Talk:List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data/Archive 1

Lets get Technical
When Google first starting getting into this Satellite/aerial photographs or whatever business, the water-ways in my area were un-blurred. I could easily locate wrecks/reefs to fish. Then they started blurring All the water, to the point I can't find any un-blurred anymore. I understand they would want to blur oil rigs and such but All the water. Really? They don't make it hard for the tin foil hat types, I tell ya. Google doesn't respond to questions about the subject ('All the water') Search it? Check the maps. Yahoo, Bing all the same shit..jtk

So to get 'Technical' they have blurred/re-colored/altered 2/3rds of the 'Planet'(seas/water-ways) plus whatever else is included on this list, plus what didnt make the list. So make it easy on yourselves and change the article to something short and sweet like:

"About 90% of the planet is altered on most Satellite/aerial photographs in the public domain and no one producing the maps/images has much to say about it." See Conspiracy Theories for Jesus Face on Google earth.

Evidence for argument: (See Google maps US Gulf Coast etc.) Look at the maps!!

No mention of the water ways in there entirety by any of you.

Class Dismissed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.123.105 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Laos
I'm looking at the laos-thailand border, and I can't see a difference. Why is one listed and the other not? Novalis 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was bogus. I removed it. It's just a lot of low resolution maps. See for the edge of the high-resolution map that fades, then goes to "no information at this zoom level".—Ben FrantzDale 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Skywalker Ranch
I checked today using google earth, it looks like a bunch of buildings with something of a sandstorm over them, terrible quality. Google maps has a way better version though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Photo
The page should include some example places. That might quell the objection to this page. The blurred-out places are clearly blurred, not just low-resolution pictures.—Ben FrantzDale 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've never really assembled a list in Wikipedia. But it's obvious we need some sort of common format for entries. Some have a link that's LAT and LONG, some just have a normal link, some have a link what a description. It's pretty much a mess. Would like some input on how it should be formatted, or I'll just pick a format and clean things up myself. I was thinking of adopting the definition list format which would create entries like this:

*; 37°58'47.1901" 84°25'7.9716" : Southeast of Lexington, Kentucky

where we have *; [link lat and long in DMS format] : What's there

which would look like:


 * 37°58'47.1901" 84°25'7.9716" : Southeast of Lexington, Kentucky

For reference, you can use this tool to convert your lat and long from the decimal format used by google maps to the more readable format of DMS. Or just do the math as described in Wikipedia's page on latitude and longitude.

The value of this format is we rely on consistent, easy to understand and format latitude and longitude list that will be clean and easy to organize. If this page survives AfD I'll organize it like this. --Crypticgeek 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improved format
Thanks for compiling this! AxelBoldt 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to giving the Google map link as a source, each item should also have a link using our coor template family so that other sources can be easily consulted.
 * Every item should give links to relevant Wikipedia articles to provide context.


