Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[Rothman]

For me, it's been necessary for a long time to use multiple mapping services, if for no other reason than that Google doesn't show county lines.

The county-counting site www.mob-rule.com has a feature where you can overlay county lines on a Google map. That comes in handy for places like Alaska and Canada where online mapping of county lines is uneven or non-existent even in OpenStreetMap. But mob-rule.com is slow to catch up with the latest changes to county (equivalent) definitions, which are fortunately rare in the lower 48 (mostly renames, and independent cities in Virginia folded into their surrounding counties).

Is the site currently behind in any changes that have been made?

[NE2]

The county-counting site www.mob-rule.com has a feature where you can overlay county lines on a Google map. That comes in handy for places like Alaska and Canada where online mapping of county lines is uneven or non-existent even in OpenStreetMap.

Because counties are non-existent in Alaska and much of Canada...

[oscar]

For me, it's been necessary for a long time to use multiple mapping services, if for no other reason than that Google doesn't show county lines.

The county-counting site www.mob-rule.com has a feature where you can overlay county lines on a Google map. That comes in handy for places like Alaska and Canada where online mapping of county lines is uneven or non-existent even in OpenStreetMap. But mob-rule.com is slow to catch up with the latest changes to county (equivalent) definitions, which are fortunately rare in the lower 48 (mostly renames, and independent cities in Virginia folded into their surrounding counties).

Is the site currently behind in any changes that have been made?

It's mostly caught up in the U.S., except for some significant boundary changes in southeastern Alaska (including at least expansion of the Ketchikan Gateway borough, creation of the Petersburg borough out of part of the former Petersburg census area, and territory added to and removed from the Prince of Wales-Hyder census area).

I just noticed that a few weeks ago mob-rule.com made major changes to its Canada county equivalent list. I'll need to give that a closer look, as I update my own Canada counts.

Because counties are non-existent in Alaska and much of Canada...

Alaska has boroughs, which are as county-like as Louisiana's parishes, though it also has a large "Unorganized Borough" that the Census Bureau and mob-rule.com split up into census areas and treat as county equivalents (some county-counters disagree, and treat the Unorganized Borough as a single unit).

Canada is more complicated, but a majority of the provinces have counties or close equivalents (such as regional county municipalities in Quebec).

[J N Winkler]

Mob-rule.com has also significantly updated the county line overlay (was on version "g25" earlier this year, is on version "g31" now) apparently to take account of Google Maps changes and to add municipios in Mexico.  I'm a bit curious as to whether this will increase south-of-the-border travel, at least within the county-collecting community.

[oscar]

Mob-rule.com has also significantly updated the county line overlay (was on version "g25" earlier this year, is on version "g31" now) apparently to take account of Google Maps changes and to add municipios in Mexico.  I'm a bit curious as to whether this will increase south-of-the-border travel, at least within the county-collecting community.

It won't change my (minimal) Mexico travels, but will affect how I track them. Previously I counted only estados, now I need to log smaller units.

EDIT:  Just updated my mob-rule.com user page to reflect my Mexico travels. Just seven municipios in three estados.

[kphoger]

Because counties are non-existent in Alaska and much of Canada...

Canada is more complicated, but a majority of the provinces have counties or close equivalents (such as regional county municipalities in Quebec).

Yep, southern Ontario has counties.  I know this firsthand because I once ate lunch at Chatham-Kent Fire Station #18 in the town of Blenheim, while I was on vacation in nearby Rondeau Provincial Park.  One of the firemen gave me a free hat.  They had a box full of them, because the name of the fire station had recently changed.  The name had changed because the county lines had been redrawn recently.  (Blenheim is now part of Chatham-Kent municipality, not a county.)

[empirestate]

And as J N Winkler says, while it is definitely not as good as showing all of the county lines without having to do anything at all, at least Google Maps does outline county borders and city limits if the said city or county is searched up (though not on mobile), and it is better than nothing.

But that's the whole point–if you want to know, say, what counties a road goes through, how the hell can you figure that out by already knowing what counties it goes through so you can search them one by one? That's what I would be using these mapping services for, and since Google doesn't show you the names of counties that you don't already know the names of, then no, it's not better than nothing, and it's certainly not better than just using Mapquest or Bing instead.

There's a difference in terminology here, then. By "show", I don't mean either a dropped pin or a highlighted search result. When I say that a map shows a feature, that means you see it as you look at the map. If additional interaction is required for the feature to appear, that's not what I'd call "showing" a feature. So to me, it doesn't depend on desktop or mobile–neither version shows the feature I'm interested in.

Very well. Seems a bit pedantic, though. Google does show county lines, you just have to search for it. It's not like county lines are inaccessible (not anymore, at least). If everything were shown by default, the map would be a bit busy.

Not pedantic at all–as I describe above, it's not about the difference between two definitions of a word, it's about the complete absence of a functionality. That's no more pedantic than King Arthur informing the Black Night that the stupid bastard's got no arms left.

[kphoger]

And as J N Winkler says, while it is definitely not as good as showing all of the county lines without having to do anything at all, at least Google Maps does outline county borders and city limits if the said city or county is searched up (though not on mobile), and it is better than nothing.

But that's the whole point–if you want to know, say, what counties a road goes through, how the hell can you figure that out by already knowing what counties it goes through so you can search them one by one? That's what I would be using these mapping services for, and since Google doesn't show you the names of counties that you don't already know the names of, then no, it's not better than nothing, and it's certainly not better than just using Mapquest or Bing instead.

There's a difference in terminology here, then. By "show", I don't mean either a dropped pin or a highlighted search result. When I say that a map shows a feature, that means you see it as you look at the map. If additional interaction is required for the feature to appear, that's not what I'd call "showing" a feature. So to me, it doesn't depend on desktop or mobile–neither version shows the feature I'm interested in.

Very well. Seems a bit pedantic, though. Google does show county lines, you just have to search for it. It's not like county lines are inaccessible (not anymore, at least). If everything were shown by default, the map would be a bit busy.

Not pedantic at all–as I describe above, it's not about the difference between two definitions of a word, it's about the complete absence of a functionality. That's no more pedantic than King Arthur informing the Black Night that the stupid bastard's got no arms left.

Exactly.

I can search in Google Maps for "Texas County Oklahoma" and it displays the boundaries.  But now suppose I want to know what county is to the west of there.  Can't tell!

[CtrlAltDel]

Not pedantic at all–as I describe above, it's not about the difference between two definitions of a word, it's about the complete absence of a functionality. That's no more pedantic than King Arthur informing the Black Night that the stupid bastard's got no arms left.

Sure he does. They're right there on the ground. It's not like they're someone else's now. 

[J N Winkler]

But that's the whole point–if you want to know, say, what counties a road goes through, how the hell can you figure that out by already knowing what counties it goes through so you can search them one by one? That's what I would be using these mapping services for, and since Google doesn't show you the names of counties that you don't already know the names of, then no, it's not better than nothing, and it's certainly not better than just using Mapquest or Bing instead.

Showing all counties a road passes through is not an application Google Maps supports.  However, it is useful for confirming whether a road passes through a particular county.  In cases where the road in question just barely clips the county (or misses doing so), it can actually be more useful for this purpose than much static mapping.

"Shows" is a bit slippery with dynamic mapping in general, because it depends partly on map state.  If I zoom onto a particular county so tightly that its borders are well off my screen, is the map "showing" county lines?  If the map has selectable layers and the county line layer is turned on, are county lines being "shown"?  Does it matter whether the map loads with that layer on by default?

[kphoger]

If I zoom onto a particular county so tightly that its borders are well off my screen, is the map "showing" county lines?

If you scroll far enough to one direction, does the county line that exists there show up on your map?  If so, then yes.  If not, then no.

If the map has selectable layers and the county line layer is turned on, are county lines being "shown"?  Does it matter whether the map loads with that layer on by default?

That should count, as long as they don't disappear at close zoom levels.



Basically, a user should be able to (not necessarily by default) see county lines on the map, until such point as he is zoomed out enough that they would cause clutter.  And, regarding shading and boundaries as they are now, it's insane to me that a layer be eliminated when zooming in.  That seems backwards.

