<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Hull Blog ~ City-Visitor &#187; Google Maps of Hull</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull/tag/google-maps-of-hull/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull</link>
	<description>The City-Visitor Blog for Hull</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 08:15:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Hull isn’t even on Google’s radar</title>
		<link>http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull/2009/hull-isn%e2%80%99t-even-on-google%e2%80%99s-radar/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull/2009/hull-isn%e2%80%99t-even-on-google%e2%80%99s-radar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sandy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hull news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Maps of Hull]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I can understand the fuss made about Google Street maps from a privacy point of view, it&#8217;s still rather amazing to get such stunningly clear photos on a street level. I&#8217;m actually more inclined to kick up a fuss about Google&#8217;s choice of location. I mean, understandably, it takes time to film the whole [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I can understand the fuss made about Google Street maps from a privacy <a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5938017.ece" target="_blank">point of view</a>, it&#8217;s still rather amazing to get such stunningly clear photos on a street level.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m actually more inclined to kick up a fuss about Google&#8217;s choice of location. I mean, understandably, it takes time to film the whole of the country and you have to prioritise some places over others. But for Google to choose 25 top cities and <em>not</em> include Hull in the list is simply unbelievable!</p>
<p><span id="more-58"></span></p>
<p><em>Especially, </em>when you see the cities that made the final cut:</p>
<ol>
<li>London</li>
<li>Edinburgh</li>
<li>Leeds</li>
<li>Bradford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Cardiff</li>
<li>Belfast</li>
<li>Birmingham</li>
<li>Manchester</li>
<li>Liverpool</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Sheffield</li>
<li>Nottingham</li>
<li>Derby</li>
<li>Bristol</li>
<li>Coventry</li>
<li>Glasgow</li>
<li>Aberdeen</li>
<li>Swansea</li>
<li>York</li>
<li>Newcastle</li>
<li>Dundee</li>
<li>Southampton</li>
<li>Norwich</li>
<li>Scunthorpe</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Disgraceful.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.city-visitor.com/hull/2009/hull-isn%e2%80%99t-even-on-google%e2%80%99s-radar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

