Which is better, Google Maps, or Google Earth?

[ColossalBlocks]

Choose out of your opinion.

[SignGeek101]

I'd say Google Maps, because I can't figure out how to update the maps in Google Earth (without reinstalling). Thus, I have roads that have since been realigned / changed and whatnot not being changed on my Google Earth, even though it's in Google Maps.

For satellite though, Google Earth is king. The newest stuff is always there (it takes time for the newer satellite imagery to appear on Google Maps).

So I guess it depends on what you're looking for.

[jakeroot]

I have to use both. I use Google Maps because of the extra street view imagery dates, but Earth when I want easier access to historic imagery (Historic Aerials is clunky and the watermark is annoying).

Google's new online-only "Earth" seems like a waste of bandwidth. I can't figure out what it does that regular Maps doesn't already do (practically speaking, anyways).

[MNHighwayMan]

Like others have said, it really depends on what you want out of it. I like Google Earth for historical imagery and because it allows me to create .kml files, while Maps is superior for, well, things you'd use a paper map for (and Google Street View–GSV sucks in Google Earth). The in-browser Earth just sucks complete donkey balls and there's no real reason to use it for anything at the moment.

[froggie]

What does the OP say about it?

[Rothman]

I am just tired of Google Maps links not working in Tapatalk.  Just takes me to my default location instead of where the link is supposed to take me.

[tribar]

Google Earth by far. I wish it had the historical street view but other than that GE is perfect.

[pderocco]

Google Earth is in theory a vastly more useful program, but it has many things wrong with it compared to Google Maps, only because Google doesn't bother to fix them:

* The road data is much older and obsolete.
* They removed real-time traffic.
* It's buggy.
* It doesn't show enough route numbers or road names.
* If a road is multiplexed, the route numbers are stacked on top of each other so you can only read the top one.
* You can't turn off the aerial imagery and just look at the roads.
* I only gives you directions from one point to another; you can't add waypoints to force the route to go a different way.

But there are so many features that it has that Google Maps will never have.

[epzik8]

I prefer Google Maps for highway information, and Google Earth for enjoying satellite imagery.

[MNHighwayMan]

Google Earth is in theory a vastly more useful program, but it has many things wrong with it compared to Google Maps, only because Google doesn't bother to fix them:

* The road data is much older and obsolete.
* They removed real-time traffic.
* It's buggy.
* It doesn't show enough route numbers or road names.
* If a road is multiplexed, the route numbers are stacked on top of each other so you can only read the top one.
* You can't turn off the aerial imagery and just look at the roads.
* I only gives you directions from one point to another; you can't add waypoints to force the route to go a different way.

But there are so many features that it has that Google Maps will never have.

I agree, especially on the bolded parts. It's worrying that these bugs haven't been fixed/updated, because it suggests, in typical Google fashion, that support for Earth may stop in the near future. That'd be a damn shame.

[vdeane]

Google Earth's road data has never been that great.  Those bugs have been around as long as Google Earth has.  I wouldn't consider them an indication of stopping support soon.  That browser-based version of "Earth", on the other hand...

[Buffaboy]

I use Google Earth all the time. I'll never use the browser version though.

In fact I have Earth open right now, sucking up my laptop's battery. Really Google, I wish you could figure out how to keep my laptop's fans from screaming like jet engines.

With Google Maps, it's just not snappy enough for me. I don't know what it is about it, but the interface and controls aren't comfortable at all, and I generally avoid using it unless I have to. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that one is a standalone application designed for the OS and the other is a website.

For full disclosure I use a 2014 Macbook Pro.

[Jbte]

I use both Google Maps and Google Earth.

-Google maps for quick access to an area, the map design and interface it's much better than Google Earth, and street view works better. For 3D visualization or exploring it's not good, I hate when it works slowly so I have to use lite mode of Google Maps which it's rudimentary.

-Google earth for just fun exploring, using satellite images, 3D terrain, and embed surprise pictures from panoramio and always works great.

So I guess I prefer Google Earth over Google Maps, but in the end I use both occasionally.

[kkt]

They're for different purposes.  For directions and travel time and route numbers and names, Maps.  For exploring and terrain and things that aren't roads and a smoother interface, Earth.

[I-39]

The only advantage to Google Earth is the imagery is more up to date than the Maps, which tends to have weird, outdated imagery on the web browser map version.

[roadgeek01]

I have to use both. I use Google Maps because of the extra street view imagery dates, but Earth when I want easier access to historic imagery (Historic Aerials is clunky and the watermark is annoying).

Google's new online-only "Earth" seems like a waste of bandwidth. I can't figure out what it does that regular Maps doesn't already do (practically speaking, anyways).

Historic Aerials does have more history imagery in more areas than Google Earth does, though.  To me, the clunkiness and the watermark is just something that we have to live with.

[jakeroot]

I have to use both. I use Google Maps because of the extra street view imagery dates, but Earth when I want easier access to historic imagery (Historic Aerials is clunky and the watermark is annoying).

Google's new online-only "Earth" seems like a waste of bandwidth. I can't figure out what it does that regular Maps doesn't already do (practically speaking, anyways).

Historic Aerials does have more history imagery in more areas than Google Earth does, though.  To me, the clunkiness and the watermark is just something that we have to live with.

There are certain dates of time that Historic Aerials does not have. Chiefly newer data. They do take the cake with older aerials, however.

I can get past the HA watermark most of the time, but if I'm trying to consult a specific point in time that both Earth and Historic Aerials have on file, I'll use Earth.