Google Maps Is Getting a Lot More Detail (theverge.com) 65
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google Maps is being redesigned to make it easier to distinguish between natural features in the environment, whether they're mountainous ice caps, deserts, beaches, or dense forests. Google says the new maps will be available in the 220 countries and territories currently supported by Google Maps, "from the biggest metropolitan areas to small, rural towns." Google says that street maps are also getting more detailed in select cities. Google says it used satellite imagery as the basis for its redesigned maps and that this has had a "new color-mapping algorithmic technique" applied to it. The end result does a much better job of showing off the differences between natural features, such as between snowy peaks and dense forests or green fields and sandy beaches. The comparison shots below give an idea of what the new color-mapping technique is capable of.
Along with the changes it's made to the natural world, Google is also making its street maps more detailed in select cities. While previously its maps simply showed the streets themselves, in New York, San Francisco, and London, they'll soon distinguish between different street features like roadways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian islands. Google says the new design shows the shape and width of any given road "to scale." Google says the more detailed maps of natural features will be rolling out starting this week around the world, and it adds that you'll need to "zoom out" to be able to see them. The improved street designs for New York, San Francisco, and London are getting released in the coming months, with plans to add more cities over time.
Along with the changes it's made to the natural world, Google is also making its street maps more detailed in select cities. While previously its maps simply showed the streets themselves, in New York, San Francisco, and London, they'll soon distinguish between different street features like roadways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian islands. Google says the new design shows the shape and width of any given road "to scale." Google says the more detailed maps of natural features will be rolling out starting this week around the world, and it adds that you'll need to "zoom out" to be able to see them. The improved street designs for New York, San Francisco, and London are getting released in the coming months, with plans to add more cities over time.
Have you ever zoomed out all the way? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll start walking across Greenland, and you start walking across the middle of Africa, and we'll see whether Google Maps is right.
Winner gets to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you have it: The proof the Earth is flat! Because if Google shows the entire globe as one, flat surface, that must be the truth, right? :-)
Only on mobile devices. On laptop/desktop systems the Earth is round. I guess this proves that other article, about there not being any objective reality.
Re: (Score:2)
There you have it: The proof the Earth is flat! Because if Google shows the entire globe as one, flat surface, that must be the truth, right? :-)
Only on mobile devices. On laptop/desktop systems the Earth is round. I guess this proves that other article, about there not being any objective reality.
No, it proves that you create your own projection of objective reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few years back Google Maps started showing the Earth as a globe when you zoomed right out. I don't know if it was in response to flat earthers or because when zoomed out a globe is a more accurate way to project the map.
Will the JavaScript API finally become decent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The maps can be as details and beautiful as they want
No they can't. A map has a distinctly different purpose from a picture. This update especially is curious. Previously the green areas on Google were a great indication of where official national park boundaries start and not some relation to the number of trees or grass in the area. This is just going to add confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you want to overcomplicate a map by turning it into a picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they are exactly the opposite. I think that's the piece you are missing. A map is a condensed display of specific and relevant information to a situation. The less like a picture a map is the more useful it often is. The more a map tries to be everything the less useful it is. When driving from a to b colours should denote specific things: the ability to travel, the type of road or path, special zones, not how dense the trees are. For the latter it makes more sense to "pretty" up the topographical map as
Re: (Score:2)
The pictures might be very small, maybe 25 pixels but that doesn't matter. What you're talking about is deriving information from that pixel data, which an application issue that is and should be separate from the rendering of
Re: (Score:2)
All map data is a picture based representation of physical data, it doesn't matter if it's a 500 km polyline or a tilemap, it's all just pictures.
The map can be as beautiful as you want, that shouldn't have an impact on getting information from the map because they should never be linked to depend on each other.
You and I are talking about two very fundamentally different things. Kind of like the work team building session where we were asked to draw the word "Apple" one person wrote "Apple" on his sheet of paper, another drew a picture of an apple, and the third a the New York skyline.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you're talking about the practical application of the map, and how that must take priority over the looks of the map. Do I have that wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's right. ... I think I'm misunderstanding you then. To be clear when I was talking about "glorified pictures" I mean representing reality in realistic ways. That's not the goal of a map. The map is there to convey useful information in the simplest and easiest to understand way.
To come back to your last example:
If I want to make a beautiful life like tree, which ESRI supports, and that tree intersects a polyline which represents a freeway, the fact the tree is beautiful, should not impact the information of the polyline.
If your goal is travelling and the beauty of the tree is not necessary information then it doesn't belong on a map dedicated to travelling. It belongs on a map of flora. Adding the two toge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Now I know what you're talking about. Yes I agree. Sorry. Must have had a bit of a braindead day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know right. I had my punching gloves out and everything. Now I'm feeling a bit disapointed. Maybe I need to go on reddit, I'm sure I'll find someone to have an argument with there :)
Re: (Score:1)
Yay Google Maps (Score:3)
Despite me submitting multiple requests to "fix" their lame ass directions, 3 years later, if I select walking or bicycling, one route, if I select driving, a 5.8 mile "detour" to what is essentially a straight path if walking or biking.
It's time to check more Open Street Maps (OSM) for my area.
