Start at...
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&so...00000000000008... and click the arrows to step forward. The vehicle clearly drove downGreat Marlborough Street, but their GPS unit thought they were driving intothe pedestrianised Carnaby Street.They probably should have used WPS instead of GPS...

In message , at 12:57:35 on Sun, 19
Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:

The vehicle clearly drove downGreat Marlborough Street, but their GPS
unit thought they were driving intothe pedestrianised Carnaby
Street.They probably should have used WPS instead of GPS...

This shows the "effect" best: http://tinyurl.com/dywwon
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:57:35 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:

The vehicle clearly drove downGreat Marlborough Street, but their GPS
unit thought they were driving intothe pedestrianised Carnaby
Street.They probably should have used WPS instead of GPS...

This shows the "effect" best: http://tinyurl.com/dywwon

Ironically when I first clicked that I got the MSIE message "The address is
not valid".

John Rowland wrote:
Start at...
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&so...00000000000008... and click the arrows to step forward. The vehicle clearly drove downGreat Marlborough Street, but their GPS unit thought they were driving intothe pedestrianised Carnaby Street.They probably should have used WPS instead of GPS...

I've seen before where they have driven up to points that normal
vehicles are no longer allowed (eg. bus only streets) and the image
stops there. I've then moved the orange man and moved a bit further
along the road to a point where you could only get to it by going past
the buses only sign.

It seems to me that they have removed the image that shows the vehicle
passing a point it probably should not, but have then restarted the
imaging later along.

In message , at 17:59:01 on Sun, 19 Apr
2009, Joe remarked:
I've seen before where they have driven up to points that normal
vehicles are no longer allowed (eg. bus only streets) and the image
stops there. I've then moved the orange man and moved a bit further
along the road to a point where you could only get to it by going past
the buses only sign.

It seems to me that they have removed the image that shows the vehicle
passing a point it probably should not, but have then restarted the
imaging later along.

I have several examples where they have not done this, and I'd be
surprised if they bothered. In the cases I have they'd leave such a
large hole in the photography as to be unusable. It also doesn't solve
the problem that the roads in question are prohibited for cars, not just
"passing the sign".
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 12:57:35 on
Sun, 19 Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:

The vehicle clearly drove downGreat Marlborough Street, but their GPS
unit thought they were driving intothe pedestrianised Carnaby Street.
They probably should have used WPS instead of GPS...

This shows the "effect" best: http://tinyurl.com/dywwon

It does say "address is approximate"! :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel