The topographical map fails to visualise land use within cities. This map shows grey areas to help users understand the size of Great Britain's cities. The topographical map also fails to visualise land use for farms such as the inability to notice farmland used for crops in Norfolk and Sufolk, compared to grassland farming (the use of livestock) across much of the island. Areas of mud/marsh/sand are not visible, especialy the large area hugging the coast of Esssex. Jolly Janner (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all convinced by your arguments. At that scale the features you are mentioning are all but visible. And the mud/marsh/sand area hugging Essex you are mentioning is just turbulence in the shallow waters, not part of the Great Britain (it is Crown Estate however, but that's getting us to far). An I'm still missing the northern Scottish isles. Lycaon (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Great Britain" has both a political and a geographical definition. According to the political one, these islands are included. According to the geographical one, only the main island is included (taken from the English article). The scope is therefore ambiguous. --Eusebius (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare that the entire island is without any cloud cover, so this is probably the most valuable image we're gonna get. See here for NASA's photos of Great Britain. Jolly Janner (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to build cloud-free pictures of large areas based on several series of satellite pictures, but for the "most valuable" criterion we must base ourselves only on the currently available pictures, not the possible ones. I was not talking about this criterion, though, but about "Must illustrate its subject well": here we take the paradigm of the satellite picture, but we accept that a large area is not illustrated. With a map, for instance, we don't have to make that choice. --Eusebius (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
