Re: Anyone Using KML Files For Family History?

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Xns9A4566387C809mgb72mgbhotmailcom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Roger Donne" <roger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback.  I will make the link more intuitive.  The
>> William Bartle polygon looks OK when I view it.  However, when sharing
>> these files with other people, we have come across some problems in
>> getting the polygons to display properly.  If the 'altitude' property
>> of the polygon is set to zero, it appears to be 'sunk' below the
>> surface.  Giving it a few metres elevation (depending on local
>> topography) brings it into view, but sometimes it is only partially
>> visible. Regards: Roger Donne
>>
>
> Here's the way that the Bartle polygon looks on my computer:
>
> http://www.JustPhotos.ca/post/bartlepolygon.jpg
>
> As you suggested, I gave the polygon some altitude and the problem
> disappeared.  The odd part is that even when I put the altitude back to
0
> the polygon displayed OK.  This seems very odd.

Well, that's really confusing.  I've no idea what's going on.  I had 
previously noted the problem while sharing this type of file with a 
correspondent in the US (I'm in the UK).  I wonder if there are different 
versions of Google Earth distributed geographically?  It's only the
polygons 
which cause the problem; lines, placemarks are all OK as far as I know.
Roger Donne