Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Update on the new photo experience
Latest: 2 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Detailed explanation of new features in Flickr 3.0 apps
Latest: 70 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Take a survey to help us improve Flickr groups
Latest: 2 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using a Yahoo username and password to sign in to Flickr
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Official Thread] Providing feedback on Flickr 3.0 for iOS and Android
Latest: 6 days ago

 

Current Discussion

What`s wrong with Explore
Latest: 4 seconds ago
adding photos to group
Latest: 3 minutes ago
LIST of missing/broken features in Beta
Latest: 42 minutes ago
[Bug] Receiving error when sorting contacts by public photos or last upload (unfixed since February)
Latest: 51 minutes ago
Moderate/Restricted uploads with Android 3.0 app?
Latest: 2 hours ago
Uploads to the group pool have been disabled.
Latest: 2 hours ago
group discussions on mobile app
Latest: 2 hours ago
html code sharing
Latest: 3 hours ago
How to logout from the new flickr mail
Latest: 3 hours ago
Log out of flickr?
Latest: 3 hours ago
What happened to Sets ?
Latest: 3 hours ago
Setting defaults for sharing options?
Latest: 3 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Official Topic] All new Maps on Flickr

Flickr Staff

Xerxes2K says:

You have asked many times for better maps, and today we are extremely thrilled to announce the release of all new and up-to-date maps for you to enjoy.

The new maps will be available all around Flickr. You can find them on Your Map, the World Map, Places, and many other pages like on your photo pages that have geotagged photos and in groups.

You can read all the details about the new maps on FlickrBlog.

If you see any bugs or have feedback for us, this thread is for you! We're all ears. :)

Known Issues [updated July 10, 4PM PST]

- We are aware of a bug where photos geotagged in Asia and the Pacific Rim are being displayed up to 500 meters away from their actual location. We are working to correct this issue. Meanwhile, please avoid correcting geolocations on your photos if you can help it.
Posted at 2:17PM, 28 June 2012 PDT ( permalink )
phil dokas (staff) edited this topic 22 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(1 to 100 of 453 replies in [Official Topic] All new Maps on Flickr)
view photos

ernstkers says:

Thanks. At first sight the map looks indeed more detailed and the area I checked much more up-to-date. The sat image of the same area was not yet very recent.
The database with location names is still the same old poor one with millions of errors. Will that be updated in the near future too?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pacdog says:

The link to the blog on our main pages is brokeh...



Flickr Blog

隆重介紹全新版地圖
於 Flickr 的相片往往遠比圖像本省出色。 其中最吸引的買點為您可於照片上添加「於世界上哪一處拍攝」的數據。 Flickr 擁有功能最強大的地理位置及相片工具以保證我們使用的地圖質素符合高標準。 以讓我們今天可向您推薦 Flickr 的全新版地圖。 首先,我們與 Nokia 合作以提供予...

looks like that...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Paging Wil to this thread... : )
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Thanks Pacdog, that is fixed, but it will take a while for the cache to refresh.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pacdog says:

here is the link it gives..

blog.flickr.net/en/2012/06/28/%E9%9A%86%E9%87%8D%E4%BB%8B...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pacdog says:

Ah ok.. Thanks Stephen..
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

ernstkers - the place names database is a separate system from maps. We are actively working on improving that and should have more updates in the future.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

phil dokas says:

Pacdog:

And while we wait for the homepage to roll over, here's the proper URL for your reading enjoyment:

blog.flickr.net/en/2012/06/28/introducing-all-new-up-to-d...

Edit: HTML typo
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ministry says:

: Oh. Okay. The old maps weren't too bad (and at a cursory glance, are no better, particularly for rural but popular areas, such as the English Lake District), but it's the database which has been causing frustration.

Excitement over :(
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Glenn Batuyong says:

Yes, PLEASE update the "neighborhood" database —with no way to edit a location name we're still stuck with photos showing up in wrongly-named places even though the GPS coordinates are correct. By the way, the satellite photos are still out of date. I see dirt patches in large swaths of cities that are in reality covered with hotels now —so the data is at least three years obsolete.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Glenn Batuyong edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

ernstkers says:

Thanks for the info. I'll continue waiting patiently for that. ;-)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ceila♪♫♪ says:

Does Google support the new maps?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

PÂÇBºT ™" . says:

Thanks Phil.. Your the best! Arf!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pacdog says:

Oops that was my alter ego other Pro acct.. =o)~
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

nansya says:

The map worsened about Japan X<
I hope ZENRIN map.

www.flickr.com/photos/nansya/7463443578/in/photostream
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
nansya edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

Ministry says:

Hmm. That's quite an achievement. The coverage of the UK is marginally worse.

