Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

Started by agentsteel53, February 26, 2014, 03:26:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

anyone else having an insane amount of trouble with the new Google Maps?

instant browser crash
10 (3.5%)
loads fine, then crashes the browser when attempting to do anything at all
23 (8%)
not quite terrible, but still worse
127 (44.4%)
I am indifferent
63 (22%)
I actually like the new Google Maps
63 (22%)

Total Members Voted: 286

jakeroot

Quote from: skluth on August 13, 2018, 11:00:01 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 09, 2018, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 09, 2018, 03:48:52 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 09, 2018, 03:46:10 PM
Your problem is using Internet Explorer.
Well, he can't use Edge because he only has Windows 7. Agreed that IE is not optimal for GMaps browsing, although it appears to be superior to Firefox for this purpose.

Besides that, I guess I just don't understand what the problem is. Of course it's going to look different if you're viewing the route in the Mercator projection vs a globe.

Google Maps does not use Mercator. It uses something called Web Mercator which doesn't exaggerate as much near the poles. This was a serious problem where I used to work (I recently retired from NGA.) as many new employees didn't know there was a difference and would reproject incorrectly.

Well, you caught me. Although, on the basic level, our main concern here is flat vs spherical. Whether the flat map is Mercator or Web Mercator isn't the point; it's still a flat projection, totally different from the spherical projection.


Michael

Well, it turns out that my old ClassyGMap link is working correctly again.  I'm afraid that the glitches I had yesterday will someday become permanent.  I looked on the GitHub page for any bug reports, and I didn't find anything, but I did find this workaround for Street View, which worked for me.

20160805

Quote from: Rothman on August 13, 2018, 10:47:36 PM
Google Maps still sucks due to no county lines, a woefully small number of destinations/via points and no visual indication of toll roads versus free roads.

I miss the old Rand McNally atlases where they would show you free and tolled portions of highways (Garden State's multicoloring comes to mind).
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either, so as a general rule I'm seriously starting to prefer OpenStreetMap by a long shot.  (I'm a member on there too, having corrected quite a few, generally relatively minor, errors in my local area; my profile, however, identifies me as being from the Northern Territory of Australia.)

Although now that I'm looking at OSM, where the heck did Lake Superior go?
Left for 5 months Oct 2018-Mar 2019 due to arguing in the DST thread.
Tried coming back Mar 2019.
Left again Jul 2019 due to more arguing.

US 89

Quote from: 20160805 on August 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 13, 2018, 10:47:36 PM
Google Maps still sucks due to no county lines, a woefully small number of destinations/via points and no visual indication of toll roads versus free roads.

I miss the old Rand McNally atlases where they would show you free and tolled portions of highways (Garden State's multicoloring comes to mind).
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either, so as a general rule I'm seriously starting to prefer OpenStreetMap by a long shot.  (I'm a member on there too, having corrected quite a few, generally relatively minor, errors in my local area; my profile, however, identifies me as being from the Northern Territory of Australia.)

Although now that I'm looking at OSM, where the heck did Lake Superior go?

Lake Huron's gone too (except at zoom level 6, where the southern half of it shows up).

Eth

Quote from: 20160805 on August 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either

Can't reproduce that one. I see the state lines in all their glory at every zoom level from 1.82 (as far out as I can go) to 21 (all the way in).

skluth

Quote from: jakeroot on August 14, 2018, 02:21:40 AM
Quote from: skluth on August 13, 2018, 11:00:01 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 09, 2018, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 09, 2018, 03:48:52 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 09, 2018, 03:46:10 PM
Your problem is using Internet Explorer.
Well, he can't use Edge because he only has Windows 7. Agreed that IE is not optimal for GMaps browsing, although it appears to be superior to Firefox for this purpose.

Besides that, I guess I just don't understand what the problem is. Of course it's going to look different if you're viewing the route in the Mercator projection vs a globe.

Google Maps does not use Mercator. It uses something called Web Mercator which doesn't exaggerate as much near the poles. This was a serious problem where I used to work (I recently retired from NGA.) as many new employees didn't know there was a difference and would reproject incorrectly.

Well, you caught me. Although, on the basic level, our main concern here is flat vs spherical. Whether the flat map is Mercator or Web Mercator isn't the point; it's still a flat projection, totally different from the spherical projection.

Sorry. Pet peeve from when I used to work standards. You'd be surprised how many college grads using GIS don't know the difference. It's worth pointing out the difference if I can save even one future GIS user from making this mistake when reprojecting.

