tonga, Bahrain and Myanmar but nobody adds them and if I add them people mark them as vandalism. I am not stupid, I already added the link towards the street view coverage and still the edits don't get accepted. Sadiemydog1 (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not vandalism. We are adding on the list only street view panoramas made by Google team with Google Cameras. What anything else you don't understand? - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  09:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2018
New updating places: Poland - Żary, Zielona Góra, pictures from 2017 and 2018. 77.252.60.7 (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make.  Please make a precise request and cite reliable sources if appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Gambia, Malawi and Rwanda
Gambia, Malawi and Rwanda now with business views, please update current coverage table. 177.143.135.28 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to Streetview
Google added a new place in Paris (France), which is the Forum des Halles. It was added between January and February as I checked this place in January for myself and tried to look at the interior using the few photospheres, since the official coverage wasn't here yet. Not sure this is big enough to be added on the list though, but maybe more places were added along this one.

Another changed that happened today or yesterday: photospheres are more likely to be displayed as blue lines now. This means many of business coverages that consisted of photospheres close together are now blue lines, and the Streetview layer all over the World looks way more complete now (but it's not). Look at Germany, you would think Google added new coverage but it's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.63.245.105 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: those changes were reverted a day later. Bug? Mistake? Test? We'll probably never know. KillerMapper (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

New Streetview update
Google just added new coverage in Russia, mostly around Caucasus region but many new roads were added in the country as well (look for 2018 pictures). KillerMapper (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Malaysia also received new update, with new coverage around Lahad Datu, Sabah.


 * Japan, United States, Canada, Colombia, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines were also updated. 177.143.135.149 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And also, please update current coverage table. 177.143.135.239 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Some roads in Australia, Brazil and Mexico are also updated. 177.183.2.123 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of what "coverage" means.
There seems to be an ongoing difference of opinion as to what counts as Google Street View Coverage.

The corporate approach limits the definition of coverage to whatever Google vehicles upload.

The user approach defines coverage as anything accessible through Google Street View no matter who did the filming (clearly Google has provided an interface for third parties to upload their own coverage).

Who is the audience for this page? I believe that the audience is the users of Google Street View. If I, as a user, using Google Street View, can look at Baku or Yerevan or Shenzhen, I don't care where the images come from. I just care that I can view streets and "drive around".

I think removing entries for third party provided imagery is a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjnester (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is supposed to list all updates from Google, not third-party users. Also third-party coverage is usually lower quality, slow to load and extremely slow to navigate. Plus, whoever making them can simply alter or remove them like they want. They should not appear in the timeline of introductions but could eventually be mentioned in the current coverage as unofficial coverage (after all, business views are also third-party and almost all countries have at least one now).

Countries that would be worth mentioning: Armenia, Myanmar, China (Shenzhen), Zimbabwe, Tonga, Dominican Republic, Azerbaïdjan (Baku), French Polynesia, Bermuda (official coverage is smaller and overwritten now). Namibia is also being covered by the same people who did Zimbabwe. KillerMapper (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Main roads in Estonia, Latvia and Taiwan were also updated. Last photos are taken (Taiwan Dec 2019, Estonia and Latvia Aug 2018 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koskinen5490 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to know. The map lists Finland as 'mostly full coverage'. But in reality it only covers about 15% of the roads, if even that. So what exactly does 'coverage' mean in this context? Andemon (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

UK Streetview update
There are new Streetview images from March 2019. 82.22.254.70 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
Some roads in Adelaide, Australia have imagery from April 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.9218362,138.5917326,3a,75y,246.16h,74.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sC3ecLIkFrNpPu5ADaofkFQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC3ecLIkFrNpPu5ADaofkFQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D322.78363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

Some roads outside of Rosario, Argentina have imagery from January 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.1114501,-60.5988355,3a,75y,272.57h,77.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEebfL80sCSquj4yBXDVSsw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DEebfL80sCSquj4yBXDVSsw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.91913%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). 98.169.51.6 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
Some areas in Cordoba, Argentina have imagery from March 2019. https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.4207123,-64.186979,3a,75y,90.25h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEa1G_An6NTN5bmV-Kvz6sw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 98.169.51.6 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019
Some roads in Milan (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4625443,9.197712,3a,75y,0.98h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUxdmcxbyuzq8CI9ovEEtYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have imagery from May 2019. 98.169.55.151 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
I found imagery from June 2019 in Hamilton, Ontario. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.256376,-79.8741101,3a,75y,100.69h,74.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFKAI-KW8ZS1qg6zaYe58Ew!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFKAI-KW8ZS1qg6zaYe58Ew%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D313.82272%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 98.169.55.151 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ A2soup (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
I found some imagery in northern Belgium (next to the Dutch border) from April 2019. (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.454199,4.7221071,3a,75y,347.73h,76.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXLLSH-q9p-hDJUUh_ub0mw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXLLSH-q9p-hDJUUh_ub0mw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D64.79662%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

There's also imagery in Calais, France from May 2019. (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.954378,1.8506544,3a,75y,29.41h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shPFffBrtZKfS7jP54VdxJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 98.169.55.151 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ A2soup (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019
There's imagery in Auckland from May 2019. https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.07778,174.9307658,3a,75y,42.43h,84.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2nIGL0Ya0Ag4ilqiQjxgsA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2nIGL0Ya0Ag4ilqiQjxgsA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D98.718605%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 2620:0:1A10:77F1:6961:80B1:FE0C:8754 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ A2soup (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oldest USA imagery on January 2007?
(Fixed first USA imagery date): Where is the source? The oldest in street view is in June 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadeef (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Change Malaysia latest coverage to 2019-02
175.142.192.107 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's April 2019 now. (https://www.google.com.my/maps/@5.3257561,103.1236844,3a,75y,155.8h,89.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLopVfYlwRwGMHWEX88m8WA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DLopVfYlwRwGMHWEX88m8WA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D78.5029%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)


 * ✅ Hadeef (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019
Re: Lebanon: The country itself has quite decent coverage, similar to Tunisia. Beirut's coverage is bad, but saying "limited streetview in Beirut" is misleading as it would make readers think that's the only thing covered in the country. The coloration on the map (green - tourist landmarks only) is also wrong. Lebanon should be light blue. Wikitestaccountlogin (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: changed the table per request, will work on the map. A2soup (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note: Lebanon coverage is not official. Official coverage is limited to landmarks spread in the country and minor coverage of two streets of Beirut. Please remember we only list official coverage made by Google here. KillerMapper (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New imagery update is not happening
Google Street View is about to update imagery worldwide as of December 10th, 2019, the update may include more Austrian cities and new 2018's generation images in countries known as Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and a few others. 177.143.133.92 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked today but didn't see any updates at all. That update didn't happen. Google Street Vieu (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The dates are not always exact, possibly the last update of the year is between December 10th-14th, for example today is December 11th. 177.143.133.142 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

In 2016 and 2017 the imagery were updated on December 14th, last year in 2018 the update took place on December 10th. 177.143.133.142 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the imagery dates on the Google website, it looks like imagery will be updated to December 2019 in:
 * Australia
 * Belgium
 * Denmark
 * Hong Kong
 * Indonesia
 * Japan
 * Malaysia
 * Mexico
 * Netherlands
 * New Zealand
 * Singapore
 * South Africa
 * Thailand
 * Slovakia
 * Croatia
 * Bulgaria
 * Russia
 * Norway
 * Finnland
 * Sweden
 * Austria
 * Slovenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippHer (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * USA Google Street Vieu (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The update didn't happen. It's December 15th today. Hadeef (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's December 18 and still no update. The website states that photos are currently being taken for several countries up to December 2019. The dates mean that we shouldn't get an update until a couple months from now. Google Street Vieu (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. We need to wait again. Hadeef (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought Google doesn't say when they will update imagery next. Although I do agree that it's been a very long while since there has been such an update. Evking22 (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Google indeed never says when an update will be applied. Sometimes some external sources can tell information, for example the latest addition in Tasmania (which is still missing in the page while I write this) has an article from Australia mentioning the release date of Dec 20, 2019: https://www.miragenews.com/virtual-trekking-in-tasmanian-national-parks/

It's not because December had major updates in the previous years that it will necessary happen this time. This year was the worst year since 2007 in terms of new coverage (Nigerian extension being the major addition, not even a new country was added this year if we exclude the very small coverage in Minsk, Belarus) so I personally wasn't expecting anything happening for the end of the year as it was a very disappointing year from Google.