Okay, one can zoom all the way into the satellite imagery without seeing the old 'not available at this resolution' message, but the quality of the imagery itself is drastically worse than Google offered in 2006. I tried my home town (Lancaster, UK), and can bearly distinguish the urban area from surrounding countryside, never mind streets or individual buildings which, frankly, I'd expect as the barest minimum nowadays.

In the announcement opening this thread, Xerxes2K linked to an earlier Ideas Forum thread as an example of requests having been fulfilled. Wrong. The precise issue raised here remains outstanding: like its predecessor, the new map is utterly useless for locating anything other than street addresses. Mountains and rivers can be kind of photogenic too, you know....

Sorry, but I think this exercise has been a bit of a waste, at least for here in semi-rural Northern England, and as I said earlier, it's a side-issue to the real problem, of the geolocation database.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Widdess says:

Why does the country to the north of the United States of America say North America? Seeing how it is CANADA, it would be nice if it said CANADA!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pacdog says:



Says Canada on my map...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Widdess says:

its shows NORTH AMERICA on the four western provinces on my map - where does it say Canada?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

- If you are accessing Flickr from Japan more detailed maps are coming soon (the next week), sorry for the delay during the transition.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

If you look at the large map you can see Canada labeled clearly.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Widdess says:

thank you - I see Canada way at the top of the map
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Ministry the Nokia road map does emphasize roads over terrain.

Nokia also provides a terrain map, it might be an interesting idea to have a terrain map in addition to our existing road maps. If you'd like to see more about Nokia's maps you can see them maps.nokia.com.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

Wow - Hong Kong map and satellite is a huge improvement!
Only complaint, everything I'd previously mapped there was "shifted". I've just started moving things back so city views weren't in the middle of Victoria Harbour :-/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Patrick Costello - Don't shift things just yet, there may be a bug there. We're looking into it.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

Thanks Ross.
The last pictures I dropped on the map were of a country house in southern England. This morning I had to guess which bit of a featureless map was correct; this evening I can clearly see the house on the satellite image :-) Nice job!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

kmacgray

"Paging Wil to this thread"

Present and accounted for. :-)

ernstkers
"The sat image of the same area was not yet very recent."

I noticed that too. Just as far behind as the previous satellite images, for the locations I checked.

"The database with location names is still the same old poor one with millions of errors"

Same here. I still can't choose the correct location name for my parents' home (something I've mentioned as long ago as five years).

Fortunately, I am still able to use the API call method (here) to manually add the correct location name.

protohiro
"the place names database is a separate system from maps. We are actively working on improving that and should have more updates in the future."

That's excellent news -- and of course, this has been my main complaint about the maps for many years, not the look of the map per se.

However, it is nice to see a little more accuracy in road naming and placement, at least in the areas I checked. My own street is finally in existence.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mixmaster says:

Still no update to Tel Aviv, Israel it seems.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mr rudeforth says:

Nice map, seems my local river has moved whilst I was away because all my tagged images up and down it are in the wrong place :)

my only real complaint is that the satellite imagery for my corner of the world (Hull, UK) is still crap until the camera is about 10 miles up :(

I haven't had time to have a detailed look yet but if I notice any real glitches issues I shall let you know.

Thanks
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

Some unkind people might think the lack of a close up of Hull to be a good thing ;-)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

pongo 2007 says:

Not a great improvement for placing pictures on maps in Umbria/Tuscany. The map seems to offer LESS options now and still insists locations are in Lazio.. well they are not.

I haven't checked the rural UK maps yet, but won't hold my breath.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

: Nils says:

The maps look beautiful and are a huge improvement. Way to go Flickr!