On my GPS enabled tablet, I just download the appropriate maps, and have no need for actual cell services on my tablet.
Yay indeed (Score:2)
Google maps has always been the best at directions.
Fun fact you can save data offline. I generally have it home and work, and it updates periodically.
Re:Apple Maps better at directions now. (Score:4, Interesting)
At launch, Apple Maps gave better directions to my house than Google Maps did.
Bahahahahahah. At launch you would have been lucky if Apple Maps didn't put your major city in the middle of the fucking Indian Ocean. The only thing Apple Maps was good at at launch was generating internet memes.
Hell at launch the main Apple maps icon even shows you the app is giving you the following direction:
"In 1/4 mile drive off the side of the bridge and crash on to the I-280 below, then continue driving."
Probably the most realistic icon I've ever seen for an infamously horrific launch.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand Waze and have stopped using. For example, one occasion I was trying to get from Heathrow to my home in SW London. I could have kept it simple and taken the motorway and not bothered with a GPS device. It's less than 12 miles and without traffic (except the usual crap where the M4 goes down to two east-bound lanes and Kew Bridge), it should take 25-30 mins. Waze said five minutes faster, so why not, I might learn a new handy route? It took me through residential streets in Isleworth and Tw
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's because the tool is designed by Americans. They assume that every road is at least one lane in each direction and that each lane is at least 10 feet, if not 12 feet wide. They don't consider that there may be roads that are truly only meant for local traffic because road aren't designed that way in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about one way roads, but effectively one lane bi-directional streets, and Waze's moronic routing decisions down them that risk blowing any time savings out of the water.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly damning statement if you think it's the best! Maybe it works better in other places than London and other European cities I've tried it in? The OP mentioned walking and cycling, and I couldn't agree more. It doesn't seem to have enough knowledge about where you can walk and sends you a km out of the way when you could cut through 30m between two points. For cycling it makes some of the most assinine and ignorant decisions possible. I'm really curious about the idiots who craft its algorithm
Re: (Score:2)
It's most likely because it thinks the path is not suitable for vehicles, or because it is unpaved and you have the default "avoid unpaved roads" option selected.
If it is suitable for vehicles and/or paved you can submit a correction via Google Maps. It's easiest to do on the web. I've found they usually fix things when you do.
Which path is it, if you don't mind me asking?
with no effort to increase readability (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're looking to plan a scenic route, or don't want to be locked into the results of Google's routing algorithm, and you don't have 20/20 vision, they don't care. They're thankful that ADA accessibility requirements don't apply to websites & apps..
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the close-in road updates they have at the bottom of the article, it's almost impossible to see an actual road, there's just no contrast.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking to plan a scenic route
In their defense if you plan said route and actually hit navigate the resulting colour scheme of the distinct blue path is now far more glanceable than it ever was while driving.
Using maps to figure out where something is however is an absolute travesty of UI design.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you reading some different article to the one linked in the summary? They haven't changed the colour scheme at street level at all, and the zoomed out colour has more contrast which makes it easier to read. Looking at the very first example (Iceland) the roads and place names are a lot more visible now.
I find Google Maps has one of the best displays for navigation when I'm walking or driving. It's clear and focused and uses contrast well to highlight the route and important features but also keep other
Re: (Score:2)
By the way I thought ADA did apply to websites. I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago over screen reader compatibility. Obviously not much of an issue with maps.
It's kind of a grey area. For Government sites yes, for others, it's very case-by-case.
Is the website an extension of a physical place that would be subject to ADA? (think: Target.com is an extension of its physical stores that must meet ADA requirements). Also, how strict of ADA still isn't standardized. WCAG 2? 2.1? 2.2? AA? AAA?
Re:with no effort to increase readability (Score:5, Insightful)
What does a low-contrast color scheme have to do with "white" or "guys"?
So, a new skin? (Score:4, Insightful)
But when will they get more street view? (Score:1)
Seems like 90% of the streets I want to see on street view aren't yet on there.
Re: (Score:2)
But...Iceland (Score:3)
I RTFA and in my experience, aside from about 2 months in summer, Iceland looks far more like their 'old' version most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a weather map or simplified satellite photo, it's showing the geography of the area regardless of it being snow covered or not.
White - permanent snow cover
Green - types of vegetation, forests, grasslands etc.
Brown - rocky and desert areas
Grey - urban areas
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes slashdotters are a little too prone to reading things a bit literally.
So, even more bloat, as if that's even possible? (Score:2)
Maybe (Score:2)
Using the Iceland map as an example, the boundaries of Vatnajokull National Park are easier to see with the old map color scheme.
More details is good... if you can see them! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, it does look l
More detail? (Score:2)
How about correcting the errors?
I have been curious (but not much anymore) as to why some of the obvious errors are still around even after there having been pointed out.
A few grains of salt are needed with their maps.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I usually report any problem I find, and it gets fixed within a few weeks to a month.
Google Maps (Score:1)
Just stop using pastels! (Score:1)
If they would just stop using muted pastel colors that are invisible, and use bright saturated colors, I would actually be able to see what is on the map. It's not an artwork, it's a goddam map fer chrissakes!
Now if only they'd allow user-adjustable text size (Score:2)