Actually an update seems to have happened but it was mostly small coverage usually done with the Trekker or a basic tripod camera. We found a new boat view in Hokkaido, Japan (the blue line is still missing), some monument views around Malindi, Kenya with very recent pictures (October 2019, I don't think I've seen regular coverage that new) and the Tasmanian national parks. KillerMapper (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The website just updated the dates that they're updating imagery to 2020 instead of 2019. This must mean that updates for 2019 imagery should be coming very soon. Google Street Vieu (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It was updated 2 days ago. Hadeef (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Reporting bugs and issues
https://www.google.com/streetview/explore/ Looks like Google canceled everything due to the pandemic situation. The list is empty, for the first time ever as far as I know. Also that list of possible countries is just completely unrealistic, Google would never go in countries like Cambodia again... No money to make there for Google. KillerMapper (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Today I reported a bug that the lines were redesigning to early 2020, I don't know if it was my impression, as the recent images are still from 2019. 2804:14D:6882:74:F403:5E74:7316:9A7D (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

French Wikipedia's coverage
The overall coverage of updates seems to be better on the French Wikipedia, I'm considering at least copying over the most recent updates. Would like to gauge opinions on doing this first though. --YellowSkarmory (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

French? I thought Spanish. French looks to be unaccurate.CuteCat123 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Spanish page is totally inaccurate as whoever maintains it (always the same user, just changing names) just randomly copy pastes the same walls of text filled with false information, sometimes faking activities by just switching walls of text from previous dates to newer dates (or vice-versa), and consider unofficial coverage to be part of Google's coverage. This page is definitely to not be trusted at all. I personally maintain the French page where I check everything before writing, helped with other people from the GeoGuessr community. Also my own updates are always copy pasted word by word (and translated in the process) by the Spanish page, I bet without even checking if what I write is true so if you think the French one is inaccurate and the Spanish one accurate, clearly you don't know what you're talking about. KillerMapper (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But French page has inaccurate recent imagery date, for example in the US it was supposed to be March 2020 but the recent imagery date was stated to be January 2016. CuteCat123 (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the bottom sheet is not updated yet, this page was completely abandoned for years before I started updating it again and I didn't finish my pass on this part. KillerMapper (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Current coverage section: keep or remove countries without official coverage?
Currently the section lists almost all the countries, many of them only being listed for having "business views". The "business view" thing is a relic of the time when Google started doing views of businesses before letting other people uploading photospheres. Since this article is about listing official coverage exclusively created by Google, I suggest this list to be cleaned so we only keep everything with official coverage (ranging from small interior view like Iraq to fully covered countries). As an example I updated the list in the French article so you can have a preview of the result (note: some dates may not be updated in the list as I didn't finish to check everything; the article was abandoned for a few years before I started to update it again). Feel free to give your thoughts about this here. KillerMapper (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - it's not very useful to have countries without official coverage on the list, with the possible exception of countries with basically full unofficial coverage, but even then I wouldn't include them personally, as it's still not official coverage. Skarmory   (talk)  15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  17:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If nobody is against the idea I guess we can start cleaning it next week.KillerMapper (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This page is specifically entitled Google Street View. In the list of countries, those countries without official Google coverage should be unbolded, although it would be helpful if the info box is used to state if there is significant unofficial coverage available. Dadge (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thought: boldface could be used to denote official coverage, and the asterisk could be used to denote unofficial coverage (but not individual images, aka photospheres). Some countries, eg. Finland would be in bold and asterisked. Dadge (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

2020/12/08: cleaned the list, only keeping countries with official data published by Google. Feel free to add sources or complete if something is missing. KillerMapper (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally declined a pending revision regarding this discussion, and was confused about which talk page consensus it would be referencing. I've since re-allowed the edit, so, uh, sorry for any confusion. My fault. WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Inadequate lists
How are people supposed to know what locations were included in recent Street View updates and when the imagery was first and last captured? The page appears to have been heavily edited removing release numbers and dates. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4D6D:CF08:29E1:5AC6 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia policies take precedence over your "need" to know things like that. There's still plenty more policy violating information yet to be removed. FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As of mid-2020, Google's website shows many areas of Germany being added to Google Maps over the ensuing months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredokudai1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dresden, Leipzig, Kaiserslautern, Dortmund, Gelsenkirchen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Essen, Wuppertal, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Duisburg, Hanover, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Bremen, Berlin, Munich, Oberstaufen, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Freiburg im Breisgau and Mannheim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredokudai1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove unreferenced material
Since certain editors think they can just add whatever they want and not provide references, it seems the only option available is to remove all the unreferenced material. At the same time I also plan to remove the number column from Coverage of Google Street View unless there is evidence it is somehow official? I realise this might be controversial, but it appears to be the only way this article can be made policy compliant is to remove all the existing unreferenced material then keep a tight rein on any future unreferenced additions. Any objections? FDW777 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree the page needs a complete overhaul especially on the sourcing:
 * - About the numbers I do think they don't make sense too because updates can still be missing and Google never numbered them. Instead we can keep them but per year so we can see how many updates each year had. That's what I did on the French page because I know it's missing many updates;
 * - About the lack of sources, it can be hard finding them back for older updates (some websites where people reported updates don't exist anymore) and I don't think removing old stuff is good. However we can definitely add sources for all the "current coverage" section: just find coverage on Google Maps and get a link from it (note: shortened links can be created to avoid overloading the page with very long links). For all future additions everything should be sourced (again Google Maps links are the best source) and people like Alfredokudai1 or Daniel Halpert that keeps adding random unsourced data should be warned about this so they stop contributing without sources.
 * That's what I think. KillerMapper (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the older stuff, and picking a particular entry at random, I see Carambola Beach, Buccaneer Golf Course, Isaac Point, St George Village Botanical Gardens, Rainbow Beach, Hams Bluff in the United States Virgin Islands has been added with a claimed date of Thursday, September 1, 2016. That's the reference, other than at the bottom where it says Image capture: Jun 2016 I can't see anything about when it was originally added to Google Street View. Plus that's an image of the beach, does that really reference Carambola Beach, Buccaneer Golf Course, Isaac Point, St George Village Botanical Gardens, Rainbow Beach, Hams Bluff in the United States Virgin Islands
 * The reason I'd really, really, really, prefer to remove the numbers is that if I remove a bunch of entries as unreferenced, I'd need to renumber all the ones I left in. And then if someone wanted to add back an entry for 2016, they'd have to renumber all the other entries again. It's a crazy system that makes maintaining the page impossible, you shouldn't need to renumber dozens of entries just to add or remove one. I wouldn't object to leaving them in with each year starting at #1, but as the entries are already listed in chronological order it's kind of redundant. But it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so I can cope either way.
 * Any removal wouldn't have to be permanent, information can always be added back if references are available, and if there is consensus for removal a link to the edit doing it would be placed here so people can see what's removed and what they might want to try and add back. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What we can do first is to gather as much references as possible instead of removing all unsourced edits. After a few weeks or months (so people can have time to search) we can start clean everything that can't be proven. KillerMapper (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's left a few months certain editors will just continue adding even more unreferenced material, making the problem worse. I'll give it until the end of the year. FDW777 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * People like Alfredokudai1 and Daniel Halpert should be blocked immediately. CuteCat123 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. However, as said in a section above The problem is that 90% of this article is unsourced, so it wouldn't seem fair to punish one party. If the article was properly properly sourced then it would be easy to enforce. Since the two main problematic editors show no sign of being willing to comply with policy, I will implement my proposal sooner rather than later and remove all unreferenced, or improperly referenced content. This removal would be without prejudice to any of it being restored with adequate referencing. FDW777 (talk)
 * Sounds like a good plan. I wouldn't even wait till the end of the year - it is easy for people to look at old revisions if there is content that they want to add back in with references. Once overhauled, I will not hesitate to block disruptive editors. We can also change the protection if appropriate. Is PC1 working, or would ECP be more useful? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed all the unreferenced/original research from 2020, and will do the other years in due course. Since the problem is largely limited to new additions (2020, in theory at least), it's probably easier to see who is being disruptive now. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Exhibit 1, exhibit 2 and exhibit 3. Pure disruption. FDW777 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hopefully the article will be fully cleaned of unreferenced material by the time the block expires. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