 * Thanks for the link, I didn't know if there was a manual of style for coordinates. I'll keep it in mind. The problem comes in when we're trying to link directly to the area in question. I worry that having both a direct link to google maps or where ever and a link to the coord page would be confusing. I'll have to give it some thought on how best to use it. --Crypticgeek 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ramstein airbase in Germany is simply flared highlights
I think this is a issue with the type of provider and that whatever they use has simply got overexposed (See Exposure_(photography) ). If you zoom in on the Ramstein eventually you can see the sharp shadows of aircraft. If it was blurred out like the blatant Dutch ones then you shouldn't be able to see such sharp shadows and it would be more obvious so I think is just a flaw in that particular image provider i.e. Cnes/Spot. e.g. see the horticultural glasshouses at, for similar flaring. Ttiotsw 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not clear whether this is censored or not. I removed them to be safe. This is the problem with this page, we can't have editors doing image analysis and making determinations based only on what they think something should look like from the sky. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reims AFB
I removed Reims AFB from the list. It does not have obvious censorship in that area, and we cannot be in the business of image analysis. If this page is going to stay all items on the list must be obviously censored otherwise it really is original research to say this area does not look right it must be censored. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Compared to the trees to the immediate east there is a very large difference in blocking. The immediate surrounding area is in significantly higher resolution, in fact if you zoom out and look west you can see the point where the road to the base is the point where the blurring stops and where the rest of the higher resolution is. I suppose the case could have been made if the airfield was square or rectangularly shaped that google just didn't get an image of it... but the airfield is a much different shape. Take a look at the crops all around the airfield and there is a point where the blur stops and you get clean looking fields and not a mush of color. MrMacMan  Talk  16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, however it is not clear enough to be included without citation. In my mind if you have to look for it it is not clear enough.  We can't be analyzing images and drawing conclusions about censorship. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing article name
Re some people's comments here and here about possibly changing the article's name -- I'm fine with a name change, anyone suggest a possible name for the article? It would have to be something like list of google maps images that have ____ (unexplained/unnatural/unusual/purposeful/) distortion, bluring or are censored... I know that that was a very bad title and not a place to start -- just trying to spitfire ideas here. MrMacMan Talk  18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a name change as well. How do people feel about List of satellite images on Google Maps with missing or unclear data? I know it's kind of lengthy, but I feel it's a very NPOV title. - Chardish 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * List of satellite images on Google Maps with probably altered data.  Maybe we should change it to List of sattelite images that appear to be altered on some Aerial Mapping Services or something like that because some of them have been altered on other sites like msn maps, maps.ask.com, etc.. too. --helohe  (talk)  21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like "probably altered" is still making a claim that would require verification. Whose definition of "probably" would we use? "Appear to be altered" suffers from similar problems - that's a subejctive definition. "Missing or unclear data" is pretty objective, and can be verified from observation. - Chardish 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats ok for me, I just thought that we should maybe change Google Maps to Aerial Mapping Services because the censoring is sometimes not specific to google. --helohe (talk)  21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. How about List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data? I kind of feel like the title couldn't get much longer than that without being unwieldy. Though it would be nice if the title had something to do with the fact that the images are publicly available. - Chardish 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strike my last - that should be Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. This is far more interesting and broad of a topic than just a list. - Chardish 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This sound ok for me. I assume that as soon the article is renamed you are not longer deleting its content? --helohe (talk)  00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the content will no longer be libelous (as it will no longer be making unsourced censorship claims), I think it's fair for the content to remain. As I've said before (elsewhere), if it's evident from observation, it doesn't need a 3rd-party source. It's evident from observation what map data is missing or unclear. - Chardish 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel your a little too bold in this page move, I feel that your really really aggressive about this article so I'm not going to challenge it... but we wanted a bunch of people to agree to a name change for the article and we had 2 editors. MrMacMan  Talk  02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right. However I felt that backing off the edit war was more important than waiting to establish a larger consensus. And there was absolutely no way I was going to allow libelous material to remain in the article - it was easier to change the article title than to constantly revert. Does anyone object to the new title? - Chardish 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an objection thing -- its that a lot of people commented on the deletion review that haven't spoken out here, i felt it is a bit hasty. MrMacMan  Talk  03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Looking through maps.google.com and seeing missing data draws on your personal knowledge that such information is missing. Including that personal knowledge information in this Wikipedia article is original research. If someone else notices the missing data and comments about it in a published source, then it is material that may be added to the article. I added a reference column to the US list. A reference column should be added to each list and the reference for each entry in that list should be provided. If no reference is available for an entry, it means that that entry is original research and may be removed per original research policy. Wikipedia policy does not permit keeping unreferenced material while waiting for a future WP:RS to address that material. -- Jreferee 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust me, we have been working on it. I had a tag at the top of the page, but it has since been removed. I hope that you will help us in making this article by being bold and helping us find our needed sources. If you review the history of the article you can wee that there have been many a discussion and a small group of editors including myself has been adding sources -- i hope that you can help us in making this article better and better sourced. Also sources don't have to be 'published' to be reliable. MrMacMan  Talk  17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. -- Jreferee 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors., anyway who really cares? Can you please help us find sources for this article -- it would be most appreciated. MrMacMan  Talk  20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter one way or the other? It is popular and therefore it stays regardless of the "rules".  I guess people should just keep adding blurry images.MikeURL 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just not true... Popularity is only one aspect of the reason that articles get a place on wikipedia. Check the WP:NOT policy for more reasons popularity doesn't matter in specific cases. MrMacMan  Talk  23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

San Clemente Island

 * North end of San Clemente Island, west of San Diego, is blurred out. There is a naval base there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.240.96 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

government != country
If my moving the word 'government' out of the link was appropriate, please do so for the rest. Else revert. Thanks.Jidanni 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

the white house
the article says that the white house is cencored in google earth and google maps. this is not the case any more ass the white house image has been uncencored for quite a while now. (anyway, it is the image providers that alter the images, not google themselves) --Alphamone 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Name again
I noticed that Satellite images censored by Google Maps redirects here. Isn't this article mostly about Google's censoring of places? Rmsuperstar99 (as 68.198.226.195) 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Basra air base link
The Basra air base listing needs to be updated, as I just clicked on the link and no censoring appears evident. Perhaps it was just temporary? 68.146.47.196 13:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference found - blurring of images prior to APEC meeting
The Sydney Morning Herald has a story today, but unfortunately it back-referenced this article. Anecdotally, I can't zoom in as far as I could in (say) April of this year, but since I didn't save any searches I did of the Circular Quay area in anything other than Google, I've only got my memory to compare it with. Lou 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you re the blurring. What makes a mockery of Googles claim that it is part of a "commercial issue" is the fact that the pleasure craft on the water appear sharp, but the boat wake does not. It's also not possible to cross-reference with Live Earth because the MS imagery does not have the resolution that the Google imagery does. Byrnesr 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

San Clemente Island plus 'not original research'

 * (not original research): Less obvious censorship of aerial images can also implemented by pictures taken late in the day and/or a time period with cloud-cover Kopytoff, Verne. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco Chronicle May 18 2007. Periodical TOP SECRET, IN PLAIN VIEW; Censorship is spotty for aerial shots of vulnerable sites. Additional info: Here is a specific example using google maps: on 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) for san Clemente island the entire north half of island contained a spliced-in image taken during, what appears to be, late day (dark). Also the northwest quadrant was entirely obscured with clouds. The 1 mile scale google maps link was  here and the 2 mile scale (zoomed-out)image showing low details of the single runway airport could be found here Gert4gt. Could the main page maintainer move this to the main page chart?

Name of the article
Not all images are from satellites. some imagery comes from aerial photographs, but the two are conflated. it should be retitled to "map images with missing or unclear data" wikiwhereto 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could add a high level description of what has been blurred.

Not to criticise eloquence, but List of places blurred out?? Is Censorship by/of Google Maps too extreme? Then you could merge the article with more general censorship / access restrictions. ...Besides, at least two of the incidents aren't actually *blurring*. taliswolf 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the name isn't perfect. But, it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... so feel free to fix the name, "blurred" is first thing that crossed my mind. --83.131.167.166 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which they blocked, it could be militairy airport Volkel or our nuclear powerplants. I think the former, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps this article should describe the blurs in Google Maps and why they exist, censorship, lack of data, etc.

I think the old name "List of places blurred out on Google Maps" was much better, because not all locations are necessarily censorship -- they can be simply erronous data. -Philwiki 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unless there are citations that show these are censored, the new title implies original research. —Ben FrantzDale 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now that from the topic is "Google Maps" removed, how about blurring out and witholding satellite photos in other map services than Google Maps? I have one example in my mind from Sweden (Eniro.se) vs. Google Maps. This imho would be great addition! http://www.ogleearth.com/2006/04/sweden_plays_hi.html

Fair use rationale for Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png
Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

world wide paragraph placed under US.
Why is this paragraph in the United states section? Please move: "Some governments have asked that portions of Google Earth to be blurred so that sensitive sites are not compromised". Jidanni 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just going to come here and ask the same thing. "How many governments does the United States have?", was going to be my slightly tongue-in-cheek question. I was going to move it to the India section (that's what the reference states), but it is already mentioned there, and the same reference is used. So I just removed it. --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but the answer is that the United States has thousands of governments: 1 federal, 50 state, 100s of county, and 1000s of municipal governments. —Nricardo (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing of unsourced information
Since the claim that Google Maps intentionally censored the blurred or obscured area is inherently POV, I will be aggressively removing unsourced sites per Jimbo Wales' instructions. Note that a link to a blurred area of Google Maps is not enough information to establish that Google Maps intentionally blurred the area, which is the claim that the article makes. - Chardish 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you have incorrectly intercepted that suggestion's application to the matter at hand, and are attempting to use it to effect an article deletion against the official AfD's conclusion to keep. I am reverting your changes; in the future please discuss widespread changes prior to implementing them. - Davandron | Talk 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * POV information without a source should be removed. The AfD said "keep the article," not "keep all the unsourced POV information in the article." - Chardish 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having un-sourced comments doesn't require immediate removal. In any case I believe I have shown that with the amount of effort you are using to get the content removed you could have WP:BB and helped fixing up the article. I'm adding a tag to the page -- yes we need a bunch of sources, but lets see if someone will be willing to look for them. MrMacMan  Talk  18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated the page with more references. Took a really long time to do. MrMacMan  Talk  23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! But those aren't references for the individual locations in question. Remember, we can only use locations that are verifiably known to have been censored by Google. - Chardish 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The qualification now is images (of some source) that have missing or unclear data, not censorship (at least it is now since you moved the page). Censorship implies intent, this article gives direct statements when talking about censorship.  MrMacMan  Talk  22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about stating the factual point that these images have been tampered with. If you're so allergic to the word "censored" then it can be "digitally blurred" which is clearly the case in the example I looked at (GE plant, accessed feb 7 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.138.42 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fort Hood, Texas, USA
Can anyone tell if this is an accidental inclusion of a cloud that just happens to cover a portion of a US military base, or a censored image? Google maps link Oanjao (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Noordwijk aan Zee
Is the blurred region in Noordwijk aan Zee really an ESA site as stated? I've been to the European Space Agency's Technology Centre (ESTEC) at Noordwijk. ESTEC is down the coast a little at but is not blurred out. Nothing to do with ESA, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.24.249 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The blurred region is definitely not ESA/ESTEC, which is indeed unblured as described above and situated a little further down south at Keplerlaan. I therefore edited the page. To me, it seems the blurred area is a pure residential area (but I cannot confirm 100% as I have not enough detailed knowledge of Noordwijk). Notaris (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its part of the stratigic gas/iol piplines running from Rotterdam, it's located in a residential area. else check Bing Maps, MIVD forgot there's more then one map maker

Ramstein Air Base
Doesn't seem to be whited out specifically, just looks like some very white concrete. Microsoft and Yahoo both have different images from Google, and you can clearly see they have the white concrete too (although yahoo doesn't have the same resolution). Danny252 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea, MA
Not seeing any blurring here - can go into maximum zoom on GE and it's still perfectly sharp. Danny252 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Chelsea facilities were blurred earlier this year, as were the power station and scrap-metal processing plant next to the LNG terminal. They were not blurred today. Perhaps Deval Patrick's administration is less paranoid than Mitt Romney's. --RadioTheodric (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Google removing the blurs?
I was about to put a note in the article about how Google blurs many buildings in Qingdao, but I just looked at the city again, and the buildings aren't blurred anymore. Has anyone else noticed Google relaxing its censorship anywhere? I mean, those buildings were clearly blurred until recently.Worldruler20 (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Missing or unclear data"?
This is a pretty silly title for things which are alleged to be intentionally censored or obscured—it makes it sound like the article is about places where Google Maps has poor resolution, where in reality the issue is places where the surrounding areas are very high resolution making it look like the place in question was intentionally put at low resolution.

And is it worth making it "generic" if every example is from Google Maps or Earth?

