I was totally into yesterday's NPR story about a group of researchers in walking the route of a new road from a remote village to the big city of Iquitos. It was all rough terrain and jungle and the idea was to explore the impact of the road on deforestation and human health, including the spread of malaria. The one statement that stopped me dead:

Pan has brought the only maps they have — Google Earth photos from 2003.

Later researcher Pan notes:

"I learned that the parts of the road that look on the satellite image as cleared are actually not as cleared as it appears. And there's not as many communities as we had thought there might be."

I have what are perhaps naive questions. Surely there are newer images available? Why then are they using old images from four years ago? Is there no funding to acquire newer imagery? If there is no or little funding did the researchers at least ask for a break on price from commercial providers?

"Because Google Earth doesn't keep accurate metadata, it's not a good idea to use Google Earth as evidence in court."

- Rick Crowsey, writing in the Jan/Feb issue of Earth Imaging Journal (article not online, so far as I can tell)

It's been two years since Google Earth blasted onto the scene helping neophyte and experienced geographers gain better appreciation for geography and their world. But where are we now? What's the future of globes? What are the next steps? Who will take them? Our editors have some ideas.

Subscribe to Podcast RSS

Listen Now (to download, right click on the link at left and choose "save target as")

Read the show notes

Missed any podcasts? Want to subscribe via iTunes, Yahoo, etc? Here's the index with all the info.