why are you restoring vast amounts of policy violating content to this article? Specifically the table at Coverage of Google Street View? When not completely unreferenced, the information in it is pure original research, being referenced only to Google Street View itself. Taking just the first entry (but the same argument applies to every location that is referenced solely to Google Street View), Åland Islands claims that the most recent imagery is from 2011-09 and the oldest imagery is from 2009-05. This is referenced by this and this. Who says those are the most recent and oldest? Nobody, except an editor drawing their own conclusion. This is not permitted, see WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC) I note that was previously complaining about other editors posting unsourced content. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

and The ones that violating it are Daniel Halpert and Alfredokudai1, not me. CuteCat123 (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The section you have restored is full of unreferenced material and original research. There is no "I say it's right and should stay" exception to policy. The prior difficulty in getting any admin action to be taken was due to the fact there were multiple editors repeatedly changing unreferenced content back and forth so it was impossible to see who was right and who was wrong. The only way to prevent continued problems is to remove problematic content. As stated the content can be restored if properly referenced, but it cannot be restored without proper referencing. FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point just remove the whole article then. Removing large chunks of it is nonsense, it removes its utility. If you don't want to keep the dates for the mentioned reason above then keep at least the current coverage section to list the countries with official GSV coverage. Removing everything is counter-productive. KillerMapper (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The community has repeatedly said we should have an article on this subject, see Articles for deletion/Timeline of Google Street View, Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View and Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View (2nd nomination), the latter only two months ago. Naturally none of the people involved in those discussions seem prepared to actually fix the problems with this article, as is usually the case.


 * The removal of the "Current coverage" or any other information is not necessarily a permanent change. The information can always be added back in some way with proper references. The fact remains that Coverage of Google Street View contains information that is either unreferenced, or original research where people are drawing conclusions about dates from Google Street View itself. The only way to solve the current problems with the article, and to avoid future problems of the same nature, is for this article to be scaled back to what is covered by secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with that removal of the entire Current Coverage part is too much, and one might as well remove the entire article at that point as a significant portion of the article outside of that is unsourced and because removal of Current Coverage would ruin any utility of the article. If Current Coverage should be removed until properly sourced, then at most the column with the most recent imagery should be removed. Not the entire thing. That being said, I also suggest that the "Image capture" date in Street View be considered an official message from Google as to the most recent streetview at that specific location, thus allowing it to be used as a source for that section of the article rather than being considered original research. Deepseamountain (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You can agree or disagree as much as you like, it won't keep unreferenced material in the articlea. This is a straightforward WP:BURDEN issue, the burden of evidence to provide proper references is on anyone wishing to restore or add information. The "image capture" date proves nothing at all, except the date the location on screen was captured. It does not reference a most recent date for an entire country, city or even suburb. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I meant to keep the section but without the dates. Just have a list of covered countries. Easy to source, just link to an official Street View panorama, nothing more is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerMapper (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to any content of that kind being added, providing it's properly referenced. For some reason people would rather spend time arguing in favour of keeping unreferenced material than doing that. FDW777 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

as (who is almost certainly Alfredokudai1) does nothing except fill up the page history and watchlists with unreferenced edits they self-revert (or on occasion, reverts of other edits they also self-revert) perhaps a partial block from the page might be in order please? FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Alfredokudai1 edits
All edits of this user are unconstructive, unsourced and completely inaccurate. I recommend that this page be protected indefinitely and user blocked. Thanks.- Eugεn  S¡m¡on  21:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Todas las ediciones de este usuario son no constructivas, sin fuentes y completamente inexactas. Recomiendo que esta página esté protegida indefinidamente y el usuario bloqueado. Gracias.

He translated your words in Spanish. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 16:422, 19 November 2020 (UTC) }}

If you want to make the article fully protected, everyone including you can't edit the article. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC) }}


 * This is called edit warring. If another editor reverts you, you should discuss on the talk page and not re-do the same edit again. Continuing to edit war will get you blocked. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protection nomination: - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  08:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That template is for requesting changes to a protected page. However you have now got my attention, so if that editor causes further problems I will look at blocking or protecting as appropriate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Afaik he's been doing the same thing on the Spanish Wikipedia. Skarmory   (talk)  23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please block Alfredokudai1, he keep changing dates non stop. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC) }}
 * He/she has been blocked from this article for a week. They are welcome to post suggestions on this talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay. Now we don't have to revert his edits for a week. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My hope is that we can make a constructive editor out of them. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears your hopes have been crushed. FDW777 (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He keeps editing and adding things without providing any kind of source, impossible to verify everything he writes... very annoying.KillerMapper (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that 90% of this article is unsourced, so it wouldn't seem fair to punish one party. If the article was properly properly sourced then it would be easy to enforce. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He keeps putting unsourced content after he was unblocked, what should we do? &mdash; CuteCat123 (CuteCat123 · talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we block him back or not? &mdash; CuteCat123 (CuteCat123 · talk) 01:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So not only Alfredokudai1 keeps doing bad edits, randomly reverting and canceling edits and not providing sources (basically what he used to do for years in the Spanish version so good luck making him a constructive editor), we now have Daniel Halpert that keeps editing dates without any proof (I tried to find myself sources but no luck). They are unstoppable. KillerMapper (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 1 month while Daniel Halpert has been blocked forever. We won't have to undo their edits anymore (at least for a month, we'll see what happens to Alfredokudai1 after this). CuteCat123 (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , is back to their usual unreferenced additions, for example this  and this. FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also compare the constant reverts followed by self-reverts by Special:Contributions/190.163.166.185 (which was the IP being used during Alfredokudai1's block from editing the page) and Special:Contributions/Alfredokudai1. It seems obvious that they are one and the same. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's been a month after Alfredokudai1's ban expired. We have "seen what happened", as you said, and since he is back at it again, please ban him along with 190.163.166.185, which has been pointed out to seemingly also be him, for longer than a month. He obviously hasn't learned his lesson. Azmjc02 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Missing countries
The Dominican republic, Nigeria and a whole bunch of other countries are now left out despite the fact that there was, in fact, new street view of updated ones. Fix this RIGHT NOW! Wikisalowam537 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you have references, they could be added. If you have no reference, they won't be. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Guatemala and Belize aren't on here though both have Street View. Reference? Open Google Maps. CJ Meyer (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Panama
Street view images in Panama are not added by Google. Added user 360Explora Panama, who added street views in Panama. Source: talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Museums in Germany
Hello, in February 2020, Google added street view to the Berlin Museum of Musical Instruments, here is the reference (1), in which in the Google Arts & Culture site it is mentioned that there is street view and this also applies to the Museum of Man and Nature(2).(1)(2)

Second, in March 2020, Google added street view to The Ludwig Roselius Museum, the Folkwang Museum and the Paula Modersohn-Becker Museum.(1)(2)(3)


 * How does this reference confirm Berlin Musical Instrument Museum was added on 2 February 2020?


 * How does this reference confirm Folkwang Museum was added on 2 March 2020?


 * How does this reference confirm Paula Modersohn-Becker Museum was added on 2 March 2020?


 * How does this reference confirm Chao Phraya River was added on 5 October 2020? FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Could this reference be used to verify the Street View date of the Folkwang Museum? (1). The publication date of this article is March 18, 2020. It also implies that the news is from that week of that year. Therefore, the Street View could have taken place on March 16 or 17, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeb05 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are you continuing to add information without proper references? Google Arts & Culture is not Google Street View. This does not mention the latter, but mentions the former. This does not confirm an addition date of March 17, 2020. This does not reference Klagenfurt, Villach, Wels, Sankt Pölten, Dornbirn, Steyr, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Wolfsberg, Leoben, Krems an der Donau and more locations in Austria. This emphatically DOES NOT reference Gaziantep, Nizip, Birecik, İslahiye, Sanliurfa and Siverek. This does not mention Google Street View, but only Google Arts & Culture. Same for this. And this. And this. And lastly this, which makes it clear Google Arts & Culture is a different platform from Google Street View. FDW777 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Street View is integrated with Google Arts & Culture, which is why every virtual tour appears on Google Maps. (Evidence)
 * First, in the reference to the Berlin Musical Instrument Museum it says that on March 10 the Museum was added. Second, I didn't add "Klagenfurt, Villach, Wels, Sankt Pölten, Dornbirn, Steyr, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Wolfsberg, Leoben, Krems an der Donau and more locations in Austria", that part of the list was already there before I edited this page. The only thing I added from Austria on the page was the Leopold Museum. (Evidence)


 * Second, this reference says about a virtual tour in the Paula Modersohn-Becker Museum and the Ludwig Roselius Museum. That virtual tour is Street View.


 * Third, this tool serves to check which locations or cities were added to Google Street View on exact dates. - JSeb05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeb05 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Read Google Arts & Culture, it's not Google Street View it just uses some of the same technology. Per WP:ONUS, please stop adding disupted content to this article. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is Google Street View, all the sources that are there clarify that it is Street View, and all the places that are there appear on Google Maps. You are eliminating important parts of the article, this is too obvious, first of all, what is your definition of Google Street View and what do you define that should be in the article. Second, you are quoting a Wikipedia article as evidence that the technology is different, it is not allowed to use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, you must take into account what Google defines as Street View, in this case, the information counts as Street View since both Google Arts, Google Maps and Google Earth platforms define these virtual tours as "Street View". Third, an agreement must be reached, what the article is going to be about between different users when removing content, since on this talk page, it was discussed and voted on what parts should be removed, you cannot make decisions on your own and discard content in this way by yourself. Most of the content I have added has references and Google classifies these contributions as Street View, and even on the official Google Street View page, they include museums, in this case, the Alvar Aalto Museum, as an example of Street View. (Evidence) --JSeb05 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You do understand Google has lots of different things? Google Maps is Google Maps. Google Street View is Google Street View. Google Arts & Culture is Google Arts & Culture. That Google integrates them is irrelevant. WP:ONUS says The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, you do not have consensus for inclusion at present. FDW777 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Google adapted its Street View technology" when taking about Google Arts & Culture. It's not the same thing. FDW777 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the same thing, this reference does not prove anything. The Qatar Museum and Iraq are included in the lists, therefore, so must be the other museums in Europe. Street View includes tourist sites including museums, so adapting it does not mean that it is any different. It is not considered "disputed" content, this information is vital to the article, the references you deleted specifically say "Google Street View".--JSeb05 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You asked for an independent reference, you got one. Google has lots of different products, that they integrate together. It doesn't make A equal B. FDW777 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is still the same because the content that is on Google Arts & Culture is also on Google Maps. (Example (1)(2)). Street View is not a service, it is a tool used by Google in different products.--JSeb05 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess you don't understand what "integrate" means. Also if you're saying Google Street View is simply a tool, then by definition it can't have "coverage" so this article has no right to even exist. FDW777 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So what is your definition of Street View, could you give me a reference example to check that a place is added in Street View? In the sources I added the article specifies that these museums were added to Google Arts & Culture with Street View, could you explain me why these references (1)(2)(3) are wrong if they even mention Street View? This is only textual analysis, words have a meaning depending on the context in which they are used, not everything is literal. I want to contribute to the article but I don't understand what your standards are when reviewing the information, what is determined to be part of Street View and what is not?--JSeb05 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple. If the references say it's been added to Google Arts & Culture, then that's what it's been added to. With museums, that appears to be the case for the 2020 additions. Finding a single reference that might not mention Google Arts & Culture doesn't change that at all, nor do passing mentions of Google Street View in a different context. Reference 1 makes it clear it's Google Arts & Culture, as does reference 2. Although I'm relying on Google Translate it tends be accurate on the general gist of what's written, and the text in reference 2 translates as Another innovation is the virtual tour through the collection rooms of the New Worlds on the culture platform Google Arts & Culture. As is known from Google Street View, users can roam online through the museum and discover the works of art. That clearly demonstrates which platform it's been added to, Google Street View gets a passing mention. Reference 3 translates as the radiology museum of the University's museum system becomes part of GoogleArts & Culture and Using the technology of Google Street View it was possible to renew and expand the 360-degree virtual tour of the visit path of the museum exhibition, the latter part making it clear that the tour was captured using Google Street View technology and the former making it clear which platform it's on.


 * More references such as this would be ideal. FDW777 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, so would it be better to put this information on the Google Arts and Culture page or on this page? Since these sources quote specifically about Google Arts and Culture but also quote about Street View.--JSeb05 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Google Arts and Culture would be the more sensible place in my opinion. FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In this case, I propose that there is a kind of disclaimer below the "Timeline of Introductions" section, which clarifies that all content related to Google Arts and Culture should be located on another page, the text would be "For the virtual tours of museums, see Google Arts and Culture".--JSeb05 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Featureless maps are not refererences
Specifically this does not reference Santo Domingo, Santo Domingo Este, Boca Chica, Santiago de los Caballeros in Dominican Republic and more locations and Gaziantep, İslâhiye, Nizip, Birecik, Sanliurfa, Siverek, Viranşehir and more locations in Turkey FDW777 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove the content of the "Timeline of Introductions" section
First of all, this section lists the addiction places by day, month and year, something that Google stopped doing a long time ago (Source). Secondly, in one day Google can't take Street View of several cities. Third, there will always be a delay between taking pictures and publishing the street view in the same day (Quote: "Because of factors outside our control (weather, road closures, etc), it is always possible that our cars may not be operating, or that slight changes may occur. Please also be aware that where the list specifies a particular city, this may include smaller cities and towns that are within driving distance." - Google Street View Official Website (Source)", so taking an exact date is impossible, also knowing that some cars do not publish the pictures because sometimes the street view is not made public in the case of Germany, in which Google cars are still circulating in cities of this country but do not publish the Street View images for privacy reasons. Fourth, according to the rule "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", under that same logic, it should only have a list of countries that have street view plus the verifiable sources but not the specific locations, it is quite unnecessary to have tables that list almost all the cities and towns of a country, it should only have a table that says that the country received street view images but not the dates since that is impossible to verify due to the above mentioned, I propose to eliminate this section completely due to the arguments given, in which this page should only list the countries or territories that have street view but not the specific dates and specific places since that is impossible to verify, besides it is unnecessary, the reader is looking to know which countries/territories have street view, not the specific dates or specific places. Additionally, since it was agreed that information about museums with street view should be added to the Google Arts and Culture page, then Iraq and Qatar should be removed from this table since the only street view they have are of museums. In summary, it is not necessary to list all the places that have Street View, as it is too much irrelevant information and it is necessary, based on the rule "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Take, for example, the article in this language, which only lists the countries, I think it would be better if the article in English followed the same structure.--JSeb05 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Secondly, in one day Google can't take Street View of several cities, sure they can. You're not seriously suggesting they only have one car that they've used all over the world? However I would have no problem with a mass cull of this article. FDW777 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Yakutsk, Irkutsk, Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Krasnaya Polyana, Ishim, Vladivostok, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Alexeyevka, Anzhero-Sudzhensk, Apatity, Arsk, Artyom, Belebey, Belorechensk, Birobidzhan, Borisoglebsk, Borisovka, Borovichi, Buzuluk, Chapayevsk, Cherkessk, Gorno-Altaysk, Goryachy Klyuch, Gubkin, Kandalaksha, Kingisepp, Korocha, Korsakov, Kyshtym, Kyzyl, Labinsk, Langepas, Lyudinovo, Magadan, Nakhodka, Nazarovo, Partizansk, Pochep, Revda, Rostov, Satka, Severouralsk, Shlisselburg, Suzdal, Tobolsk, Tsivilsk, Ukhta, Ust'-Labinsk, Ussuriysk, Vyazma, Zarinsk and more locations in Russia. " Text taken from the 2014 list. All these cities are in different parts of Russia making it very unlikely that they were taken on the same day, and Google clarifies on their official website that they cannot take pictures on the same day of different due to external factors, it is possible that Google has several vehicles but it is not possible to verify how many cities as they do not even know on which day they took the street view pictures, so this is in breach of the rules of Wikipedia, in which all content must be verifiable. And just in case you are wondering about the cars, apparently Google uses one car per country, since there are Geoguessr guides in which players can identify a country based on the car, for example, the whole street view of Ghana was made with a car that had tape on it.--JSeb05 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that "major locations added" does not sound the same as "taken on the same day" to me. I presume that means the data was made public, not that the pictures were literally taken on that day. Additionally, I would assume that "apparently Google uses one car per country" is not true for larger/more populated countries. Alyo  (chat·edits) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Having taken a quick look after seeing the Teahouse post, I haven't really thought much about whether the list's inclusion is indiscriminate, and belongs at all as a matter of editorial discretion, but I would note two things. First, as a matter of black letter policy, any unsourced content may be removed and the burden is on anyone wishing to include the content (wishing to keep it) to provide a reliable source directly supporting the material, using an inline citation upon any return of it – the material may not be returned without doing so. See WP:BURDEN. So any unsourced sections can be removed. Second, I think the discussion above is being derailed because of a misunderstanding. The sections I've looked at, albeit quickly, are not indicating when they say a bunch of locations were "added" on a particular date (and even a particular time) that the streets were mapped on that date and time. They're saying that Google updated their servers – added those locations to Google Street View for the first time on the dates and at the times indicated. I visited a few of the sources that are being cited and that's what was being verified. Thus, the entire discussion of whether Google can, could, or did map the streets on X date and even at X exact time is irrelevant. And the New York Times article is not proof that google "stopped doing this", because it's discussing a facility for seeing when some street view was refreshed, so users can see how old the street view is, which only incidentally might be the first date a city was first added to Google. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The reasons why the information may be incorrect is because the locations do not correspond well, in the example text, it appears that the city of "Zarinsk" and "Borisoglebsk" were added on the same day (Wednesday, January 29, 2014), the cities are far away from each other, it does not make sense that they were added on the same day. Also the reason why it is difficult to determine the date, is because the article uses the format day/month/year, instead, Google only uses the format month/year, this can be easily checked using one of the Street View, in which in the information bar appears "Image Capture: Month/Year" (Example), additionally Google only uses the format month/year on its main page in which they indicate which places are going to have street view.--JSeb05 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JSeb, both Fuhghettaboutit and I are saying that when the article gives a date that a location was added, that is the date the content was uploaded to Google's servers or made public in some way. It does not mean that's the date on which the photos were added. Zarinsk and Borisoglebsk may have been added on the same day, even if the pictures were taken at different times. Look at the section for 2007--there's a source saying that "San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, Miami, and New York City" were all added on the same day, even though those cities are on opposite sides of North America. It does not mean the data was all collected on the same day. Again, removing unsourced material may be a necessary project for some parts of the page (EDIT: In fact, the Zarinsk/Borisoglebsk entry you talk about is a good example of an unsourced entry that may be too minor to care about anyway), but removing content just because the cities are far away from each other and you don't think Google could have collected the information on the same day would not be correct. Alyo  (chat·edits) 23:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason why it is difficult to determine is that Google updates many cities in the countries, in 2007, it is evident that it is easy to track which cities street view, but instead, take into account 2014 or 2016, in which many cities receive street view, so it is difficult to determine which ones are added on a specific day as they can be 50 or 100 depending on the population density of the country and the location of the urban centers, Referring to the previous argument that Google can not take Street View photos in a single day is because the photos are stored, let's say that Google updates the Street View of the cities of Madrid and Barcelona, in Madrid they update them on March 1 but it takes more days because Madrid is much larger than Barcelona. Second, maybe the weather in Madrid is very rainy so you can not take street view that same day. Also keep in mind that Google has a time delay when uploading images to Google Maps, in which images that were taken on March 8 may be published on December 5. There is also the fact that some sources can be confusing as some may be talking about the announcement of street view and others may be talking about the publication of the Street View photographs.--JSeb05 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand some of your concerns but without more sources backing this up I don't think this is the best use of our time on the page. Instead, if you want to trim down the Timeline section, I would focus on removing (a) completely unsourced entries (e.g., the 28 January 2014 entry) or (b) extremely minor cities, towns, and locales. You can see the difference between 2008, when many entries start with a country's capital, and 2015, where you have "Underwater views in Bermuda". There isn't a consistent standard for how notable locations need to be to be included. I would think, for example, that the 4 June 2015 entry could be removed or shorted to "Underwater views around islands in the Atlantic and Pacific" etc. Alyo  (chat·edits) 23:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be best, although preferably it would be better to list these tables only by year, as it is easier to verify although it can be difficult in some occasions, for example, all the sources about street view in a country talk about the announcement. I also propose that instead of listing each city one by one it would be better to have short descriptions as for example, say in the case of Argentina, instead of listing each of the cities, it would be better to have as description "Main Cities, Towns, Roads and Tourist Sites", and simply keep only a list of places in a general way, when a source does not specify the locations. On the other hand, when a source specifies the location well, such as a national park. I also have a question regarding the references, for example this one, in which it implies that the Chao Phraya river has street view, should the publication of the article be taken as the date on which this place received street view? This is one of the doubts I have when editing this page, since it is very confusing to try to determine the date.--JSeb05 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion about having short descriptions instead of lists of minor cities and towns is probably a good one. I don't know if listing tables only by year makes sense--if the consensus is to have a timeline (which isn't guaranteed) maybe month+year is a good compromise? Then you don't need to worry about being exactly accurate, given the concerns about sourcing you've already described. I agree that sources that don't exactly confirm when the street view was added is a problem, and I don't think there's a perfect answer anywhere. Since you and have been doing a lot of the work on this article, why don't you create a new section with these ideas and come to a consensus?  Alyo  (chat·edits</b>) 00:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Changes in Article Structure & References
It would be better to organize the tables in the "Timeline of Introductions" section in a different way. I have proposed two alternatives, the first one is to sort only by month and year, since google stopped using the day/month/year format a long time ago. Example: And the second alternative, would be to sort the Street View only by continent and year. Example: Second, it would also be better when a new country has street view, only to add a short description such as "Main Cities, Towns, Roads and Tourist Sites" (in the case that they are only a certain city then the name of this city is added, this is the case of the Dominican Republic in which only has Street View in two cities: Santo Domingo and Santiago de los Caballeros). Third, at the moment of using the references, it is proposed that the date of the article is the date in which the Street View of a certain place has been added, because it is very difficult to determine the exact date due to diverse factors, as they are the climate, the size of the place, the traffic, etc...--JSeb05 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the first option you've presented. I think that maintains the timeline best, while giving us the ability to trim down some of what's in that section. I also agree that if the source doesn't say exactly when the locations were added to streeview, we can use the article's month of publication to place it in the timeline. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 03:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of any kind of culling. For example 2010 contains the monstrosity of Andover, Ashford, Barrow-in-Furness, Basingstoke, Bath, Bedford, Blackpool, Bognor Regis, Bolton, Bradford, Brighton and Hove, Burnley, Cannock, Canterbury, Carlisle, Chatham, Chester, Chesterfield, Chichester, Clitheroe, Colchester, Crewe, Darlington, Devizes, Doncaster, Dorchester, Dover, Durham, Ellesmere Port, Ely, Evesham, Exeter, Folkestone, Gainsborough, Gloucester, Grange-over-Sands, Grimsby, Harlow, Hartlepool, Hastings, Hereford, Huddersfield, Huntingdon, Ipswich, Kendal, Kettering, Kidderminster, Kingston upon Hull, Lancaster, Leicester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Loughborough, Luton, Maidstone, Mansfield, Margate, Middlesbrough, Morecambe, Northampton, Oswestry, Penzance, Peterborough, Plymouth, Preston, Ripon, Salford, Salisbury, Scarborough, St Albans, Stamford, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Swindon, Torquay, Truro, Uttoxeter, Wakefield, Warrington, Wellingborough, Wells, Weston-super-Mare, Winchester, Wigan, Winchester, Wolverhampton, Worcester, Workington, Worthing, Yeovil, St David's, Bangor, Newport, Aberaeron, Aberavon, Aberbargoed, Abercarn, Aberdare, Abergavenny, Abergele, Abertillery, Aberystwyth, Amlwch, Ammanford, Bala, Bargoed, Barmouth, Beaumaris, Bethesda, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Blaenavon, Blackwood, Blaina, Brecon, Bridgend, Briton Ferry, Brynmawr, Buckley, Builth Wells, Burry Port, Caernarfon, Caerphilly, Caerwys, Caldicot, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Chepstow, Chirk, Cilgerran, Colwyn Bay, Connah's Quay, Conwy, Corwen, Cowbridge, Criccieth, Crickhowell, Crumlin, Cwmbran, Denbigh, Dolgellau, Ebbw Vale, Ewloe, Fishguard, Flint, Ferndale, Glanamman, Glynneath, Goodwick, Gorseinon, Harlech, Haverfordwest, Hay-on-Wye, Holyhead, Holywell, Kidwelly, Knighton, Lampeter, Laugharne, Llandeilo, Llandovery, Llandrindod Wells, Llandudno, Llandudno Junction, Llandysul, Llanelli, Llanfair Caereinion, Llanfairfechan, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, Llanfyllin, Llangefni, Llangollen, Llanidloes, Llanrwst, Llantrisant, Llantwit Major, Llanwrtyd Wells, Llanybydder, Loughor, Machynlleth, Maesteg, Menai Bridge, Merthyr Tydfil, Milford Haven, Mold, Monmouth, Montgomery, Mountain Ash, Narberth, Neath, Nefyn, Newbridge, Newcastle Emlyn, Newport (Pembrokeshire), New Quay, Newtown, Neyland, Old Colwyn, Pembroke, Pembroke Dock, Penarth, Pencoed, Penmaenmawr, Pontardawe, Pontypool, Pontypridd, Porth, Porthcawl, Porthmadog, Port Talbot, Prestatyn, Presteigne, Pwllheli, Queensferry, Rhayader, Rhuddlan, Rhyl, Rhymney, Ruthin, Risca, St Asaph, St Clears, Saltney, Shotton, Talgarth, Templeton, Tenby, Tondu, Tonypandy, Towyn, Tredegar, Treharris, Tregaron, Tywyn, Usk, Welshpool, Whitland, Wrexham, Ystradgynlais, Ystrad Mynach, Derry, Omagh, Newry, Antrim, Armagh, Ballycastle, Ballyclare, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Ballynahinch, Banbridge, Bangor, Carryduff, Coalisland, Coleraine, Comber, Cookstown, Craigavon, Donaghadee, Downpatrick, Dromore, Dundonald, Dungannon, Enniskillen, Kilkeel, Larne, Limavady, Lisburn, Lurgan, Magherafelt, Maghera, Newcastle, Newtownards, Portadown, Portrush, Portstewart, Randalstown, Strabane, Warrenpoint Livingston, Paisley, East Kilbride, Cumbernauld, Hamilton, Kirkcaldy, Ayr, Clydebank, Greenock, Kilmarnock, Perth, Stirling, Coatbridge, Irvine, Dunfermline, Glenrothes, Dumfries, Airdrie, Falkirk, Motherwell, Wishaw, Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Bishopbriggs, Bearsden, Arbroath, Newton Mearns, Musselburgh, Elgin, Bellshill, Dumbarton, Kirkintilloch, Renfrew, Helensburgh, Barrhead, Alloa, Peterhead, Grangemouth, Blantyre, Johnstone, Buckhaven, Port Glasgow, Lanark, Kilwinning, Larkhall, Prestwick, Erskine, Renfrewshire, Bathgate, most roads and all national parks in the United Kingdom just for one update. And one claimed reference doesn't reference any of it, while another only references "Northern Ireland" and "Leicester and Leicestershire, among others". FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