There's one thing that's always bugged me that I wish would go away: having the big "text bubble" style box with the photo in it that obscures a large chunk of the map context around the area (this is after you've clicked on the map to bring up the detail view). I know you need some place to put the "edit location" link but I think a cleaner solution could be found. The box is huge, and really I don't need to see a thumbnail of the photo that I just clicked on to bring up the map; I'd rather see what's in the immediate vicinity of the location.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

315Edith says:

Find it hard to edit the location...cant see the map while attempting. It would be trial and error mode.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Just to clarify, the place name options are not related to the map, they come from a seperate datasource. We are updating this as well, but it will be a while before the data is updated on the site.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

pongo 2007 says:

+ ... I agree, I just tried to move a picture of a church to the correct location, but the huge thumbnail of the picture coveres the area, so it's kind of hit and miss.

However, I do see an improvement of the actual streets on the map. They were not there before. So, better than before.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

pongo 2007 says:

... Ha..thanks for that info. I understand now.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Oh, and by a while I mean it will probably be several months before we get the place names database fully up to speed. Sorry this isn't happening sooner.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

pongo 2007 says:

.. That is fine, it would be nice if they included National Park Areas as options too in the future... not just towns or cities. Many of us take pictures in National Parks and World Heritage Sites which are not close to the big cities.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Karen_Chappell says:

Meh. Let me know when the place names are updated. Right now they suck.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jchants says:

I really like the increased detail of your new maps, but I also echo what others have said about the place names database, which is indeed riddled with misspellings and errors. As an example, the city where I live shows up as a neighborhood of the much larger city that we are adjacent to, and city's name isn't even the first choice that comes up. I look forward to seeing this database being greatly improved in the future.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pat Hawks says:

The new satellite imagery for my location is terrible! Pretty much unusable, which is a shame, because it was actually really good previously.

Place names are still wildly inaccurate.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Squiggle says:

The map in Suzhou, China, is shifted by almost half a kilometer from the GPS coordinates, down and to the right.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ida & Leo says:

Context search is still crappy, I searched for "san jose giants" and it gives me San Jose downtown instead of San Jose Municipal Stadium
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jason A. Samfield says:

It'd be nice if you all could catch up with other maps services utilizing higher zoom levels.

I consistently find myself navigating on Google Maps to the correct location (with much higher zoom) and then triangulating an approximate location on Flickr Maps using landmarks that I can find on both maps.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

pkingDesign says:

Hi everyone -- as a couple people here have reported, we have noticed that geotags in some locations are shifted by a few hundred meters from their intended target. The data we have on record is correct, but the display on the map will temporarily appear slightly shifted on our new maps.

This is a significant concern for us and we're actively looking into a resolution. In the mean time, we suggest that you avoid trying to correct the location of your photos while we investigate this issue further.

We've mostly noticed this issue in locations around Asia and the Pacific Rim, including the couple of reports in this thread regarding photos geotagged in China.

To summarize: We are aware of a bug where photos geotagged in Asia and the Pacific Rim are being displayed up to 500 meters away from their actual location. We are working to correct this issue and will post updates during the day on Friday PST. Meanwhile, please avoid correcting geolocations on your photos if you can help it.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

UweBKK (α 77 on ) says:

The new satellite imagery is just awesome. Also the street maps are much more detailed. But I prefer the satellite view to geotag my images. I can find the place much easier that way. Great job!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nolan Caudill says:

Hello! I'm currently still seeing the old maps as well, though I'm not on IE. I'm currently using Chrome 19 on Linux. Let me know if you need any other details.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Nolan Caudill edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

Flickr Staff

phil dokas says:

Jason A. Samfield:

We've identified a few cases where zooming is cut off one level too soon and we plan to address this over the next few days. Sorry about the trouble!

Nolan Caudill:

Since you’re using Chrome on Linux, I’m trying to understand “though I'm on IE”. Did you mean to say that you're not seeing tiles even though you’re not using IE?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
phil dokas (staff) edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

minghong says:

The satellite Hong Kong map is great! But sadly the English place names are mostly wrong. e.g. It should be "Hong Kong Station" instead of "Xiang Gang Zhan".
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

minghong says:

Oh no. I found a huge problem for the Hong Kong map... There is a huge offset for both satellite map and street map. The offset is roughly 420m!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Beedle Um Bum says:

For my location in Brooktrails CA, the old maps and satellite imagery were excellent. The new images won't zoom in nearly as close, so they don't have nearly as much detail to locate photo sites. A big step backward so far from my viewpoint.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