How about this for a new title: "Google satellite map images alleged to be intentionally obscured"? That's NPOV but a million times more accurate. --140.247.42.240 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton, New Zealand
The city and west of the city is blurred but surrounding pastures are of fairly high quality. There are some significant interests based in Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.188.20 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced table
Most of the table for US locales seems to have been inadvertently moved to the very bottom of the article. I don't have experience with Wiki table formatting, so I'll leave the correction to a more experienced user. Trasel (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Others with blurring
Buffalo Niagara International Airport, Cheektowaga NY

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Dunkirk, NY

141.238.109.77 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point: Glenwood powerstation and oil storage south from Glenwood Landing, New York - similar to other blurred coastal facilities in NY state. WTF? NVO (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

South Africa
Just stumbled across one in Cape Town, South Africa at -33.923705,18.451238 where something has been whited out. Very interesting. SteveCoppock (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like buildings /factory? now --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia: Europe or Asia
Friends, we have 2 places now in Russia: one obviously in Europe (near Moscow), and one at Far East, and so obviously Asia. Should we keep them both in one country section (then probably in Europe), or should we have 2 "Russias" in Europe and Asia sections respectively? I'm personally for the 1st approach, but I wonder what more experienced wikipedians would say =) Arseni (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

William Hurt's House
There are several other websites that reference this page's claim that the home of actor William Hurt has been intentionally blurred (link 26). One blogger was even outraged at the censorship. However, the actor William Hurt never lived here. A review of the Fayette County property records web site (http://www.fayettepva.com) shows that the blurred image contains two houses; the one on the northwest parcel owned by William Pearce and the one on the southeast parcel owned by Robert & Tina Gray. They have owned these properties for at least a decade, and the previous owners were not William Hurt. Consider also that these houses are appraised for less than $200,000 - Not where you would expect a celebrity to live. The houses are visible on maps.live.com, Google street view, and the Fayette County page. They're just typical middle-class houses.

The urban legend may have come about because a lawyer named William Hurt apparently owned some nearby property. In order to quell the rumor, I will leave the entry in the US table (since it is "missing or unclear data") but change the text to note that this is not the house of the actor William Hurt.

Savastio (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2002 imagery on Terraserver shows that both of the blurred-out houses had swimming pools. In 2005, it looks like the pool at the house on the left has been filled in. Odd. 64.130.183.199 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see I was somehow responsible for that wrong information then. I guess I mistook the lawyer named William Hurt with the actor because it appeared on some list of the houses in the same street. :S Its definitely wrong. I guess the there is another reason for the censorship. --helohe (talk)  20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Radical revision and/or deletion
This whole page is absurd and should be radically changed or deleted, imo. "Satellite map images with missing or unclear data "??? So this page is a list of every satellite map with unclear data on it? It obviously isnt, and can't be, yet even if it was, where would be the wiki value in such a list?

As far as the spectre of 'government censorship' that obvious magnet to irrelevant conspiracy theorists and armchair wannabe spies, most of the listings on this page are not censored and never have been. Every inch of google maps with a blur or a cloud in it that someone thinks is sooper top secret is going to be a candidate for this list. (like the supposed home of actor William Hurt)

If theres no point (or possibility of) listing every temporarily incomplete satellite image, something which NASA and ESA would be obviously better at doing than a bunch of kids scanning google earth, and the truth is that very few of the aforementioned incomplete images are actually examples of censorship, than what is the point of this page?

When it was just a list of places that were obviously censored in Google Maps, it at least had a clear purpose and focus and then we could concentrate on keeping the list accurate. Now its way too ambiguous to be worth the effort. Trefalcon (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Personal_Attacks before you spout more bullshit. Unfortunately your "opinion" doesn't mean shit. Do you have any logical reason why this page should be deleted? This page exists to publicly categorize images that have been blurred from public satellite imagery. Can you provide any evidence for the statement that "very few of the aforementioned incomplete images are actually examples of censorship"? No you can't, that's why this article doesn't make any explicit claims that they are or aren't, since you can't prove intent either way. 68.45.183.30 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point here was missed, this is supposed to be a collection of intentionally obscured sattelite images not of unclear images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.131.52 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia: Hidden or blurred areas in Ladoga Lake
Some islands (especially those ones of western archipelago) are blurred or missing probably due to some sort of dirty bomb testing during late 40s or early 50s. Compare and  Mind abuse (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Question: Isn't this original research?
I'm a little puzzled about this list. How is this not original research? I'm not against the idea of this list; I just want to be certain that this list is the product of applying an objective & uncontroversial set of criteria, because it would probably take only one edit war for this to be drop-kicked into the shredder at AfD. -- llywrch 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This list seems to be original research. Do any WP:RS comment on satellite map images with missing or unclear data? There has to be a conspiracy book or two on the subject which can be used for the article. -- Jreferee 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Did you see the sources at the beginning of the article. 2) This article has now had three separate titles. This latest one does not mention in its title anything about the missing data being purposely removed. If you read the rename section below this was more originally focused towards images that were intentionally blurred, censored, modified or otherwise distorted. Some users (to be honest, and this isn't mean to say anything negative, but it was only one editor) said that this was POV and the title was taken into question. Even tho several sources mentioned google maps being censored -- none had a direct quote saying such, only offhand remarks about how they censor not a flat out quote... thusly the name change and what we have currently. MrMacMan  Talk  17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the lists need to be deleted. I'm seeing a lot of stuff like "airport copied and pasted" and "buildings blacked out and retouched" that look like a normal airport or buildings with black roofs to me. They have absolutely no means of verifiability unless compared against other sources, and that would still be original research even if they were. Plus half of these could just be cases where old satellite data bumps up against new (perhaps with certain areas omitted from the new data), and so it looks like stuff is blurry or intentionally modified. Without sources, this may as well be a conspiracy theorist forum. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. &mdash; Wisq (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian site partially uncovered..
The site at 66.26667°N, 179.25°W can be partially seen in this GeoEye IKONOS image from July 2000:. Nothing unusual shown from the low-res free image. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the following KML to view as an overlay in Google Earth. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second this, having recently revealed it in DigitalGlobe imagery: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/q2sfb/this_spot_is_the_only_place_on_the_planet_that_is/

Neither of our efforts count as "not original research" though. Some effort should be made to finally debunk this farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonofArcticus (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this censored?
Hey,

Not sure if this an appropriate forum for this question. Wondering if someone could run their eye over (12.592507,-61.41714) and tell me if that is an intentional overlay. There's some kind of US narcotics intervention coast guard base there. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I think this is just over exposed. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this. So others can see it click here: 12.59247°N, -61.41705°W. It is obscure but it is kind of small. I don't think it is worth an entry. This is on Union Island in the country Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The coast guard station was built by the US but Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a Bolivarian nation, so who knows what's happening here. - GroveGuy (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think this data is even "missing" or intentionally "unclear". It's just a bad picture. NickCT (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All of them?
I notice Auburn Prison is also fuzd out. I think it possible that all NYSDOC places are like that. Probably a mass request to do that. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added Auburn Prison to the page. Bedford Hills and Great Meadow are not obscured. - GroveGuy (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletions
Why the submarine base in UK was deleted??


 * comment on edit was: "removed entry as it is not actually censored, just happens to sit on the edge of high-res footage." 217.227.44.62 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is censored. It is Faslane sub base, and the white fluffy things strategically place over the dockside are not clouds. 199.43.13.101 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. Look at the same join further down on the other side of the loch, the road has the same type/colour distortion. The distortion also matches up with the location of the dock concrete/large white building in the aerial picture on the Faslane entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMNB_Clyde.jpg). It's not censorship, it's just an unfortunately placed join. 81.171.197.237 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this. I'm going to delete again. Rawling 4851 10:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Westchester County Airport, White Plains, New York
This place is not blurred any more. I can see it just fine. -- 65.67.98.193 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zoom in close and then you can see the difference jak 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramstein Air Base, Germany
... does not seem to be blurred (any more), does it? http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&ie=UTF8&ll=49.43925,7.599277&spn=0.018864,0.03974&z=15&om=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.126.15 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain, Castell de Montjuïc
Hello, the one Spanish listing, the Castell de Montjuïc, isn't censored anymore (if it ever was, can't imagine why it would be). I'll remove it if noone has any objections. Trefalcon (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is censored once again as of December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.183.194 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S.A., Dutch Island, RI
Dutch Island is visible in google maps, it doesn't appear that it was ever censored. --66.30.179.86 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Google blanks the West Bank
In the Middle East section of the Satellite page there is, I believe, a massive gap in reporting: the missing street name and other normal data from the West Bank area of Palestine (I have not so far checked Gaza). Jewish settlements across the West Bank are fully documented as you would expect in any Western country, but Palestinian towns and villages are blanked, for no conceivable reason I can put forward.

Here is an example: if you go to Google maps and type in "Kiryat Arba" you will find yourself looking at a Jewish settlement on the outskirts of Hebron. (Use the "Map" not the "Satellite" or "Earth" setting.) Then zoom in until you reach the 200 ft / 100 m scale. You see what you would expect: street names, sports centers, shopping centers and so on, all the normal things of daily life. Now drag the map to the right. You are moving West into Hebron. If you drag slightly up you see the Hebron Police Station. If you drag slightly down you see the "Ancient Jewish Cemetery" marked. Nothing else. Hebron, a city of around 170,000 people, is blanked out. No street names, no shops, no schools, no sports centers. Yet if you use the "Satellite" or "Earth" setting you can see a densely packed city. This is true right across the West Bank. Can anyone shed light on this?

Also can anyone confirm that this is true for Google US as it is for Google UK as I can't access Google US. Also, can anyone find formal documentation as to why Google Palestine offers that country no maps of anything at all? I guess it is because Palestinians are considered terrorists and should not therefore be allowed maps of anywhere in the world. But who made that decision, if that is the case?

Kingarts (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article re-work
This article has several problems and I have tried to correct them as much as I can at the moment (will come back and do more later). First off, a lot the information is either out-of-date or purely WP:OR (like claiming something is missing or unclear with a description of "possibly clouds" when it's obviously clouds, or there is nothing unclear at all). Secondly, this article should be about areas which have been intentionally censored, not just a collection of all the errors, data corruption, gafs, blurry or clouded images, and other unintentional image problems. Otherwise what's the point? Wikipedia isn't just for random lists of information and so the article needs to have a more direct and purposeful introduction. Then there's the large number of typos which I have also tried to correct, at least in the sections I've edited. Coinmanj (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mirabel
Mirabel Airport seems to be whited out... Can anybody add it to the list or explain why it is whited out or why it is not in this list? CielProfond (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Montréal–Mirabel International Airport does look very strange. Where are the planes? But if you read the article you can see it is a failed project; built enormous then closed to large airplanes since 2004. GroveGuy (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! I do know the story of the airport. A lot of families (none related to me AFAIK) were heartbroken into selling their property; and a lot of those for nothing, as the airport was never as large as originally planned... It is still used for cargo; I don't see why it's whited out on Google Maps... Some planes are visible near Henri-Fabre blvd. (north) as well as near Jacqueline-Auriol street (west)... CielProfond (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hungary
I read about censoring locations in Hungary, AFAIR some military ranges and power facilities. I actually know a power facility switching yard in Budapest which is greened out for some silly security reasons... --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources:


 * 
 * 

-- Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

the Kyl-Bingaman Amendment missing?
the Kyl-Bingaman Amendment case missing (most of the satellite imagery companies are US-based which has a direct impact on policies, as there are Google providers) which is concerning Israel too, this is an encyclopedia and this topic has its place here and especially here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.86.114 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509182328/http://www.nst.com.my:80/Current_News/nst/Wednesday/National/20070328080627/Article/local1_html to http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Wednesday/National/20070328080627/Article/local1_html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Additions
Notes on the format:

1)Additions should ideally include a wikilink to what is actually blurred out (see the last two in US ) - Francis Tyers · 12:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the Virtual Earth view on a couple of these for the purpose of comparing. This allows us to see if it is in fact an irregularity in Google Maps.--Dwaymire 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI - The location in Russia cannot be viewed with Microsoft Live Maps. There seems to be a "dividing line" on Live Maps which covers this area.