one thing I would note based on your recent edits: I wouldn't just use the same phrase ("Main Cities, Towns, Roads and Tourist Sites") for every single entry. It's ok to include specific places, especially if they're larger. For example, in August 2008 you trimmed down Australia and Japan to just "Main Cities, Towns..." and this makes the list look very US-centric. I think it's ok, especially for these earlier years where Google was adding big cities, to say "Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, and other cities in Australia" or something like that. Same for Japan--Kyoto and Tokyo are huge cities that are probably way more important than 80% of the rest of this list. Try to be a bit more descriptive with what you leave there, just so the page isn't a long list of flags and "Main Cities, Towns, Roads and Tourist Sites" all the way down. That won't help readers much at all. Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 17:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

so that it's clear in the markup where the new line breaks begins for ease of editing, like this? Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continuing to improve the article. Can we add line breaks after each

Recent edits
The recent edits added by user JSeb05 do not reflect the expected content of this page. This user adds new information, for example for April 2021: "More updates in Dordrecht & more locations in the Netherlands" The source provided DOES NOT reflect this claim. Just because a Google Street View car has been spotted at a certain location and an article has been published DOES NOT mean that Google releases images on Street View. This problem should be addressed since all the recent edits are inaccurate. The state of this article is really sad. Before this whole edit war began, this article did provide really accurate and helpful information. Sadly, although accurate, it was not sourced correctly. Certain users were criticized for this. A compromise was attempted with adding links to Google directly. This was not accepted. The recent edits may me correctly sourced but provide inaccurate information. This needs to be addressed.

