Is there any evidence of such an elaborate scheme? Are voters looking on Google Maps to validate claims about the fires, in some kind of mass trend that produces evidence?
Because it really sounds like a conspiracy theory draped over a pretty tangential fact. But I’d love to be wrong if there is evidence (“Google did something totally different but also bad” is not evidence).
Google is not flying over the area itself right? perhaps they where using source maps with some sort of license agreement and the license expired, or there was a dispute.
It seems to me that it is in the favor of Google to gather the most up-to date maps, even if they can offer them in a limited window.
I wonder if the same is true for Google Earth, since I believe that uses higher quality / different maps in a lot of area's. (don't have it so I can't check)
This was my first thought. The simplest explanation is that they lost access to the recent imagery. If you were going to build a system like this, you'd show the most recent imagery for an area that you have access to. If one of your license agreements ends, it might mean you end up showing less desirable data, but at least you're showing data.
> The simplest explanation is that they lost access to the recent imagery. I
Reasonable explanation, but they didn't, for example this is the Google Earth link [1] with satellite imagery of the area from back in September 2025, the most recent satellite imagery they seem to have from there. The fire damage can clearly be seen. So there must be some other reason behind it.
As I understand it Google earth and Google maps are two separate products. And Google earth is the more premium product (more data and features accessable), therefore perhaps the licenses are separately negotiated?
I found that Google Maps also shows ~5 year old satellite images in Budapest, even though the copyright in the bottom right would tell otherwise.
BUT if you toggle globe view, you get a more recent satellite image that seems to actually match the copyright date.
(It can be toggled in Layers -> More, at the bottom, when on a desktop, not sure about the app)
Not entirely related, but Google Maps is still showing satellite images from 5 years ago in Paris, one of the most visited cities in the world, and it's not even updated once a year. I don't get it.
In Germany it seems to have moved to the 3D photogrammetry data for anything with pixel sizes smaller than a car; is that maybe also the case for Paris?
I do understand that it's sad they don't calculate orthographic images from that to replace their satellite views in these areas though; full 3D is severely more resource intensive on the client after all.
Visited Lisboa last summer, the building where I booked an apartment was not even there in Google Maps, satellite image data was showing a leveled site with some dumpsters.
Just checked and the images are still the same old ones...
Probably because it makes sense to be building AI related stuff, so no one is working on that.
They even used to have an option to get notifications when new images for an area became available.
The latest update (that i made, i only update when asked) to the app doesn't allow to disable the suggestions anymore, before if you tapped twice everything except the map and your location disappeared.
I've been finding a lot of ~5 year old satellite and street view data. It's only anecdotal, but it seems like Google is not updating their imagery as often as they used to.
I wonder if there actually does exist updated to-the-minute imagery of various places, just not from sources publicly available on platforms like Google Maps?
Yes, you can buy it from commercial providers like Planet or even Airbus. They update a few times a day, though depending on the place you are interested in, you may need to put in a request for them to image it.
Its actually not that difficult. I used to fly a satellite that could photograph anywhere in the world at least once every few days.
It must be quite valuable data. One anecdote I heard/read somewhere was that firms often use satellite imagery of parking lots (over time, as one measure among others) to gauge how popular a place is. I don't know if it's true or not.
They have the resources to spend (to them) a small amount to confirm/check a play before they make it, it's been a thing since commercial satellite imaging became a thing.
Hell the (somewhat terrible but somehow enjoyable) TV show Billions had it as a plot point years ago.
Similarly, I listened to a talk from someone who used to perform analysis of aerial images of farmland to estimate yields at harvest, which would then be used to trade in the futures market.
For Epstein island the US government has scrubbed/redated large periods of historic satellite imagery in order to hide construction of underground structures on each corner of the island. Chinese equivalents of Google earth offer clear images of different construction stages that the "US Coast Guard" prefers to hide.
If you check different satellite imagery providers it's always interesting to see what time periods are even available (paid or free), and if the imagery from an earlier date has been re-labeled to suggest it was taken at a later date.
Well there is a very contentious mayoral election going on in LA right now, and the fires are a central topic.
Concealing the fire damage could be used to influence or thwart campaign messaging.
Not that Google has been caught doing anything political before...
> Well there is a very contentious mayoral election going on in LA right now, and the fires are a central topic.
> Concealing the fire damage could be used to influence or thwart campaign messaging.
I know nothing about that election, but what would be Google's angle in wanting to influence it?
Google likely doesn't have an angle, but the person who decided to make this change maybe does.
Is there any evidence of such an elaborate scheme? Are voters looking on Google Maps to validate claims about the fires, in some kind of mass trend that produces evidence?
Because it really sounds like a conspiracy theory draped over a pretty tangential fact. But I’d love to be wrong if there is evidence (“Google did something totally different but also bad” is not evidence).
Ok genius, why would they put up old maps?
Google is not flying over the area itself right? perhaps they where using source maps with some sort of license agreement and the license expired, or there was a dispute.
It seems to me that it is in the favor of Google to gather the most up-to date maps, even if they can offer them in a limited window.
I wonder if the same is true for Google Earth, since I believe that uses higher quality / different maps in a lot of area's. (don't have it so I can't check)
This was my first thought. The simplest explanation is that they lost access to the recent imagery. If you were going to build a system like this, you'd show the most recent imagery for an area that you have access to. If one of your license agreements ends, it might mean you end up showing less desirable data, but at least you're showing data.
> The simplest explanation is that they lost access to the recent imagery. I
Reasonable explanation, but they didn't, for example this is the Google Earth link [1] with satellite imagery of the area from back in September 2025, the most recent satellite imagery they seem to have from there. The fire damage can clearly be seen. So there must be some other reason behind it.
[1] https://earth.google.com/web/search/Altadena,+CA,+USA/@34.19...
As I understand it Google earth and Google maps are two separate products. And Google earth is the more premium product (more data and features accessable), therefore perhaps the licenses are separately negotiated?
I found that Google Maps also shows ~5 year old satellite images in Budapest, even though the copyright in the bottom right would tell otherwise. BUT if you toggle globe view, you get a more recent satellite image that seems to actually match the copyright date. (It can be toggled in Layers -> More, at the bottom, when on a desktop, not sure about the app)
Not entirely related, but Google Maps is still showing satellite images from 5 years ago in Paris, one of the most visited cities in the world, and it's not even updated once a year. I don't get it.
In Germany it seems to have moved to the 3D photogrammetry data for anything with pixel sizes smaller than a car; is that maybe also the case for Paris?
I do understand that it's sad they don't calculate orthographic images from that to replace their satellite views in these areas though; full 3D is severely more resource intensive on the client after all.
Many similar cases accross Europe.
Visited Lisboa last summer, the building where I booked an apartment was not even there in Google Maps, satellite image data was showing a leveled site with some dumpsters.
Just checked and the images are still the same old ones...
There's no promo packet material in spending money on making the product a bit better with up to date imagery so why would anyone bother?
Half the company is happy coasting at their level and isn't even trying for promo.
And the top of Google is laying off anyone who spends a dime that isn't triple-justified.
How about Gemini Maps? Maps that fill the gaps!
Oh wait, it's already in progress... Nevermind.
I'm sure they can't wait to work on your personal pet peeve and get that sweet promo endorsement just from you.
(Seriously, it's not like anyone here is paying a cent to use GMaps.)
That is aerial imagery and Paris is a major metro that gets the 3D treatment. I wouldn't expect them to update that regularly.
Probably because it makes sense to be building AI related stuff, so no one is working on that.
They even used to have an option to get notifications when new images for an area became available.
The latest update (that i made, i only update when asked) to the app doesn't allow to disable the suggestions anymore, before if you tapped twice everything except the map and your location disappeared.
I've been finding a lot of ~5 year old satellite and street view data. It's only anecdotal, but it seems like Google is not updating their imagery as often as they used to.
I wonder if there actually does exist updated to-the-minute imagery of various places, just not from sources publicly available on platforms like Google Maps?
Yes, you can buy it from commercial providers like Planet or even Airbus. They update a few times a day, though depending on the place you are interested in, you may need to put in a request for them to image it.
Its actually not that difficult. I used to fly a satellite that could photograph anywhere in the world at least once every few days.
fly a satellite? how?
It must be quite valuable data. One anecdote I heard/read somewhere was that firms often use satellite imagery of parking lots (over time, as one measure among others) to gauge how popular a place is. I don't know if it's true or not.
It's true and they go a lot further hunting signals that people without their resources simply can't.
https://www.financial-news.co.uk/how-hedge-funds-are-using-s...
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/10/investing/hedge-fund-dron...
They have the resources to spend (to them) a small amount to confirm/check a play before they make it, it's been a thing since commercial satellite imaging became a thing.
Hell the (somewhat terrible but somehow enjoyable) TV show Billions had it as a plot point years ago.
Similarly, I listened to a talk from someone who used to perform analysis of aerial images of farmland to estimate yields at harvest, which would then be used to trade in the futures market.
That’s pretty strange. I wonder if Altadena restricted Google from updating the map imagery?
Maps are extremely political.
For Epstein island the US government has scrubbed/redated large periods of historic satellite imagery in order to hide construction of underground structures on each corner of the island. Chinese equivalents of Google earth offer clear images of different construction stages that the "US Coast Guard" prefers to hide.
If you check different satellite imagery providers it's always interesting to see what time periods are even available (paid or free), and if the imagery from an earlier date has been re-labeled to suggest it was taken at a later date.
How deep could an underground structure even be on the corner of an island?
Why would the island need underground structures at each corner?
Backup power generators? Security control room? There are tens of reasons why you'd put some parts of your estate underground
I assume for the more depraved shit they wanted extra privacy for?
Only the US government can answer this. I think it involves smuggling of prohibited goods.