11–20 of 52 posts
Could there be a bias in the data due to the fact that all the countries don't have the same usage rate of social medias ? Or just population density ? Or official statistics are the ones that are biaised...
Anyway, great work. Loved it.
Edit: Oh! It's much more useful if you zoom in. Sorry for the knee-jerk.
Wonder why Europe has so many more photograph density than the US. Just correlating with higher population density?
There are probably some sites in here that really are photographed more, but a lot of it seems to be some version of this: http://xkcd.com/1138/ Edit: Oh! It's much more useful if you zoom in. Sorry for the knee-jerk.
Does anyone know the data source for this?
Does anyone know the data source for this?
For instance, it wouldn't surface pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge, but it did show pictures of the Yoda statue in the Presidio (how I learned of it's existence). There was even day mode and night mode to see what was interesting, but not well known, at different times.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it never found its way to actual release, but it taught me a ton about where to look in data for the cool bits of info.
I'm curious how this would look if it were somehow "divided by" population density. It wouldn't make sense for somewhere in the middle of the ocean but it might highlight more remote, scenic places. edit: For example I noticed that southern Utah is significantly brighter than you would expect from population density.
But zooming all the way in (to Manhattan, for example), it's clear that the heat map corresponds to actual scenic tourist spots, it goes all the way down to street level, pretty amazing.
And since these are "panoramio" photos, not selfies snapped for Facebook, it would seem to be a pretty accurate reflection of tourist destinations, as opposed to population.