First, you have in mind that Google has a list with all the places that are going to update among them the Netherlands, Portugal and France, these articles talk about updates in those countries (1). Second, the only countries which Google does not publish Street View images are Germany (Source), Lithuania/Switzerland (Source) and Finland (Source). It is obvious that if a car has been seen in a city in the other countries, they talk about updates in these places.--JSeb05 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I want to know exactly if the references are right or wrong, I am confused, I don't know exactly what to do with the article, the references talk about updates in the respective countries.--JSeb05 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at the 2021 section yet, but I do tend to agree that just because a car has been spotted does not mean we can definitively say that there will be a 2021 street view update there. It's likely of course, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we shouldn't include things that haven't happened yet. Those sources might be relevant in an "upcoming" section if we had one, but I don't really think that's important enough to include. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed all those references from the 2021 list, but maybe they can be in the "Future Coverage" section, is that ok or just not include that information in the article? Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 22:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, the future coverage section would be a better place to put it, but I would be of the opinion that it's not really important content regardless. I'm not against it enough to remove it myself, but I would support consensus on this talk page whichever way it went. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 22:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
Third Party Coverage This page should have a section that includes photographs of certain important contributors to Google Maps. Sources: https://www.google.com/streetview/case-studies/ & https://www.google.com/streetview/success-stories/ Zimbabwe: https://wersm.com/you-can-now-explore-zimbabwe-on-google-maps-street-view-thanks-to-one-person/ Finland: https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/347ae1eb5af9834f33a862b290aaf2919f44ef0838fa9a002274afabba21a4bb1d8842e92aa78cd66752e06665051b53ec51eea6f948c8fe846dcdfb575b36c0 Ukraine: https://procherk.info/news/7-cherkassy/91471-virtualna-proguljanka-google-otsifruvala-nizhnosulskij-prirodnij-park Martinique: https://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/martinique/la-martinique-se-refait-une-beaute-sur-google-maps-et-google-street-980887.html SomethingA (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Important detail on Germany missing: It won’t ever happen.
Google may well have „planned“ to map all of Germany with Street View, but Germans strongly oppose this, as we value our privacy. Because we’ve had our Gestapo and Stasi, and don’t need another one, let alone a privatized for-profit one. So in reality, it will never happen. No matter how much they announce it. And the already mapped parts are also outdated because they can’t be mapped anew. See:

The GDPR laws make it even harder to do this, as everyone recorded must be asked first. That includes all house owners, car owners, etc.

So the table that says Google plans to map Germany is strongly misleading, and needs a paragraph explaining that it is literally illegal and won’t happen.

— 2A0A:A546:EFA7:1:E8AD:B01E:88AC:823A (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Germany should be removed in that list. In the German language version of the page given as reference it is clearly stated that the new footage is only going to be used for updating their map and not going to be released in street view. --2A02:810A:8340:36D0:F828:4257:88A8:6C92 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
Orthography mistake: in the July 2017 section, please change "Buenos Aries" to "Buenos Aires"

Thanks! 170.51.107.87 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Gone to the dogs again
I have removed a large number of unreferenced, or improperly referenced additions. one editor has already been indefinitely blocked for the persistent addition of unreferneced material to this article, I would suggest not going down the same path. FDW777 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all stop removing information with sources, first of all you removed all the text that had source with Virtual Streets, it is a website dedicated to Google Street View updates using the Google Street View API, self-published sources (On this Wikipedia policy page it mentions that self-published sources are not necessarily invalid for use in articles) can be used in the article if they are of high quality and are fact-checked, in this case the Virtual Streets website, uses directly the information given by Google on their website, an example are articles detailing about the changes in the list where cars drive, and you can verify that it is true using the Wayback Machine.- Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 02:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They describe themself as "a group of people interested into Google Street View and other similar services". They have 36 followes on Twitter, and 14 on Instagram. They have absolutely no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, or any reputation at all. FDW777 (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The same could be applied with different sources that are used in the article, the number of followers is not important, knowing that local newspapers have little relevance but provide information that is accurate, this article uses information from very little known sites from newspapers in Brazil and Italy, I'm talking about the information, you simply verify that everything is true by looking at Google Maps, for one reason, you are treating this article as if it was something that should be scientific, but literally a list of places where Google has taken pictures. The article is no longer useful, knowing that two Google Street View updates that have occurred this year were removed, I am tired of all my contributions being removed, and I feel that my work is not being rushed, so I have decided to stop working on this article, as the article is now very outdated, please, please consider reposting the sources again, they are the only sources of information available on these updates, they literally use the Google Street View API to determine what locations have been added, they present information that is accurate because they use dedicated tools to monitor what new changes Google is making. - Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 15:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to remove any more unreliable references you'd like to point out. I could not care less if you find the article no longer useful, content policy does not get ignored because people want to add content they find "useful". FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The reason I am trying to add this content is not because it is "useful", the reason I am adding this content is because it is true. The article is still very outdated, you are ignoring the fact that the Virtual Streets site uses the Google Street View API to determine what updates Google makes, which makes the information the site uses true, please let me post this information the article is very incomplete it does not mention anything regarding the two updates Google has made.- Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 21:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So, FDW777, I'm going to lay all the information out as you seem to not be familiar with who we are, and I don't mean that in a rude way, but in a factual way. Virtual Streets is a website founded by a user who has been tracking Google Street View updates for years by directly referencing the API and keeping logs of additions and removals. In our GSV enthusiast community, the person running the website is the #1 expert as he crawls the API daily for changes and updates. His contributions are not only reputable but also easily referenced by, for example, going to the Google Maps page yourself and seeing on your own browser that wow, there's new pictures here. He's been doing it for a long time and only recently started "publishing" on an official website a few months ago, but the thing is that no matter how many followers he has, his information is both objectively correct and easily proven correct by any individual. Like, you can check in your browser. If directly checking the API isn't reputable enough for a Wikipedia article on the subject of what content is available on a website, I'm not sure what is. So, I ask you, what would you do to make this article objectively true and correct? Would it be more reputable if he had 100 or 1000 followers? Because if this isn't reputable you may as well delete the entire page. -- 30 ( talk ) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So it's a competely self-published website run by a random person, and it has no reputation for fast checking or accuracy? Great, thanks for confirming why we won't be using it as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to have ignored everything I said that didn't approve of what you were doing already. You also didn't answer my question. What should we do to make this article factual and accurate in a way you approve of? -- 30 ( talk ) 22:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We should remove all the improperly referenced content, that would improve it. We absoutely should not lower our referencing standards just because some members of the "GSV enthusiast community" think an article is less useful. FDW777 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the section of the Wikipedia policy page on self-published sources, it says that sources which have been published by people who are experts on a certain topic can be considered valid, the person who wrote the update reports is an expert on the topic, he can create maps by comparing Google Street View layers and has been working using the Google Street View API for years- Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 22:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Stop pinging me. You should read the policy, it's at WP:SPS. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Which references establish the website creator as a subject-matter expert? In which reliable, independent publications has the website creator's work in the relevant field previously been published? FDW777 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The person known as Mapper, who is in charge of maintaining the Virtual Streets website, has been interviewed by Rest of World to talk about the decline of Google Street View, the reason he was interviewed in the publication was because he is an expert on Google Street View subjects.- Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 22:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of "Stop pinging me" did you not understand? Firstly there's no evidence that person is the website creator. Secondly he wasn't "interviewed", he was quoted for a couple of sentences. Thirdly, that doesn't get over the hurdle of work in the relevant field being published by others, which means books, journals, newspaper articles etc. written by the website creator and published. That hasn't happened. FDW777 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why a site crawling the API isn't reliable. As long as that's what it's doing and it's doing nothing else, it should be reliable. I can't see anything on WP:RS for either side of the argument; this is self-published but it's also based on an API which comes directly from Google. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  12:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting Mapper is on Wikipedia, at User:KillerMapper; he has not edited since December 2020, but was editing on this article. I believe VirtualStreets did not exist back then. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  12:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Google street view
in the month of January some images were added and updated in the country of France 2800:150:117:393F:31A2:FA8D:848F:5FCA (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC).In the year 2019 new images were shown in South Korea. New images arrived in the last months of the year 2021 in the following countries are United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Argentina, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, Canary Islands, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand.
 * We need a reliable source for this information.  Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 01:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the year 2020 new images and updates were arrived in the country of Czech Republic and in the end of the month of the year 2021 more images and updates were added in Bulgaria. In the month of January 2022, new images were shown in the following countries: France, Italy, United Kingdom and Portugal.
 * Still needs a reliable source verifying the information. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Colombia Updates with generation 4 cameras in Bogotá, Cucutá, Medellín and Yopal.


