The 3D view looks so comically dystopian. The distorted effect makes everything look mangled.
On the other side of the pond, about 4 houses down... the backyard looks burned out and the pool is drained and bloodstained. This is like /r/writingprompt/
What is up with that red spot in that empty pool for real though? There's a truck parked out front with the door open, obviously people are working on the back yard in general, but what in the world would that red spot even be? Bing maps shows the backyard done and the pooled filled and normal-blue-looking.
In some areas the soil has a lot of iron in it and looks reddish (like rust-colored literally). But I'm not sure whether this is one of those areas, and also the particular shade of red here seems a bit more vivid than just rusty-red!
It could just be a tarp or a toy that melted. Pools always attract a lot of dirt and insects. Without constant maintenance it will look discoloured pretty quickly.
There's also construction-looking vehicles parked out front of these house so it's probably under renovation.
FWIW Google Earth VR on PC does let you walk around the 3D view and you can set your scale to be real-world. I'm assuming it's the same 3D reconstruction that you get on regular Google Maps / Google Earth.
You can turn off 3d mode by the blindingly obvious procedure of clicking the hamburger button, observing that "Globe" mode is enabled (because it is blue) and then clicking "Globe" to disable this mode.
Don't be so foolish as to think the button labelled "3D" in the content area toggles the 3D mode. Only an idiot would make that assumption!
(The above is sarcastic. I think the discoverability of this feature, and the weird 1/3/1 modality behavior of the items in the second section of the hamburger menu is shockingly poor).
The quality drops off if you do that and you get a completely different set of images. There's no way to turn of the 3D garbage and still see the same thing.
No, Google Maps is actually a case where JavaScript makes sense. But this message reminded me of many seemingly static pages that are actually blank if you don't enable JavaScript, without even any hint that you should enable JavaScript. Reader mode often works perfectly on these pages. Sometimes, blocking the white element hiding the content of the page works well too.
I don't hate JavaScript, I have actually developed several web applications using it, and like it.
The single thread WASM beta version appears to work perfectly on Waterfox (the multithread version loads data then sits there doing nothing). Not the fastest thing around but useable and noticeably better than maps.
Google has two sets of base images. I usually prefer the plain 2D images, but you can get their reconstructed/interpolated 3D view with false color by toggling the "Globe" option in Google Maps, or the "3D Buildings" option in Google Earth. At this particular location, the 3D view has higher resolution.
Hey Google, is serving a lower-resolution image to Firefox part of leveraging a monopoly against Firefox?
Is your legal team fine with that? Is there any legitimate reason anyone could possibly identify for why you would purposefully worsen the experience for a fully compliant browser like Firefox, by lowering the resolution?
[mobile] https://www.google.com/maps/@26.6249928,-80.227623,23m/data=...
-- thanks to comment below for mobile link.