|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
NoBeginningNoEnd

Registered: 09/16/11
Posts: 471
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests
#15885647 - 03/01/12 12:12 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Is it just me, or is Google Earth kind of useless for finding good shady older growth forests that might support Beech and Hemlock, two trees associated with the final succession of forests? Several times now, I have located promising forested areas that looked very lush and well established, only to get there and find young trees with tons of sky showing through the thin branches, no shaded slopes or other areas where Beech and Hemlock would tend to grow, etc. And sometimes these promising lush spots are very close to other spots where I did find Beech, and they look the same in Google Earth. I thought Google Earth would save me some trips, but I often end up driving all the way there and being disappointed. Either the terrain is super steep and un maneuverable, or it's flat with thin trees.
I also find it impossible to gauge the terrain in Google Earth, which would be useful for mushroom hunting.
Is there another option? At this point I'm thinking that protected areas like provincial/state/federal parks would be the best places to look for older trees.
|
audiophoenix
Find Peace



Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 4,107
Loc: Upstate NY
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: NoBeginningNoEnd]
#15885663 - 03/01/12 12:17 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Are you using terrain view in google maps? It gives representation of terrain. I am sure you could find a topography map of your area too.
--------------------
|
jboredone
Money-The root of all evil....



Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 4,783
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: audiophoenix]
#15885722 - 03/01/12 12:29 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yeah google earth doesn't show you an updated picture....just looked at my house and it was at least 4yr old pic because iv since painted my house...
-------------------- Peace Pot Micro-Dot God Loves You High or Not!!! In order to grow old and wise, you must once have been young and dumb!

|
mylfgur
Untitled



Registered: 05/23/10
Posts: 1,282
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: NoBeginningNoEnd]
#15885751 - 03/01/12 12:36 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NoBeginningNoEnd said: Is it just me, or is Google Earth kind of useless for finding good shady older growth forests that might support Beech and Hemlock, two trees associated with the final succession of forests? Several times now, I have located promising forested areas that looked very lush and well established, only to get there and find young trees with tons of sky showing through the thin branches, no shaded slopes or other areas where Beech and Hemlock would tend to grow, etc. And sometimes these promising lush spots are very close to other spots where I did find Beech, and they look the same in Google Earth. I thought Google Earth would save me some trips, but I often end up driving all the way there and being disappointed. Either the terrain is super steep and un maneuverable, or it's flat with thin trees.
I also find it impossible to gauge the terrain in Google Earth, which would be useful for mushroom hunting.
Is there another option? At this point I'm thinking that protected areas like provincial/state/federal parks would be the best places to look for older trees.
I've actually had a lot of luck finding potential spots on google maps. Obviously you must understand that mapping out the area isn't the same as actually going there and traversing it with your head down looking at the ground. But in my experience Google maps really narrows down the areas where the mushrooms are likely to be.
|
Inconspicuous
Κύριος


Registered: 11/24/11
Posts: 1,368
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: mylfgur]
#15885814 - 03/01/12 12:50 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Google earth is good to scout out potential routes to spots you may have thought of. It is also useful to judge the altitude of said spot.
|
NoBeginningNoEnd

Registered: 09/16/11
Posts: 471
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: jboredone]
#15885853 - 03/01/12 01:04 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jboredone said: yeah google earth doesn't show you an updated picture....just looked at my house and it was at least 4yr old pic because iv since painted my house...
Hehe yeah I found the same thing. Some of their satelite pics are super old and need updating!
|
Inconspicuous
Κύριος


Registered: 11/24/11
Posts: 1,368
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: NoBeginningNoEnd]
#15885898 - 03/01/12 01:16 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The current ones are from 2006 there is a setting where you can change it. There's older ones stored somewhere.
|
jboredone
Money-The root of all evil....



Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 4,783
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: Inconspicuous]
#15885941 - 03/01/12 01:31 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
37.401437-116.86773 check out those coordinates
-------------------- Peace Pot Micro-Dot God Loves You High or Not!!! In order to grow old and wise, you must once have been young and dumb!

|
Inconspicuous
Κύριος


Registered: 11/24/11
Posts: 1,368
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: jboredone]
#15886011 - 03/01/12 01:50 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's a giant satanic star type thing.
|
NoBeginningNoEnd

Registered: 09/16/11
Posts: 471
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: jboredone]
#15887329 - 03/01/12 07:11 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jboredone said: 37.401437-116.86773 check out those coordinates
Heheh cool
|
Sonny Cheeba
bumbarass



Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 314
Loc: Ontario
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: NoBeginningNoEnd]
#15888809 - 03/02/12 01:41 AM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
a lot of their (google's) photos are actually air photos and not satellite imagery. it depends on what is released by the county. i see you're from ontario, so you'll maybe notice that the toronto photos are at least after 2006 while somewhere in between london and chatham are mad old and shitty resolution.
anyways.... if you're looking for a specific forest location containing hemlock or beech, contact your local conservation authority and they can get you started since they keep an inventory of species and such. the TRCA tries to differentiate the forests within Toronto as containing different species and older/newer growth, for example.
http://www.conservationontario.ca/ should help u find your local conservation authority. (that's where i'm currently looking for jobs haha.
-------------------- welcome to the office of dr. octagon
|
NoBeginningNoEnd

Registered: 09/16/11
Posts: 471
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Google Earth not so useful for finding shady, older growth forests [Re: Sonny Cheeba]
#15890912 - 03/02/12 03:12 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sonny Cheeba said: anyways.... if you're looking for a specific forest location containing hemlock or beech, contact your local conservation authority and they can get you started since they keep an inventory of species and such. the TRCA tries to differentiate the forests within Toronto as containing different species and older/newer growth, for example.
http://www.conservationontario.ca/ ; should help u find your local conservation authority. (that's where i'm currently looking for jobs haha.
Sweeeeeet! Thank you very much for this post
|
|