satalite images

[ffmurray]

I took a look at the same area in the santa fe national forest with a couple of different satellite imaging services. With each service I was zoomed in as far as I could get in roughly the same part of the creek.

Here are the samples in no particular order:

MapQuest


hometownlocator


google


bing


mapbox (via gaiagps.com)


Are there any other good sources that I am missing?

For those of you that use satellite images to find good areas, what sort of methods do you use, any tips/tricks or suggested reading would be great. Im just getting into prospecting, and I always love learning new things.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

Those are aerial photos from an airplane. Satellite doesn't have that much resolution.

Several of those are the same sources, mostly the USDA Farm Service Agency, with different years or resolutions.

Heavy Pans

 

[brianc053]

Thanks Clay, I learned something today!

- Brian

 

[Goldwasher]

that happens hen Barry is around

 

[ffmurray]

Those are aerial photos from an airplane. Satellite doesn't have that much resolution.

Thanks Clay I didnt know that? Any tips on how to best use those images?

 

[arizau]

Odd that no one has mentioned this site yet. http://www.mylandmatters.org/Maps/ One of the most valuable tools available to prospectors no matter if they are new or experienced. Explore it first then ask questions if you have any. Hint: Pull up the interactive claims maps for NM and Co (your stated interests).

Good luck from a NM native.

 

[jere64ca]

I like caltopo.com,,,, yes it covers more than just CA. It uses the same imagery as google but is easier to use with many options.

 

[winners58]

I always start with GeoCommunicator as a miner or just knowing were you are on a map you have to use PLSS
you have to learn township, range, section (TRS) that also applies to paper maps along the side is the township
along the top is the range with 36 sections to a township, geocommunicator also will identify the lat/long to use in other programs.

Land Matters Maps
https://www.google.com/earth/explore/products/
and to plug in shape files etc... ArcGIS for Desktop

 

[jere64ca]

Yep, winners, when researching I have at least 3 windows open. 1) geocommunicator, for PLSS/TRS, 2) caltopo, for ease of navigation and 3) LR2000 for land status/claims.

arizau, I might have to give mylandmatters an honest try,,, problem is,,, it is new and I am not.

 

[arizau]

Yep, winners, when researching I have at least 3 windows open. 1) geocommunicator, for PLSS/TRS, 2) caltopo, for ease of navigation and 3) LR2000 for land status/claims.

arizau, I might have to give mylandmatters an honest try,,, problem is,,, it is new and I am not.

I'm not sure but I think mylandmatters combines the (some of the?) maps with only one screen to open. The maps can be contracted and expanded, switched between topo and aerial views, etc. and shows all of the, up to date, claims for Cali. The weak point is that it does not indicate elevations so I have to look elsewhere when that is a concern to me. Try it. It may simplify your research. Land Matters California Mining Claims

 

[Goldwasher]

using mylandmatters allows you to close two of those windows I still have google earth open

 

[chlsbrns]

Those are aerial photos from an airplane. Satellite doesn't have that much resolution.

Heavy Pans

Sure they do!

 

[QNCrazy]

that happens hen Barry is around

ill you go out and get a ew keyboard already? LOL

 

[Goldwasher]

Dang it...I missed that one...lol I have a wireless keyboard...I tend to start typing on my firs cup of coffee and forget to use it.

 

[Asmbandits]

Sure they do!

Would you place your burlap in the lazy river or wave pool for best recovery?

 

[goldenIrishman]

Back when I was in network installation, one of the jobs I picked up was for the company that makes many of the cameras used in the satellites for the National Recon Office/Agency. Some of the images they had on their walls were fantastic. One of their engineers told me that they were taken from low orbit and I thought they were very cool. (Hey!!!! I can see my house from up here!!) Then he told me that the shots were not even the best they could do but anything better was classified and they couldn't have examples of their equipments' abilities up on the walls like that. Told me they almost had it down to the point that they could read a newspaper over your shoulder while you sat in the park. That was late 80s or so. GoogleEarth and the rest are nice, but they'll never have access to that kind of gear.

 

[Aufisher]

The U-2 still is flying after all these years. Kelly Johnson would be proud.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Back when I was in network installation, one of the jobs I picked up was for the company that makes many of the cameras used in the satellites for the National Recon Office/Agency. Some of the images they had on their walls were fantastic. One of their engineers told me that they were taken from low orbit and I thought they were very cool. (Hey!!!! I can see my house from up here!!) Then he told me that the shots were not even the best they could do but anything better was classified and they couldn't have examples of their equipments' abilities up on the walls like that. Told me they almost had it down to the point that they could read a newspaper over your shoulder while you sat in the park. That was late 80s or so. GoogleEarth and the rest are nice, but they'll never have access to that kind of gear.

Read up on optics and the "circle of confusion". Physics simply don't allow reading a newspaper from low orbit much less from ordinary imaging satellites. That "almost" in the 80's still exists today no matter what you see on television.

It's true that there is much better satellite imagery available than what we are allowed to use. Even that is limited by the laws of physics.

Google works on the 3 meter standard (10 foot resolution) where they can get it, including the entire continental US. In some parts of the US One foot resolution is used. All of the imagery in that range is made from airplane photos. 1 foot resolution does not mean that you can see a one foot object it means that one pixel is represented per foot of surface viewed. It takes approximately a 32 x 32 pixel area to create a recognizable image (1024 pixels or 1024 square feet). So at best an object needs to be 32 foot square on the ground to be recognizable with one foot resolution.

I know a bunch of readers are probably thinking "BS - I can see better than that in the images already on this thread". To illustrate this concept I've clipped a 1 foot resolution 29 x 29 pixel square representing 841 square feet on the ground here:



Can you tell me what object is shown? Being below the 32 x 32 pixel limit it's unlikely that anyone can get information about that area without some other visual clues.

This is the best resolution google (and Land Matters) display. 1 foot resolution. At 3 meter resolution 32 pixels represent just short of 10,000 square feet - about the same area as a small residential house lot.

At Land Matters we use a custom worked satellite image until the map view gets down to about 300 square miles then we switch to the same streamed aerial photos everyone else uses. The government provides these images for free to google, bing and Land Matters.

The differences you see between the different maps is more about map projections than where the images come from. At Land Matters we provide equal area mapping. This means that a measurement in any direction is equally accurate. One mile North, East or Southwest is the same visual measurable distance. Accuracy in representation is our goal. Google, bing and the other map systems provide non standard mercator projections that can not be accurately measured. Depending on where you are on a google map a mile North /South may only be 70% as far in measurement (and visually) as an East/West "mile". Different maps for different purposes using the same aerial views.

Aerial mapping is slowly getting better. More of the United States gets 1 foot resolution aerial photos added each year. Satellite photos available (at a price) get a little better resolution every few years - there is a lot of competition in the satellite business but those better quality satellite photos are not free and they only cover very limited areas. Prices range around $40 per square kilometer with minimum purchases about $2000 for private one time use. The best color satellite resolution you can buy is about 4 1/2 foot resolution and that's only in select areas. Not near as high resolution as the 1 foot resolution provided for free from the government.

In our mapping business we have several sources for private very high resolution aerial photos but the cost is something only large companies with big mapping budgets can afford. For now the best quality imagery you will see is still that 1 foot resolution aerial (airplane) photography found on all the major mapping systems - including Land Matters.

Heavy Pans

 

[delnorter]

Great explanation Barry.

 

[chlsbrns]