 * Alfredokudai1, stop typing and start listening. You can type in as many locations as you like, we aren't changing the article. FDW777 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC) :We need a reliable source for this information. verifying the information.

Continuous updates
Since the broken update that took place in September 2021, it seems that Google is now continuously updating Street View maps, I can notice that daily some blue lines appear, disappear, reappear or change the drawings when the road layouts are changed, in addition to sometimes new extremely recent images appear from 1 month ago or from the current month, for example in November 2021 it hadn't even arrived in the middle of the month and there were already some images taken in that same month, the same thing also happened in December 2021 and now in January 2022, 2 weeks ago they already had the first images from 2022 already available, also sometimes the new roads appear in Street View and eventually add new cities, now this week they added images of the last generation in countries that had not yet been updated as Colombia, Philippines, Russia and South Africa. CreatorWiki (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Mali
Mali has added Street View to some official locations. https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/google_map_mali.htm https://artsandculture.google.com/project/mali-heritage Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is out-of-date. Can someone add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kügul stan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So the Mali update can be added to this page if there are sources available --2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:1019:9C59:E04A:7CB6 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

2022
So, does anyone know if there is anything new for 2022 yet? --2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:84DF:43B:7184:1E69 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of updates (April 2022 images from Bucharest, Romania - ) and new additions, espacially in Bangladesh. Try this tool Map Generator.Vercel for finding new updates. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the Spanish Version of Street view a good way to find updates and sources for 2022 since User:Alfredokudai1 has been blocked in 2021 in Spanish version so these updates could be copied from the Spanish page --2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:58F5:7B23:BF3B:5805 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

We have found sources for these 2022 updates and all of these are in Spanish page {{cite web|url=http://hipertextual.com/2022/02/antartida-google-street-view.html},, ,  --2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:1DAC:D8B5:DA18:648A (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

We also found few updates for 2021 and all of these are in Spanish page  --2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:9422:2EF4:4F8F:EE99 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you update this page because you changed in Spanish version of Google Street View and removed some updates?--2A02:2F0E:C41C:DD00:ED60:E6B1:F485:DA31 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I removed some of the updates because it doesn't make sense to be monitoring updates, because usually Google always updates the same countries, for example, United States and Western Europe receive updates every year, and I find it a bit redundant to put always the same on the page and the only new things are usually only roads in the middle of rural areas. Well I removed some things because in Wikipedia we have standards for references, all content that comes from social networks or blog sites can not be used because it is self published. I updated a little bit the May 2022 section. I added some historical sites from Italy, France and Mali, plus the ferries in Australia, it's the best I can do, because of what news media have reported. In addition, the churches in Peru were taken in April 2014. I try my best to look for sources and try to make the article follow Wikipedia rules, in the Spanish version, in my edit summaries I left my explanations why I removed the information, I hope you understand. Additionally I have a blog where I list the new additions of Google Street View, but I realize that it is under construction and lacks several things, besides it is not interesting stuff, usually only small towns in countries like Mexico, Brazil or Argentina (Note: You can not use my website as a source for the Wikipedia Article, because it is a personal blog, and personal blogs are not valid references).- Seb { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 11:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

and Could you please update this page because I found sources for India update?

I found another source for Rwanda update. --2A02:2F0E:CB10:D400:2C63:B21D:E6DB:BD84 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I found sources for 2022 Peru update --2A02:2F0E:CB10:D400:2C63:B21D:E6DB:BD84 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Add the New Times source to the article. I was originally going to add it but I have been busy with other projects. (Revision of the page where I added this source)
 * I am a Spanish speaker, and well the articles you posted do not talk about the Gen 4 Peru updates, they talk about some trekkers that Google did in 2013, when they first introduced street view to the country, for example, the article talks about the street view in Paracas National Reserve, which has coverage from October 2013, these trekkers had been published I think around 2013 and 2014.
 * I'm sorry but I can't add that, because Wikipedia rules prevent me from publishing any content that is not sourced (That's the reason why Jordan doesn't appear in the 2018 table, because no English or Arabic website talked about street view in the country, unfortunately since that year, Google has become a bit more mysterious or stopped being interested in street view, that's the reason why most of the new additions and updates don't appear on websites, because Google doesn't do press releases anymore). I advise you if you want to receive information about updates to follow VirtualStreets.org or visit my website, where I post the new towns or cities that are added.
 * In the case of Peru, it got gen 4 updates in Lima, Huancayo and Cajamarca, mainly, although they are only updates in the same places, besides Google has given the same treatment as Colombia and Chile to Peru, in which they only drive on main highways (the routes that appear in yellow, Google Maps), the only new places with street view that Peru has received in this year are two new urbanizations in Huancayo, these small additions in Peru make the Peruvian newspapers not so interested if Google drives in Peru again, instead it seems that the only additions that matter to these newspapers are about trekkers that Google made during 2013 to 2015. Seb  { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 17:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

and Could you please update this page because official street view for Qatar is now available ? 2A02:2F0E:CB10:D400:90E6:9A30:6234:7213 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

and Could you please update this page because official street view for Afghanistan is now available this should have few landmarks in Kabul. 2A02:2F0E:CB10:D400:85C3:5A22:AA0A:17B3 (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I'm going to add it although I'm not going to use a tweet as a source, the reason is because if we use a lot of social media sources, there is a possibility that part of the content will be removed, I'm going to use the Google Arts page with the list of the tripods. Although you have to wait a few days for proper news articles to appear, I remember when I reported about the Osogbo tripods in Nigeria, which my tool detected on October 17 but only news articles circulated on October 20 about it. And yes, I was the one who discovered this tripods from Afghanistan and I reported this to the VirtualStreets Discord server (You can find the link to the server in the About section of the VirtualStreets website, there I publish information about this type of tripods), I have certain tools to detect what is new on the Google Arts and Culture platform. When news sites show up reporting this, I'm going to change the source. Seb  { 💬  Talk  + 📝  Edits  } 04:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

All the previously available streetview in Liechtenstein has been removed it is third party information is Liechtenstein

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022
2800:150:117:35F2:A81B:98B4:6943:FCA6 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to put information that is official for you in Google Street View and that later you can unlock the page to continue editing Wikipedia
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

2023
So, does anyone know if there is anything new for 2023 yet? 2A02:2F0E:C617:3300:980E:94DF:A5A9:AB99 (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * and We have found new coverage in Portugal for January 2023 and is Tripods in Portugal, in collaboration with the Portuguese Navy This should be added to 2023 new addition. 2A02:2F0E:C617:3300:980E:94DF:A5A9:AB99 (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and We have found new coverage in Portugal for January 2023 and is Tripods in Portugal, in collaboration with the Portuguese Navy This should be added to 2023 new addition. 2A02:2F0E:C600:2100:94E1:FE38:CCF3:FAC5 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and Any new response for Portugal update in January 2023! 2A02:2F0E:C600:2100:AD76:2474:6E96:93F (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * and Check out Street View’s new collection with McLaren Racing. The article says about his February 2023 update: Get in the driver’s seat with this immersive Street View collection of the McLaren Technology Center --2A02:2F0E:C600:2100:AD76:2474:6E96:93F (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * and View from trekker and tripod from various museums, memorials and historical sites around South Korea. This should be for February 2023 update. 2A02:2F0E:C600:2100:94E1:FE38:CCF3:FAC5 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

So,Germany will have street view in entire country as it did with Austria, in 2018.

Removed coverage map; other issues
I've removed the coverage map because it is unreferenced and obviously incorrect. For example, Canada, Mexico, and the United States are marked as "mostly full", but it's trivial to find large areas with no Street View coverage at all. This article is problematic because it's got a lot of synthesis, doesn't define its terms (like "mostly full") and relies on many inadequate primary sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Canada was available in Sep 2007.
Is there a mistake? 209.141.181.126 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)