Why no GSV on the GWB or the Bayonne Bridge?

[ixnay]

The PA has been nice enough to let Google 's camera truck photograph the Lincoln, Holland, (new) Goethals, and Outerbridge.  Why not the George or the Bayonne? 

I remember a few years ago this being discussed but I'm too lazy to search    Please reiterate.

[LilianaUwU]

I'm pretty sure the TL;DR is post-9/11 restrictions, though I could be wrong.

[1995hoo]

There is no legally enforceable restriction, but the Port Authority pretends they can ban photography and Google decided to be imtimidated by that.

[jmacswimmer]

I think the Verrazzano is also GSV-less, but it's under MTAB&T control unlike the 2 PANYNJ bridges in the OP.

[1995hoo]

I think the Verrazzano is also GSV-less, but it's under MTAB&T control unlike the 2 PANYNJ bridges in the OP.

It does lack GSV imagery for most of the span, as does the Battery Tunnel (though not the Midtown Tunnel and not the other TBTA bridges–the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck have imagery, for example).

[MCRoads]

Boy, the port authority is going to be pissed. I videoed our trip through the holland tunnel.

How do they think they can ban photography of a large, prominent part of NYC? And how do they enforce it? What if I'm out taking pictures of the GW, with my film SLR camera? Are they going to take my film? That seems extremely illegal. It's one thing to ban photography of technical documents and critical structural components (for instance, the Golden Gate Bridge bans photography of the inside of the anchorage). But banning photography outright? Seems a little excessive.

[Duke87]

Both TBTA and PANYNJ's photo bans were quietly dropped years ago, after they were dragged into court over them and begrudgingly acknowledged they didn't have a leg to stand on.

As for why GMSV keeps selectively disappearing from TBTA and PANYNJ crossings in spite of there no longer being a ban... I would guess it is because Google still has old requests on file to take down imagery from those locations, and someone in India getting paid $5 a day to do custodial work for Google Maps keeps finding those requests and obliging them without realizing they're no longer in effect because after all, why would they know.

[zachary_amaryllis]

Both TBTA and PANYNJ's photo bans were quietly dropped years ago, after they were dragged into court over them and begrudgingly acknowledged they didn't have a leg to stand on.

As for why GMSV keeps selectively disappearing from TBTA and PANYNJ crossings in spite of there no longer being a ban... I would guess it is because Google still has old requests on file to take down imagery from those locations, and someone in India getting paid $5 a day to do custodial work for Google Maps keeps finding those requests and obliging them without realizing they're no longer in effect because after all, why would they know.

last time i looked, the gwb tends to lead you onto the lower level

[roadman65]

Boy, the port authority is going to be pissed. I videoed our trip through the holland tunnel.

How do they think they can ban photography of a large, prominent part of NYC? And how do they enforce it? What if I'm out taking pictures of the GW, with my film SLR camera? Are they going to take my film? That seems extremely illegal. It's one thing to ban photography of technical documents and critical structural components (for instance, the Golden Gate Bridge bans photography of the inside of the anchorage). But banning photography outright? Seems a little excessive.

Well then my photograph of the Marin-San Francisco County Line is illegal. The north tower is signed as the official county line between the two and I have that captured.

[MCRoads]

Boy, the port authority is going to be pissed. I videoed our trip through the holland tunnel.

How do they think they can ban photography of a large, prominent part of NYC? And how do they enforce it? What if I'm out taking pictures of the GW, with my film SLR camera? Are they going to take my film? That seems extremely illegal. It's one thing to ban photography of technical documents and critical structural components (for instance, the Golden Gate Bridge bans photography of the inside of the anchorage). But banning photography outright? Seems a little excessive.

Well then my photograph of the Marin-San Francisco County Line is illegal. The north tower is signed as the official county line between the two and I have that captured.

AFAIK photography of the bridge is entirely legal, except for inside the anchorage structures. Basically where the big main cables get anchored to the ground via many smaller anchors for each cable bundle.

[J N Winkler]

I have done multiple photo tours of the Golden Gate Bridge from the deck without being bothered.  The cable anchorages are in closed structures well below deck level; for example, the two at the south end are in a building tucked behind the fortifications at Fort Point.  I would not expect visitation, let alone photography, to be possible except by prior arrangement with the bridge district and while accompanied by someone with keys to unlock multiple gates and doors.

I don't know for a fact that this is done at the Golden Gate, but it is considered a best practice to dehumidify the air within the anchorages to minimize corrosion of the cables.  Over the water, the steel strands are protected by packing in red lead and wrapping, but once the bundles divide so that each can be secured to a discrete mounting point, they all become more vulnerable to moisture in the air.  Strand breakage is a serious concern and has resulted in suspension bridges being either replaced or relegated to lighter duty (the Forth Road Bridge in Scotland being one well-known example of the latter).

In any event, it's not really a mystery what things look like inside the anchorages.  I've seen black-and-white photos of them for several suspension bridges and I think the Golden Gate was among them.

[MCRoads]

I have done multiple photo tours of the Golden Gate Bridge from the deck without being bothered.  The cable anchorages are in closed structures well below deck level; for example, the two at the south end are in a building tucked behind the fortifications at Fort Point.  I would not expect visitation, let alone photography, to be possible except by prior arrangement with the bridge district and while accompanied by someone with keys to unlock multiple gates and doors.

I don't know for a fact that this is done at the Golden Gate, but it is considered a best practice to dehumidify the air within the anchorages to minimize corrosion of the cables.  Over the water, the steel strands are protected by packing in red lead and wrapping, but once the bundles divide so that each can be secured to a discrete mounting point, they all become more vulnerable to moisture in the air.  Strand breakage is a serious concern and has resulted in suspension bridges being either replaced or relegated to lighter duty (the Forth Road Bridge in Scotland being one well-known example of the latter).

In any event, it's not really a mystery what things look like inside the anchorages.  I've seen black-and-white photos of them for several suspension bridges and I think the Golden Gate was among them.

They do offer tours up the towers, but no tour goes in the anchorage that I know of. The only reason I knew photography isn't allowed is that I watched some documentary about the bridge and it's seismic retrofits, and although the producers were allowed in to see it, they were not allowed to film or take pictures due to security concerns. They ended up drawing out what it looked like in a simplified form, and did actually mention that (at the time of filming) dehumidifiers were being either planned or installed.



I wonder if the main cables of the bridge needed to be replaced for some reason, how that would be done. With the golden gate, it wouldn't be as simple as replacing the bridge. Not only is there not another great option in terms of location, they would essentially be taking away one of San Francisco's largest landmarks, and one of it's greatest assets in terms of tourism.

I imagine that they would probably have to run a temporary cable along the same path as the main cable, integrate it into the structure, and then cut away the original cable. After that, new strands are installed one-by-one, and eventually the new cable would be wrapped, and reconnected to the suspenders and anchorages. After that, the temporary cable would be removed. It would probably take years, and millions of dollars, but I imagine if it ever needed to be done, they could do it.

The other thing to consider is that they would probably need to take as much weight off the bridge as possible, so the zipper barrier would have to go, and they may have to prohibit most cars and trucks from the bridge, relying on public transit and taxis to pick up the slack. And the sidewalk on the side where the main cable would be replaced would definitely need to be closed, no question.