DeForestRanger says:

Well, I'm not happy with the detail of the new map compared to the old one. I'm mapping largely in forested areas and on the old map, logging roads were at least visible part of the time. On the new map, it's just one great green blur. The map for the image I uploaded tonight shows a numbered Forest Service road extending into National Park land which is clearly an error. I work in that National Park! I know what's our land and what's theirs! Also, the number shown is incorrect for the portion of road outside the Park boundary. Nope, the new map gets a huge thumbs-down from here.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nolan Caudill says:

Phil, yes. Typing skills go to crap towards the end of the day.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

cnmark says:

Not much time to check it out (at work) But thanks for the update.
Thanks also for this info and I'm glad I did not miss that:

We are aware of a bug where photos geotagged in Asia and the Pacific Rim are being displayed up to 500 meters away from their actual location. We are working to correct this issue and will post updates during the day on Friday PST.

Saves me the time to point this out and am looking forward to the "update of the update".

If you need accurately placed photos for debugging, feel invited to use my Chinese cities sets..... Geotagged according to the place the photo was taken from.

A quick check in Shanghai showed some incorrect naming (probably thanks to garbage data in the Open Street Maps) - e.g. the "Yan'an Viad" on the map is officially named "Yan'an Elevated Road".
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Hi everyone, thanks for the feedback so far. If you have noticed errors in the maps, or gaps in coverage, Nokia and OSM provide channels for you to give feedback.

For Nokia maps you can make suggestions via Nokia Map Creator.

For OSM you can make changes to the data via their online tool here. Like wikipedia, your edits will be live immediately. Next time we generate our OSM maps we will bring in the latest changes from openstreetmap.org.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ed Gaillard says:

protohiro Oh, and by a while I mean it will probably be several months before we get the place names database fully up to speed.

Oh, well. There went my (already very mild) interest. Doesn't matter how pretty the map is if the place data is crap.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

splattergraphics says:

I've just tagged 15 photos in three different locations I'm familiar with. Full zoom doesn't come in as tightly as it used to--the area shown is much larger than it was before, which makes it difficult to geotag with the precision I'm used to.
Also, the superimposed roads on the hybrid version cover up detail, which again makes it more difficult to geotag precisely.
Using Firefox.
I just checked a couple of photos from 2010 to see if the satellite view now shows the buildings that have been in that location since 2008 or '09 instead of the empty field that was there previously and discovered that several tiles for Chester, MD, are too blurry to make out any features.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
splattergraphics edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

John© says:

Zooming isn't a close in as it used to be, and on full zoom the slider overlaps the plus symbol at the bottom of the slider bar.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

southliving says:

Maps nice improvement, but now the satellite images are even more out-of-date for a lot of parts of China....
Suzhou, Jiangsu Province for sure!
The section of the city that is now 18 years old only appears as a network of roads....
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

find myself a city (1001 Afternoons in Chicago) says:

First reaction is the same as splattergraphics and John(c) -- zooming in is now far less close than before. A step backwards here in Chicago.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

PaulO Classic. © says:

Vast improvement in South African locations thanks!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Corwin's Trumps says:

I don't find this to be any real improvement, as the satellite photos are still horribly out of date. In some places, the photos are still well over 10 years old. For example, for Vancouver, there are photos that still don't show the Millennium Line Skytrain line, which opened in 2002. At most, it shows segments that were still under construction - in 1999!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Not Quite Me says:

I don't see any difference either in map style or in satellite quality. I have always kept the Google map version in a separate tab for cross referencing if I was unsure of my bearings. I can't see that changing.

Hang on, I've just had an idea. Maybe I'm spoilt as most of my mappings are in Central London. Why don't I have a look at Dar es Salaam, Flickr's example. I've no idea what it looked like before the change but surely it should look like the right hand informative map now. No I'm sorry Flickr, the map I'm getting is identical to the empty map on the left hand side.

So it isn't just me, the Emperor really is as naked as the day that he was born!

What is going on here Flickr?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Not Quite Me edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

Öztürk says:

It would be great if the new maps's gps coordinate system could be compatible with the google maps's coordinate system. I konow there are a few gps numbering system but in the maps on internet, google maps system is most common.

So mostly I find the exact place on google maps, and try to place it on the flickr maps. I t would be much easier if I could just copy-pasted the corrdinates of the google maps to the flickr maps.

Please think about this!!!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gale's Photographs says:

I've just tried it out....the New Map is not as good for my area as the Old Map. I used to be able to zoom in and see my street, in satelite and hybrid - the new map is just a Big Blur cant make out anything local to me. A real big step backwards for me.!!
I'm in Cardiff Wales UK
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

histogram_man says:

There are a lot of posts already so it is difficult to get a handle on the general drift of comments but I do see some about the satellite image often being worse and this does seem to be the case on some pictures I have checked. It appears that a relatively low res image is simply blown up as you zoom in, making it useless for precisely placing images in open countryside.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gale's Photographs says:

just checked out other areas of Cardiff and they look amazing viewed satelite/hybrid - I guess it's just my area....North Cardiff :(
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ministry says:

: That's pretty much what I do, though using Google Earth rather than Google Maps. It takes longer to explain than to do!

In Google Earth:
In 'Options', I have 'Show Lat/Long' preset to 'decimal degrees'.
I find the correct location, rather precisely, then add a Placemark.
The tab which pops up states the lat/long coordinates.

In Flickr:
I go to my map in 'Organise & Create', and drag-and-drop my photo onto the map, absolutely anywhere - a photo intended for Mt Everest could go in Manhattan.
Still in 'Organise & Create', I click on the photo's blue circle, and choose 'Edit Item', then the 'Location' tab.
I cut-and-paste the lat and long from Google Earth to Flickr.

In short, I make no attempt to find the photo's location on the Flickr Map - it's pointless.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Sam Judson says:

As some people have pointed out this is a step back in terms of some of the satellite imagery. I live in Gateshead, UK, and all you can see is green and brown splodges once you are beyond a certain level - I believe it is the City level imagery just scaled.

Gateshead - crap : maps.nokia.com/54.9459626,-1.5239048,14,0,0,hybrid.day

Some areas nearby are better, like some of Newcastle, but parts of that are even worse - were the image is just one big cloud! Seriously - Nokia couldn't get a photo taken when there wasn't a cloud?

Newcastle - better: maps.nokia.com/54.970702,-1.6105079,14,0,0,hybrid.day
Newcastle - just big clouds: maps.nokia.com/55.0155094,-1.6125679,14,0,0,hybrid.day

I've never been able to use Flickr's mapping for Geotagging here in the UK, and that unfortunately appears to be continuing.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

tim ellis says:

I've just checked some of my pictures taken at Twycross Zoo (Rural Leicestershire, UK) (eg Dhole) - The map is better, and the Satellite image is a million times better. Firstly you can now zoom all the way in, as opposed to being so far out that you can't see any buildings, and secondly any detail that might have been there isn't obscured by clouds!

Actually, a little further investigation shows that if you look at the map for that picture, and (at the default zoom level) choose "Satellite", then zoom OUT one click, you see the previous satellite image. Just looking at the difference between the new default and the previous "best available" shows what a dramatic improvement this is!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bobbat says:

Isn't the point of the map on Flickr letting people know where you took the photo? I prefer this map to the old one. Pisa (Tuscany, Italy) is finally Pisa, not Pisa Airport.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Öztürk says:

Ministry, that worked, Thanks a lot!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Valter Jacinto | Portugal says:

Some bugs remains for Portugal.

District of Faro is Algarve... but in Map still appears Faro!

in Corte do Gago, Faro, PT, using a Sony DSC-H9

Correct is: in Corte do Gago, Algarve, PT, using a Sony DSC-H9

www.flickr.com/photos/valter/7463020500/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

flips99 says:

At least there are satelite views in my area now, shame that they are completely useless. Just a green smudge zoomed in.

Zooming in and out seems to be a lot faster than before, makes it easier to move from location to location.

