In regard to photogrammetry, we often talked about number of cities or places that have it on Bing vs. Google. However, when I was examining the same area on both platforms, to my surprise (or not), the quality of photogrammetry on Bing is a lot worse, both in texture quality and polygon counts. This is probably why sometimes I feel the autogen is even because the polygon count could be higher and the texture is definitely sharper.
I think “having photogrammetry” should not be a free pass on the quality of the scenery, if the quality of the buildings is worse than that of autogen.
What are your thoughts?
Edit 1: Guys, I am not suggesting using Google’s data as I am well aware of the competition among all the tech companies. My focus is, what reason (data source or inferior algorithm) has made Bing’s photogrammetry representation much worse than Google’s.
Examples (Google vs. Bing)
-
Williamsburg, NY
-
West Chester, PA