[kkt]

If I zoom onto a particular county so tightly that its borders are well off my screen, is the map "showing" county lines?

If you scroll far enough to one direction, does the county line that exists there show up on your map?  If so, then yes.  If not, then no.

If the map has selectable layers and the county line layer is turned on, are county lines being "shown"?  Does it matter whether the map loads with that layer on by default?

That should count, as long as they don't disappear at close zoom levels.



Basically, a user should be able to (not necessarily by default) see county lines on the map, until such point as he is zoomed out enough that they would cause clutter.  And, regarding shading and boundaries as they are now, it's insane to me that a layer be eliminated when zooming in.  That seems backwards.

Some programmer probably put < when they meant to put >.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think there is any real disagreement as to what Google Maps does in the desktop version:  it exposes a boundary and shading for one county at the landing zoom level only when that specific county is searched for.

My concern about saying that desktop Google Maps, with this behavior, "does not show county lines," is that it raises the question of how we are to describe the possible withdrawal of this useful functionality.  This is not an idle concern since Google has experimented with such a move in the past.  "Does not show county lines" is easily interpreted as meaning "Does not show county lines at all, in any context," and if "does not show county lines" is equally true before and after loss of county border search, then how can one say anything has changed at all?

[kphoger]

Imagine Google Maps without town name labels on the base map.  (Actually, I remember when it was like this for smaller towns in foreign countries; you could tell where a town was by the nest of streets and the darker shading, but there was no label.)  But, oh, the town name would suddenly appear if you searched for it by name–but you had to already know that it was possible to do so.

County lines don't exist on Google Maps in the same way state lines do.  If you search for "Kansas", you get a pink shaded area bounded by a red line–same as if you search for "Thomas County Kansas."  But state lines still exist on the map and are labeled as you zoom in.  County lines are not labeled at any zoom level.  Search for "Thomas County Kansas" and you have no idea what's on the other side of that line.  To my thinking, that's not a county line, it's just a polygon boundary.

[adventurernumber1]

And as J N Winkler says, while it is definitely not as good as showing all of the county lines without having to do anything at all, at least Google Maps does outline county borders and city limits if the said city or county is searched up (though not on mobile), and it is better than nothing.

But that's the whole point–if you want to know, say, what counties a road goes through, how the hell can you figure that out by already knowing what counties it goes through so you can search them one by one? That's what I would be using these mapping services for, and since Google doesn't show you the names of counties that you don't already know the names of, then no, it's not better than nothing, and it's certainly not better than just using Mapquest or Bing instead.

Imagine Google Maps without town name labels on the base map.  (Actually, I remember when it was like this for smaller towns in foreign countries; you could tell where a town was by the nest of streets and the darker shading, but there was no label.)  But, oh, the town name would suddenly appear if you searched for it by name–but you had to already know that it was possible to do so.

County lines don't exist on Google Maps in the same way state lines do.  If you search for "Kansas", you get a pink shaded area bounded by a red line–same as if you search for "Thomas County Kansas."  But state lines still exist on the map and are labeled as you zoom in.  County lines are not labeled at any zoom level.  Search for "Thomas County Kansas" and you have no idea what's on the other side of that line.  To my thinking, that's not a county line, it's just a polygon boundary.

Those are some very good points. That's very true that this limited feature on Google Maps isn't even useful at all if you're in a situation where you don't know any of the counties in a certain area, but that's exactly the information that you are trying to find.

I think it would be wonderful if Google Maps decided to add county lines that you didn't have to do any work to see (except zoom in a little more if you are really zoomed out), and that these lines had the names of both bordering counties, each on their respective side, similar to the state line set-ups that currently exist on Google Maps. Though, I would definitely make these county lines less distinctive and bold as the state lines (since they are less important and significant) - the same way as country/national borders are significantly more bolded and noticeable than state and province lines - though they should definitely still exist! 

[kkt]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

[jakeroot]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

That would work, as would the ability to search "county" and have the closest county automatically pop up. So if I was hovering over Seattle and typed "county", it would zoom out and automatically highlight King County (and also show county building search results).