I wish there'd been names on the smaller lakes and mountain areas, not just the biggest ones.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

Note this earlier post from staff:

"We've identified a few cases where zooming is cut off one level too soon and we plan to address this over the next few days. Sorry about the trouble!"
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

PaulO Classic. © says:

OK, just double checked :

On maps in SA, the difference is great

On satellite, it is just plain horrible - cannot zoom lower than about 7000 feet. A definite step backwards, as the old satellite was actually good, if somewhat outdated.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Marlis1 says:

new maps? Really, where?
what I am getting right now:
NO map-
the red dots of previous geotags are hanging in a blank space- impossible to lock into the correct spot, and even worse editing- can't see where I am at... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. %&ç"

the Hybrid and the Satellite look identical- aren't they suppose to be different?-

This is Spain reporting-
hopefully this is a temporary setback.
(I am on Firefox by the way)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Marlis1 edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

ausfi says:

It is really good if you can do something with the map names which are full of spelling mistakes, even having a hyphen in the wrong place (ener-haugen), probably derived from a text where the word has been divided between two lines. Mark also the small letter on a place name!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ebroh says:

Previous map wasn't the best possible, but it was leagues ahead of the new map. Get old back!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

histogram_man says:

Following on from my previous post, I've now had a chance to look at the satellite image quality of some more pictures. For my local park (I live in Greater London), the satellite image quality is worse but still perfectly usable. As you get out into Kent, some areas now get the 'park quality' view which is an improvement in detail but the further from London you go, the more likely they are to be unusable mush as you zoom in. The South Downs are now all seem to be mush whereas before they were at the least usable and in some areas very good indeed. Pembrokeshire and the Lake District are also seem poor.

I've also noticed that some parts of the Dorset coast switch to a far better quality as you zoom in rather than magnifying the smaller scale image. Possibly we can hope that all the satellite images will switch to this in time.

At the moment, placing pictures in many rural areas of the UK will involve trying to match them to the pattern of nearby roads which is hardly satisfactory. It also makes the satellite image useless for the general viewer who might be interested in seeing the area from the air.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oldt1mer - Keith says:

Why is the Hybrid and satellite map clean and clear when viewed in I.E. but extremely blurred when viewed in Firefox? (especially when zoomed in).

Is this a bug?

Using Firefox 13.0.1 and IE 9.0.8112
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Oldt1mer - Keith edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

kh1234567890 says:

A waste of time.

For those who prefer to use Google maps for geotagging, try this.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Green @pples says:

Are there any plans to change the map view for photostream, sets etc so all geotagged images are seen on one map - it's quite annoying to only see 20 photos at one time at the moment.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

nich0010 says:

Zimbabwe (and presumably other African countries) doesn't have a high enough resolution view to allow image positioning without the message "We recommend that you place items on the map at a higher accuracy level (zoomed in closer). If you drop stuff here, they won't be seen as people zoom in, because it's not clear where they were actually taken."
But if you zoom further, the map is blank. Useless.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jeffs4653 says:

Yes, I think it's an improvement, but on the other side, the satellite data is way out of date.

Plus, partnering with Nokia? I mean really, a company that is on the decline? I really have to question these companies that you partner with lately, such as Aviary.

I guess you couldn't afford Google.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Alex J White says:

much better. big improvement @jeffs4653 Nokia have invested heavily in mapping technology and as a result have excellent maps (that they now partner also with Microsoft) many would argue better than Googles.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Marlis1 says:

guys, this is scary, what did you do?
when I geotag with a name I get the entire country (Spain)- the location is nowhere near the actual location.
When I zoom in, I get blank space and I cannot even GUESS where I am supposed to place the arrow thingy-
this is a nightmare-
What happens to my 6000 carefully geotags pics? They are in Spain, terrific.

NO new is not better- not yet.
Please work on this some more.
I use Firefox, and I was happy with what I had before-
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )
Marlis1 edited this topic 22 months ago.

view photos

ernstkers says:

I guess you couldn't afford Google.

Google satellite images and Google Maps are often outdated. In many places more outdated than those of Nokia / Flickr.

Flickr had a partnership with Picnik, which was owned by Google. What happened with Picnik gives an idea about the reliability of Google as a partner.
I am glad there are more map & sat image providers and its not only the mighty Google anymore having a monopoly on those.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

missapril1956 says:

Can't wait to surf the new maps.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Burnt Umber: says:

BUG REPORT

I am running FF 13.0.1 and the Map fail to render at all scales.

I can see both the Hybrid Map and the Satellite Map, but the Map map only shows a gray nothingness. The little flickr balls rotate and then stop as if the map has been rendered but there is nothing; just empty grayness.

This condition is happening on two different computers with the same FF version running. Can anyone duplicate this? It occurs both in Organizer as well as the little map window at the top right of any photo page.

