Shut Up Legs
Down Under Member
One of my favourite pre-cycling trip activities is "Google StreetView tourism", in which I view my favourite cycling routes using StreetView, to get an idea of what I can look forward to if I ride the route. I couldn't help noticing last week that the French Alps are very well covered by StreetView, with tall peaks such as Mont Ventoux (1912m) and even Col du Galibier (2645m) shown right up to their (road) summits.
Unfortunately, the same isn't the case in Australia, and I don't know why.
Mt Buffalo in the Victorian Alps only gets up to about 1400m, but the ascent is only covered by StreetView up to about 700m, then there's a large gap (about 12.5km of road with no coverage), then the coverage resumes at about 1200m elevation. It's bloody weird. Similar inconsistencies appear in the coverage of other Victorian Alpine peaks, such as Falls Creek, Mt Hotham, etc.
If the StreetView vans can make their way up Col du Galibier, why on earth can't they cover our piddly little peaks?
Unfortunately, the same isn't the case in Australia, and I don't know why.
Mt Buffalo in the Victorian Alps only gets up to about 1400m, but the ascent is only covered by StreetView up to about 700m, then there's a large gap (about 12.5km of road with no coverage), then the coverage resumes at about 1200m elevation. It's bloody weird. Similar inconsistencies appear in the coverage of other Victorian Alpine peaks, such as Falls Creek, Mt Hotham, etc.
If the StreetView vans can make their way up Col du Galibier, why on earth can't they cover our piddly little peaks?
Last edited: