Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] the ideal world according to microsoft

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Michael Best" <mbest AT dasya.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] the ideal world according to microsoft
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:35:39 -0400

You're right. It would have been better for me to say "photos" instead of
"maps." Thanks for the correction. :)

And rather than saying that you misunderstood me, which implies assigning
fault, I'll say that there was a breakdown in communication between us.
Better?

-- Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Tanner
> Lovelace
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:29 PM
> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] the ideal world according to microsoft
>
> A map, at least as far as I understand it (other please correct me if you
> think otherwise), generally does not include a photo. It generally
> just contains roads, boundaries, perhaps topo lines, etc... An aerial
> photo is something completely different and it wasn't until recently
> that the two were put together. So, no, I didn't misunderstand you.
> You just apparently don't understand the concept of a map versus
> an aerial photo. And, in fact, MSN specifically does not call it a
> map. It calls it an "Aerial Photo". If you click on the "Road Map"
> link, it removes the photo. So, as I said before, their maps are
> up to date, but the aerial photo is not.
>
> Tanner





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page