Please make the grayness go away. Gray makes me sad. Please Flickr, don't make me sad.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

CLF says:

The new map doesn't display as clear as Yahoo! Japan's map....
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

I was seeing this on my iPad last night. Organizr tab; Safari browser.

Also, while the satellite views for my neighborhood are the same as the old map, they're much blurrier when zoomed in all the way.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueRidgeKitties says:

Thanks for updating the map! The new satellite images now provide a cloud-free view of the Blue Ridge Parkway and Grandfather Mountain. (On the old map, quite a few clouds were obstructing parts of it.) Sort of "driving along the Parkway" and "hiking the Appalachian Trail" using the map, I find it looks good and a bit more detailed, but some rural roads that were previously named seem to have lost their names on the new map.

Pretty much every place I've checked that I've been to within the US looks good on satellite view. The situation is bit more different over in Germany. Big cities like Hamburg, Berlin etc look good and very detailed, but once you get into rural areas, it's all just blurry color blobs on the satellite image. To be fair, these were areas that on the old map simply said "We're sorry, the data you have requested is unavailable" when you zoomed in. So I assume that the blobs are a try to extrapolate from less detailed satellite images to show something at least rather than an error message where more detailed satellite pictures aren't available.

Overall, this seems to be a step forward. Showing something (even if blurry) rather than nothing in those areas with poor satellite coverage seems preferable to the old system. I'm a little disappointed to see some information loss with some rural streets lacking names on the new map while they had names on the old map.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Saomik says:

The maps and satellite images look great, but some of my geotagged photos are not showing up on my map (example: www.flickr.com/photos/saomik/7153293703). It has a map location, but when I go to "Your map" under "Organize and Create", this picture - and many many more - does not appear to be there.. It's frustrating because I would like to use the new maps to place these photos more precisely.

Oh, I've figured it out - the old map just said "No information at this magnification" or something like that when zoomed fully in on this location, so I had to locate them at a couple of levels of out-zoom. The photos' locations don't appear at all on the fully zoomed in maps that are now available.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oldt1mer - Keith says:

To add to my earlier posting

Have tried it on another machine and once again, when zooming in, Satellite/Hybrid pictures clear when using Internet Explorer and blurred when using Firefox.

Obviously not the computer so somethings else is going wrong.

Come on Flickr, don't let this be another Aviary!!!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Saomik says:

The little distance scale at the bottom left corner seems to have been lost. This is really useful - any chance of getting it back?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

Saomik

That image appears for me on your map, when fully zoomed in:
www.flickr.com/photos/saomik/map?&fLat=9.6546&fLo...

(Of course, I can't see what you're seeing in Organizr. I mention this so you'll know that other people can still see this image on the map.)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

"The little distance scale at the bottom left corner seems to have been lost."

Good catch. I no longer see the distance scale either -- not on the photopage map and not in Organizr. I actually use it occasionally to estimate distances.

Also, I noticed that zooming in all the way makes the zoom level indicator cover the "+" button on the map. I don't remember this happening before.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Christopher Brian's Photography says:

Most of my images are placed along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The map that shows up in the top right of the image page lists several US states and partially includes THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You know what's not showing? A SINGLE THING ABOUT THE COUNTRY THE SHOT WAS TAKEN IN! (correction - 2 provinces that are hundreds ok KMs away are listed) An insulting oversight. There are places with names beyond the borders of the US. Disapointed.

I guess ON and QC are too small to get a name while West Virginia and Maine have plenty of room.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueRidgeKitties says:

I've noticed the same thing. I believe it happens on pictures that I have placed on the map using a zoomed out view to get a rough location. They will show up on the map on those zoomed out views, but as I zoom for more details, they disappear. This isn't new behavior though, the same thing happened with the old map.

It would be really nice if there was a way to select these pictures and get them into the photo strip in Organizr to now try and place them more accurately on a zoomed in view of the new maps. As a workaround, I was able to get the following to work:

- center the map around the image of interest (clicking on the blue dot on the image in Organizr's map view)
- zoom out step by step until you can see the image on the map
- drag it to a new position
- zoom in again: the image should now show up on the more zoomed in views
- repeat to refine the image location
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(1 to 100 of 453 replies in [Official Topic] All new Maps on Flickr)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads