"Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A4566387C809mgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> 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