List of recommendations:

1) I've found a blurred location that does not seem to be listed, could someone please identify it and add it? It is near Hawthorne, NY. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hawthorne,+ny&ie=UTF8&ll=41.087098,-73.80641&spn=0.003372,0.005504&t=k&z=17&om=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.211.2 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2) I see a Plano IL. No mention of the secure site near Plano TX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.129.186 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I found one in Upstate NY (Adirondacks) at 44.296156, -74.092119. I just don't know what it is to add it to the list. I didn't think there was anything important up there. Ghostalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

3) There's another blurred out part in Vlissingen (The Netherlands). It's an ammo depot next to Fort Rammekens. It's located at 51.455591, 3.649135  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.82.176 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

4) Scott Base in Antarctia is obscured according to the google maps location of the base, the wikipedia article does not have any gps coordinates to check this.

5) ITER, Cadarache, France. Site of fusion reactor in low resolution. As seen on 43.699446,5.7507175 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.144.241 (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

6) Chateau de Bity, near Correze France, lowered resolution, residence of Jacques Chirac - https://goo.gl/maps/DSmycF3Wjvj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.250.86 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nimes, France
43°45'11"N 4°23'33"E blurred out, the Russians are less discreet. --Hugitobi (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Referencing on this article
This article currently has only 14 inline citations (1 of which is a dead link) and 2 external links, while the number of country subsections in the table of contents is 19. This article is severely undersourced, (for example, see the South Korea subsection which makes multiple claims, such as "Every military used land (US and ROK) is altered to show woodland or mountains. Also the nuclear reactor sites and many airports and possibly other civilian infrastructure.", but has no sources listed - not even a link to which reliable, independent source(s) merited its inclusion, or a link to an example in a map). This WP:OR problem was noted in the AfD discussion and the deletion review. In the same discussions (9 years ago, by the way) editors said that references would be added soon (or words to that affect), but now, almost a decade later, it is still undersourced.

Personally I don't think that a link to a location in Google Maps, as the only source for some of the locations in this article - like in this subsection, is acceptable as a source, as it requires interpretation by the reader/editor as to what is displayed in the map image. In the case of the Russia subsection (linked above), it says in the notes for Severnaya Zemlya, a large archipelago off the north coast of Russia, that "All of the major islands have obviously been blurred"; what does "obviously" mean, is it that someone or something has done it for a reason, or that it has been an accident (as in, obviously an accident), or that it is due to some error with the imagery? This is not clear at all. The link provided is to here. As soon as you start trying to explain what the lines are, you are conducting original research, as nothing on the map indicates or explains what it is or why it's there, so by definition, you are doing your own "research" into what it is, whether by conducting actual research or just by using "educated guesses".

I personally think that quite a lot of this article is WP:OR. Reliable, independent sources need to be found. Also, I think the essay Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles is very useful here, especially the last section #Original research. "The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject." "Even maps produced using reliable sources (such as GIS data) can have minor errors as a result of errors in the underlying database ... Minor map errors are common, for that reason any map detail that is key to the article should be confirmed with a separate map from a different publisher. Rarely are map errors notable, even if they have gone uncorrected for decades." We need to find sources soon, or otherwise I personally think that the unsourced/badly sourced material should be removed, per WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references". Nine years is long enough to provide a reliable source.  Seagull123  Φ  22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Greece
I recently stumbled upon a heavily pixelated image in Greece. It's pretty obvious it's no error, it's a polygon matching what seems to be a military facility. Unfortunately, I don't have the time (or the skills :) to add it to the list myself. I just thought it would be interesting, since Greece is not on the list. The coordinates are: 36.209391 27.863949 It's on the island of Rhodes, in Greece. Google Maps pixelated it, and Bing Maps shows an image where the ground is (mostly) obscured by clouds. It seems to be a RADAR facility/array. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan mod (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia
I deleted the information about Gabcikovo power plant. The Google maps image is not obscured, or replaced by grass, it is exactly how it in reality is. Just check Google street maps.

188.167.157.203 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood Bowl Unblurred....
Should I remove the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylerschin (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Southern New Mexico Dry Lake
Possible blurring of large dry lake named White Sands, to the direct West of Holloman Air Force Base. Entire dry lake appears to be edited to conceal, as there appears to be an extension of Holloman in the area (marked by a red and white water tower) Example of odd effect: http://i.imgur.com/ebRt4cp.png (Holloman to the east) http://i.imgur.com/SoTJL9m.jpg small base extension (dirt road trails off to Holloman AFB) Coordinates: 32°53'25.0"N 106°19'42.1"W Image far above: http://i.imgur.com/cTVZfgL.png?1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Gulf of Mexico
Can someone confirm the following is a black fuzzy blob on Google Maps? Other services show a small island here and a few others just South, some of which are also blacked out.