[hotdogPi]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

That would work, as would the ability to search "county" and have the closest county automatically pop up. So if I was hovering over Seattle and typed "county", it would zoom out and automatically highlight King County (and also show county building search results).

That would be nowhere near obvious for someone who doesn't already know that it exists (if this were to exist).

[adventurernumber1]

I've found another issue with the new Google Maps updates. I am pretty certain that at one time not too long ago, Universities and colleges and their campuses were easily seen and stood out - less recently, the coloring was typically brown (I think) - more recently, it became less distinguishable, but I believe it was still a reasonable darker shade of grey, IIRC. Now, there is nothing at all, from what I can tell. Now, I cannot see the boundaries and limits and size of the campuses of colleges and universities. This is a little bit annoying, and it is just another ingredient in the boiling pot that has been cooking up in the latest updates on Google Maps. Hopefully, they will fix this, too...but they probably won't..   

[jakeroot]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

That would work, as would the ability to search "county" and have the closest county automatically pop up. So if I was hovering over Seattle and typed "county", it would zoom out and automatically highlight King County (and also show county building search results).

That would be nowhere near obvious for someone who doesn't already know that it exists (if this were to exist).

It would be an improvement to a feature that already exists (although a layer would indeed be more obvious and preferable): I can presently hover over just about any city, type in "county", examine the search results, and type in the relevant county to see the outline.

For example, zooming in on Oakhurst, CA, if I type in "county", I get several results for "Madera County...". So, I type in Madera County into the search bar, and I get the highlight. I would just rather I had the ability to type in "county", and have it automatically zoom out to show me the county outline of whatever county I was hovering overhead, plus any results containing "county". Although I could see this being problematic for geographically large counties with many county buildings.

[Hurricane Rex]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

That would work, as would the ability to search "county" and have the closest county automatically pop up. So if I was hovering over Seattle and typed "county", it would zoom out and automatically highlight King County (and also show county building search results).

That would be nowhere near obvious for someone who doesn't already know that it exists (if this were to exist).

It would be an improvement to a feature that already exists (although a layer would indeed be more obvious and preferable): I can presently hover over just about any city, type in "county", examine the search results, and type in the relevant county to see the outline.

For example, zooming in on Oakhurst, CA, if I type in "county", I get several results for "Madera County...". So, I type in Madera County into the search bar, and I get the highlight. I would just rather I had the ability to type in "county", and have it automatically zoom out to show me the county outline of whatever county I was hovering overhead, plus any results containing "county". Although I could see this being problematic for geographically large counties with many county buildings.

I like these ideas but another would be to double tap the screen to show the boundary of current city/county.

[jakeroot]

I'd like it if it was a layer you could turn on.  I think it would tend to get too cluttered if it was on all the time, and isn't really necessary for typical navigation.

That would work, as would the ability to search "county" and have the closest county automatically pop up. So if I was hovering over Seattle and typed "county", it would zoom out and automatically highlight King County (and also show county building search results).

That would be nowhere near obvious for someone who doesn't already know that it exists (if this were to exist).

It would be an improvement to a feature that already exists (although a layer would indeed be more obvious and preferable): I can presently hover over just about any city, type in "county", examine the search results, and type in the relevant county to see the outline.

For example, zooming in on Oakhurst, CA, if I type in "county", I get several results for "Madera County...". So, I type in Madera County into the search bar, and I get the highlight. I would just rather I had the ability to type in "county", and have it automatically zoom out to show me the county outline of whatever county I was hovering overhead, plus any results containing "county". Although I could see this being problematic for geographically large counties with many county buildings.

I like these ideas but another would be to double tap the screen to show the boundary of current city/county.

I don't think that specific move would work. Right now, double-tapping zooms in, and double-tap-and-hold allows you to zoom in or out by moving your finger up or down the screen. This makes zooming in/out possible with one-finger.

[Eth]

I've found another issue with the new Google Maps updates. I am pretty certain that at one time not too long ago, Universities and colleges and their campuses were easily seen and stood out - less recently, the coloring was typically brown (I think) - more recently, it became less distinguishable, but I believe it was still a reasonable darker shade of grey, IIRC. Now, there is nothing at all, from what I can tell. Now, I cannot see the boundaries and limits and size of the campuses of colleges and universities. This is a little bit annoying, and it is just another ingredient in the boiling pot that has been cooking up in the latest updates on Google Maps. Hopefully, they will fix this, too...but they probably won't..   