Rothman

Meh.  Mercator is a horrible 2D projection.  There are better ones out there with less distortion.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

rickmastfan67

#1207
Quote from: US 89 on August 14, 2018, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 13, 2018, 10:47:36 PM
Google Maps still sucks due to no county lines, a woefully small number of destinations/via points and no visual indication of toll roads versus free roads.

I miss the old Rand McNally atlases where they would show you free and tolled portions of highways (Garden State's multicoloring comes to mind).
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either, so as a general rule I'm seriously starting to prefer OpenStreetMap by a long shot.  (I'm a member on there too, having corrected quite a few, generally relatively minor, errors in my local area; my profile, however, identifies me as being from the Northern Territory of Australia.)

Although now that I'm looking at OSM, where the heck did Lake Superior go?

Lake Huron's gone too (except at zoom level 6, where the southern half of it shows up).

Looks like somebody broke the relation.  I'll take a look and see if it's an easy fix.

EDIT:  Yeah, seems somebody broke it, and the render then didn't render it.  Then somebody else has already fix it, but the tiles just haven't been rerendered again.  So, it might take awhile for it to show up once again.

vdeane

Quote from: Rothman on August 14, 2018, 10:16:19 PM
Meh.  Mercator is a horrible 2D projection.  There are better ones out there with less distortion.
Less distortion of area maybe, but not necessarily in shape.  Google Maps would need to use a rectangular one for flat views in order to get it to wrap around because of how our screens are (or at the very least limit how far we can zoom out in ways they don't right now), and the Peters projection in particular has a LOT of shape distortion.  It makes South America look anorexic!

I think most of the complaints concerning Mercator boil down to "it makes Europe, Russia, and the US/Canada look big, so therefore it's racist".  Never mind that it was designed to facilitate marine navigation, not to justify imperialism, despite what people seem to think these days.

I personally favor Robinson, but I'm not sure how one would fit that into an application like Google Maps.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

I don't think it has to be rectangular.  Just have gores.

I also don't think Mercator criticism is as restricted as you make it out to be.  Greenland looks ridiculous and has led a lot of people to believe it is much larger than it is.  Africa looks a lot smaller than it is.  I know the accusations about racism and whatnot, but I think the simple misrepresentation of size argument against Mercator wins hands-down.  It's distortion probably played a part in bad policy decisions, too (Vietnam is a tiny country...).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Are there people who actually try to do size comparisons with Mercator?  I suppose it could be hard for me to see since I'm young enough that just about every world map I ever saw growing up was Robinson, so Mercator was "that weird projection that you sometimes see on really old maps" (and, later, online maps like Google).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

Heh.  Mercator was still used in schools when I attended grade school.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PMIts distortion probably played a part in bad policy decisions, too (Vietnam is a tiny country...).

How?  Vietnam is very close to the equator, so is among the countries least distorted by a Mercator projection.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

hotdogPi

#1213
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2018, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PMIts distortion probably played a part in bad policy decisions, too (Vietnam is a tiny country...).

How?  Vietnam is very close to the equator, so is among the countries least distorted by a Mercator projection.

It's distorted in the other direction from what we're used to (which is 25°-50°).
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

jon daly

Quote from: doorknob60 on August 06, 2018, 02:27:36 PM
While the logic in moving Google Maps to a globe is sound and makes sense, I don't like it. Good news is, it's optional. Click the hamburger menu on the top left, then click Globe, and it will toggle it off.

Thanks. I just noticed that I was set to Globe and it gave me vertigo. I toggled it off.

empirestate

Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PM
I also don't think Mercator criticism is as restricted as you make it out to be.  Greenland looks ridiculous and has led a lot of people to believe it is much larger than it is.  Africa looks a lot smaller than it is.  I know the accusations about racism and whatnot, but I think the simple misrepresentation of size argument against Mercator wins hands-down.

Well, and of course, that's only a problem when you select the Mercator projection for the purpose that is the exact opposite of what it does well, such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes. :-)

jakeroot

Quote from: empirestate on August 15, 2018, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PM
I also don't think Mercator criticism is as restricted as you make it out to be.  Greenland looks ridiculous and has led a lot of people to believe it is much larger than it is.  Africa looks a lot smaller than it is.  I know the accusations about racism and whatnot, but I think the simple misrepresentation of size argument against Mercator wins hands-down.

Well, and of course, that's only a problem when you select the Mercator projection for the purpose that is the exact opposite of what it does well, such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes. :-)

Do tell more. I don't follow.