20.909279, -92.221057 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttg512 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ttg512 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed. There's a giant blotch there. I doubt this is a stitching error like many of these could be, that's quite odd. Found another: 14°24'28.7"N 80°15'37.3"W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Gray Blur on Ama Dablam
The gray blur on the southern face of Ama Dablam is clearly a cloud. Look to the east; the horizontal line continues. Clearly what happened is two sections of the map were imaged at different times. The northern face of Ama Dublam and a large region to the north and west were imaged when there a) wasn't a cloud and b) the ground was darker because of the lighting. It's an artifact of compositing and the section should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.243.28.55 (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do they do it?
Has there been any official word from Google over why they cooperate with governments who want things censored? If it were me I'd put my users' interests first and let governments deal with their own problems.  flarn 2006  [u t c] time: 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk pages are for article content discussion, not topic discussion. But to answer your question, it's because governments are the law, simply put. If Google wants to provide this service to users in certain countries, they must abide by that country's laws. Seems fair to me. It's a very small price to pay. If you want to discuss this further, take it to a user talk page (like mine) because Wikipedia article talk pages are for article content only.  Bruzer Fox  03:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this page include all censored locations on Google maps?
Some appear to be missing such as this building:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1001:E120:955A:FDE0:9A94:5046 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Google allows property owners to censor their homes on-demand. If we listed all of those, this list would be hundreds of thousands of entries long. Keep it to the interesting cases; This one is as normal as it gets.  Bruzer Fox  03:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources?
Where are all the sources in this article? Poked around Google Earth and Google Maps last night to verify some of the "blurred out"/"altered"/"obscured" images in North America and could only verify the distorted stretch of the US-Mexico border. Everything else seemed to be outdated at best and inaccurate/unverifiable at worst. I fear that this page is one smorgasbord of original research. Thoughts? One two three... 21:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC) The entire point of this is that it's original research. What news agency is going to bother with this? It's nothing big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Article may need to be updated. It was sent to AfD twice (2007, 2016) under such OR concerns but was voted keep.  Don't think it is a clear case of OR; I have seen many list articles at AfD that are incomplete lists of items not fully defined under OR concerns, and the outcome is very variable (and leans to keep imho).  Removing tag. Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (copying a comment I made on this article at the OR noticeboard at: No original research/Noticeboard)
 * You are mixing OR with Referencing. It is not a clear case of OR (as the two past AfDs on this article have confirmed), to create a partial list of items that are reasonably defined (but not specifically defined).  Here is List of cult films, which has been to AfD three times under the same concerns and keeps getting passed; I could provide many other such lists from AfD.  In addition, this table that you keep blanking, and which is +90% of the article, does contain secondary references; but where it is unreferenced, the table gives a direct link to the Google map in question which is blurred out.  Such a link is a PRIMARY reference, but as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, is not a material issue as the information is not manipulated and is from a high-quality source.  The more I look at this case, the more I realise why the 2016 AfD passed on all keeps.  This is a very interesting article (it is mentioned in books and magazine articles), and would be well worth updating. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Corfu Greece / Albania Maritime Border
Google streetview, including photospheres on NW of corfu, and opposite Albanian coast have censored all viewes across the strait. Satellite view, oddly, is pixelating boats in the channel. Bing maps satellite unaffected. Greece and Albanian sides affected 90.69.115.214 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved, the Opposer's argument is unconvincing as the OR issue is not relevant to RM, and they themselves acknowledge that the article is a list. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Satellite map images with missing or unclear data → List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data – Ultimately this is a list article Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE: As the entire list is original research, this argument is moot. See original research noticeboard if you have something constructive to add. If you want to help improve this article then stop reverting attempts to clean it up (specifically note the rule: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material") and add some properly sourced content that is not OR. Adding some encyclopaedic content may actually save it the next time an afd is posted.82.132.230.241 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your oppose is not based on any argument that is relevant to this re-naming proposal. Opposing just because you want to blank the article (as you have done 7 times now), is not relevant to this RfM. This proposal does not concern an OR issue, but the naming of the article.  Note that when this article was put to AfD in July 2016, it was a unanimous Keep (see Articles for deletion/Satellite map images with missing or unclear data), so it is not a consensus that your concerns are valid (that AfD also discussed another 2007 AfD re OR). Britishfinance (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to your post on the OR notice board regarding this article, which I have now contributed to: No original research/Noticeboard. It would be more helpful and respectful to other editors who have contributed to this article, to have notified them of this post on the OR noticeboard.  Usually, discussions around OR start on the Talk Page first so that editors who have contributed to the article can express a view. Britishfinance (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The original name of this article, per Articles for deletion/List of places blurred out on Google Maps, used a "list" in the name. Britishfinance (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asia / Israel
The Asia table states: "The entire country of Israel is shown pixelated in all mapping services, including Google maps, ..."

This is manifestly untrue. I looked at Jerusalem in Google Maps not an hour ago, and it's no more pixelated or blurred than my own neighborhood in upstate New York. I can zoom in far enough to see chimneys on the roof tops and individual cars in the street. Moreover, many public facilities are specifically pinpointed and labeled -- e.g., schools, synagogues, shopping centers, restaurants, parks, etc.

The "Israel" entry should be removed from the list. 70.89.176.249 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course Israel shouldn't be removed from the list, because the entire country actually IS pixelated, compared to surrounding regions. I don't know how you checked, but this is easily verifiable. See http://wanted.eu.org/pub/israel_pixelated.jpg for a clear example. Besides, are you suggesting that Google would not comply with the law in the US, which forces all American companies to not provide accurate satellite images of Israel? --Wanted (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Obscured White House??
I noticed that the statement saying the White House has been obscured is false. I discovered this when i searched Google maps and it displayed the White House in clear view as well as the address. I have therefore removed "Including the White House"

After looking over the source again it mentions nothing of obscuring images of Washington, therefore i have removed the statement.

New stuff
On also: westpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.56.125 (talk • contribs)

How to get coorditanes from google map link

 * 1) Open the google maps link
 * 2) Look at the URL and find the part which says "ll=something,something", for instance ll=42.82479,-73.869967
 * 3) copy the something,something part (without the "ll=") to the search box and hit "Search Maps"
 * 4) copy/paste the coordinates to coor dms template

Please keep entries sorted by coordinates. Thanks.

Nice Prison
Nice Remand Prison in France is pixelated, but I couldn't find it on the list here. SonnikuSan (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Brussels
A space just north of Brussels Airport is pixelated. Street view is also disabled here. However, as far as I can see this article does not list it. SonnikuSan (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

things are missing on this article
if you go on google earth pro and go in northern greenland you will find "glitchy" stuff like huge colored rectangles covering the ice and water on northern greenland its not mentioned on the article though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E70B:8E00:ECE3:97E5:264B:DE77 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think these glitch patches are not deliberately censored, but rather the result of warping the satellite imagery to fit the Mercator projection of the flat map, and not bothering to use more high def images because there's not much of a point in doing it for somewhere like Greenland. SonnikuSan (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Châtillon-sous-les-Côtes, France
49.139172, 5.494068 There seems to be a blurred out complex west of the small french village of Châtillon-sous-les-Côtes, in the midst of the forest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagyr (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Rikers Island
I found a web page that shows the grey rectangle on Rikers island on google maps.Nuretok (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be so in a an old article someone wrote, but look at Google Maps and it's clearly not the case and it's there for all to see. And Parenting Factor is quite clearly not a reliable source for global imaging and mapping. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming this is a good source, I just linked to it as it shows how the island looks when I view it. I also tried different browsers and tor exit nodes and I always see the grey rectangle. Maybe we can get a third persons opinion on it.Nuretok (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What country are you in? I think I recall reading somewhere that Google censors some maps for people in the US. Maybe it's not for the world and only accessing from other places? Cause those grey rectangles are definitely not over Rikers for me, coming from Canada. Canterbury Tail talk 00:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are a few observations: I tried looking at the page in question using Tor from different countries (incl. Canada) and I always the gray area. I checked other Map services and none of them obscures the area. There is even a clear image on the Wikipedia page of Rikers Island. My current best guess is that it is just a graphical error. But I have no idea, why I see it and you don't. So out of curiosity: Do you (or anyone else) have an idea why some people see the gray area and others don't?Nuretok (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you on a Mac, iPad or iPhone? If I use your above link on an iPad (with Safari or Chrome), or browse using Google Maps on an iPad I see the grey squares you're referring to. If I use Chrome on a Windows machine I don't see it. However I do with Edge. So I've finally seen what you're referring to. It looks to me to be a small two square pass from a grey cloudy day rather than a deliberate obfuscation whereas the rest are from a clear day. If you are on one of the Apple devices, then all browsers and rendering engines in apps use the Safari engine (annoying but true, even Chrome etc is just a wrapper) so that would mean it's a non-Chrome issue instead of a deliberate hiding of something. Why Chrome with correct Chrome rendering works, I have no idea. Safari is definitely different as is Edge. Why just those two squares of data, I have no idea. If you look to the east on the exact same horizontal level, there's a bit of cloud over the east of the island, and then much further east definitely a different data set to the rest with light clouding over College Point. Looks like something off with non-Chrome Windows browsers and a phenomenal coincidence. I've never noticed before that different browsers on different OS's return different datasets in Satellite view, that's really bizarre. But you can go all over the place and it's quite clear the datasets differ between browsers. Canterbury Tail talk</i> 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tested both Firefox and Chromium (a variant of chrome) under Linux. Both show the grey rectangle. Getting a different map based on the browser (or maybe cookies stored in the browser or rendering engine) is unexpected. I agree that it does not look like an effort to hide something, but I am curious to figure out why the maps differ. Are you logged in to google on any of the browsers?Nuretok (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Chernobyl
On Google Earth and Google Earth Pro, Chernobyl at 51°23′21″N 30°05′58″E is a fake image. High resolution geometric towers have been placed on a blurred or false background. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mallorca
Puig Major is also censored I think but not in the list? GBM (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puig_Major


 * In fact both the summit and a nearby site above the reservoir to the south-south-east on Ma-10 are censored, despite the latter having Google streetview past it... GBM (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Finland
Multiple military airfields (Pirkkala for example) and naval installations on Hanko are pixelated, yet they are not on this list. Anyone mind adding them? 2001:14BB:A1:3AA6:5D1F:C190:A358:378C (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

France
Penly Nuclear Power Plant east of Dieppe has been pixelated to cover the majority of the plant. The pixelated section contours to the physical boundaries of the power plant, suggesting it was done on purpose. Coordinates are: 49°58'40.4"N 1°12'33.8"E (49.977881, 1.209388). Wanted to suggest it here rather than edit the page myself because 1) editing the table of locations is like stepping into a time machine to the 1990s; and 2) after I spend my time putting in the new location, some Wikipedia user with nothing better to do will find some excuse buried in the Wikipedia rules as to why they should delete whatever I added in. 68.147.191.145 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Australia - Ripple Island Reef
There are dozens of blacked out areas in the sea north of the Shoalwater Bay military training area, Queensland, Australia in the area of Ripple Island Reef 161.8.238.98 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see them too on Google Maps, coordinates are: 22°13'03.6"S 150°26'00.3"E. They all seem to be in the water and none on land, suggesting the satellite photos aren't corrupted or showing blacked out squares by accident. In addition, some of the black squares overlap each other as if they were being used to cover irregular shapes. 68.147.191.145 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)