I still see a very, very tiny color difference, but it looks like it's only visible at zoom level 13 or closer (and even then you may have to squint). The university campuses are an almost imperceptibly darker shade of light gray.

[empirestate]

"Shows" is a bit slippery with dynamic mapping in general, because it depends partly on map state.  If I zoom onto a particular county so tightly that its borders are well off my screen, is the map "showing" county lines?  If the map has selectable layers and the county line layer is turned on, are county lines being "shown"?  Does it matter whether the map loads with that layer on by default?

Yes; either of those instances would solve my complaint. For your first point, USGS topographic quads show county lines, and that's true even when I'm looking at a quad that falls entirely within one county. For your second, if I can turn on a layer and show county lines, then they're shown, and my problem is solved. It may not be solved in the most convenient way, but it's progress.

I don't think there is any real disagreement as to what Google Maps does in the desktop version:  it exposes a boundary and shading for one county at the landing zoom level only when that specific county is searched for.

My concern about saying that desktop Google Maps, with this behavior, "does not show county lines," is that it raises the question of how we are to describe the possible withdrawal of this useful functionality.  This is not an idle concern since Google has experimented with such a move in the past.  "Does not show county lines" is easily interpreted as meaning "Does not show county lines at all, in any context," and if "does not show county lines" is equally true before and after loss of county border search, then how can one say anything has changed at all?

I'm not sure what the dispute is, at this point. It seems like you're trying to rebut something I said, but what you write doesn't achieve that purpose. I said:

For me, it's been necessary for a long time to use multiple mapping services, if for no other reason than that Google doesn't show county lines.

You replied with something beginning "It depends..."–but it doesn't depend. If I want to use an online mapping service that displays county lines, I have to use something other than Google. The functionality of highlighting a county if, and only if, it's searched for doesn't change that. What I wrote still stands as true; and furthermore, I'm at a loss as to how it's controversial.

[jakeroot]

"Shows" is a bit slippery with dynamic mapping in general, because it depends partly on map state.  If I zoom onto a particular county so tightly that its borders are well off my screen, is the map "showing" county lines?  If the map has selectable layers and the county line layer is turned on, are county lines being "shown"?  Does it matter whether the map loads with that layer on by default?

Yes; either of those instances would solve my complaint. For your first point, USGS topographic quads show county lines, and that's true even when I'm looking at a quad that falls entirely within one county. For your second, if I can turn on a layer and show county lines, then they're shown, and my problem is solved. It may not be solved in the most convenient way, but it's progress.

I don't think there is any real disagreement as to what Google Maps does in the desktop version:  it exposes a boundary and shading for one county at the landing zoom level only when that specific county is searched for.

My concern about saying that desktop Google Maps, with this behavior, "does not show county lines," is that it raises the question of how we are to describe the possible withdrawal of this useful functionality.  This is not an idle concern since Google has experimented with such a move in the past.  "Does not show county lines" is easily interpreted as meaning "Does not show county lines at all, in any context," and if "does not show county lines" is equally true before and after loss of county border search, then how can one say anything has changed at all?

I'm not sure what the dispute is, at this point. It seems like you're trying to rebut something I said, but what you write doesn't achieve that purpose. I said:

For me, it's been necessary for a long time to use multiple mapping services, if for no other reason than that Google doesn't show county lines.

You replied with something beginning "It depends..."–but it doesn't depend. If I want to use an online mapping service that displays county lines, I have to use something other than Google. The functionality of highlighting a county if, and only if, it's searched for doesn't change that. What I wrote still stands as true; and furthermore, I'm at a loss as to how it's controversial.

Empire, (although I know you said you weren't) you are being outrageously pedantic regarding the meaning of "show". Google's implementation of counties is far from traditional, but if you can show a county by searching for said county, then the feature exists. "Show" means "allow to be visible". Searching for a county allows it to be visible. Google shows counties. It's that simple.