Rothman

Quote from: jakeroot on August 15, 2018, 08:46:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 15, 2018, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PM
I also don't think Mercator criticism is as restricted as you make it out to be.  Greenland looks ridiculous and has led a lot of people to believe it is much larger than it is.  Africa looks a lot smaller than it is.  I know the accusations about racism and whatnot, but I think the simple misrepresentation of size argument against Mercator wins hands-down.

Well, and of course, that's only a problem when you select the Mercator projection for the purpose that is the exact opposite of what it does well, such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes. :-)

Do tell more. I don't follow.
I am also not following.  If anything, high latitudes are awful on Mercator.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

empirestate

#1218
Quote from: jakeroot on August 15, 2018, 08:46:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 15, 2018, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2018, 01:49:08 PM
I also don't think Mercator criticism is as restricted as you make it out to be.  Greenland looks ridiculous and has led a lot of people to believe it is much larger than it is.  Africa looks a lot smaller than it is.  I know the accusations about racism and whatnot, but I think the simple misrepresentation of size argument against Mercator wins hands-down.

Well, and of course, that's only a problem when you select the Mercator projection for the purpose that is the exact opposite of what it does well, such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes. :-)

Do tell more. I don't follow.

Well, choosing a map projection is all about the purpose of the map you're making, because all flat maps introduce distortion in one or more of several aspects (size, shape, area, etc.) while preserving others. The Mercator projection is useful because it preserves direction: any straight line on the map represents a line of constant bearing on the surface, which is why it's used for navigation. (Nautical charts are usually made in this projection.)

However, there is also a tradition of using Mercator for general purpose reference maps of the world. This is not an application where preserving direction is as important as preserving relative areas and distances (and to a lesser extent, shapes)—all of which Mercator does not do, especially at high latitudes. Therefore, Mercator is a very inappropriate projection to select for that type of map, and that's the context from which all the criticism stems. On the other hand, nobody minds that nautical charts use Mercator, because it's very appropriate to that situation. (And note that not a lot of navigation happens near the poles, where Mercator is least useful; in fact, it literally cannot display the poles at all.)

In other words, the problem isn't with the Mercator projection itself; it's with mapmakers selecting that projection in applications for which it's fundamentally unsuitable.

Quote from: Rothman on August 16, 2018, 09:47:08 AM
I am also not following.  If anything, high latitudes are awful on Mercator.

I think I see the problem—my clause "such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes" was meant to modify the entire object, "purpose that is the exact opposite of what it does well", not just the subordinate phrase "what it does well". So:

QuoteWell, and of course, that's only a problem when you select the Mercator projection for a purpose, such as correctly displaying sizes at high latitudes, that is the exact opposite of what it does well.

20160805

Quote from: Eth on August 14, 2018, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either

Can't reproduce that one. I see the state lines in all their glory at every zoom level from 1.82 (as far out as I can go) to 21 (all the way in).
I can't see any mention of state lines below level 11; if it makes a difference, I'm using Chrome on a Windows 7 computer from 2011.
Left for 5 months Oct 2018-Mar 2019 due to arguing in the DST thread.
Tried coming back Mar 2019.
Left again Jul 2019 due to more arguing.

hotdogPi

Quote from: 20160805 on August 16, 2018, 10:52:03 AM
Quote from: Eth on August 14, 2018, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
I don't know if/how many times this has been mentioned, but you can't even see state lines at low zoom levels either

Can't reproduce that one. I see the state lines in all their glory at every zoom level from 1.82 (as far out as I can go) to 21 (all the way in).
I can't see any mention of state lines below level 11; if it makes a difference, I'm using Chrome on a Windows 7 computer from 2011.

I can see them just fine.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Stephane Dumas

To cheer up with the semi-loss of ACME Mapper (who founded another source for maps and satellite views). I founded by luck this site called Satellites Pro. http://satellites.pro  who give us for now the option to use Google Maps, Esri, OpenStreetmap.

Brian556

Google Maps is slower than an 85-year old woman driving a Buick

jakeroot

Quote from: Brian556 on September 01, 2018, 07:37:36 PM
Google Maps is slower than an 85-year old woman driving a Buick

Depends on the computer.

hotdogPi

Google Maps API:
https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/... no longer works. It has to be http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/..., with http, not https.

Maybe an admin/mod could add this to the word filter, so that a lot of images are no longer broken? I already changed mine, but it didn't fix anyone who quoted me, and some other people have used the Google Maps API.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.