Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[kphoger]

For what it's worth...  If you want to still see the yellow/orange distinction for freeways, it's still there on the My Maps side of Google.  You have to have a Google account in order to log in to that, of course, and there is no street view or directions capability.

[kphoger]

"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.

Well....  you can only show one county's lines at a time.  AFAIK, it is impossible to see the all the county lines of the Oklahoma panhandle in one view.  This used to be possible years ago, by showing multiple searched locations, but that went away some time ago.

[J N Winkler]

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.

The issue here is that "doesn't show county lines" can easily be understood to mean "cannot be made to show the boundary of any county in any context," which is not true given the existence of county border search.  It seemed to me proper to point out that county border search does currently exist on Google Maps desktop, especially given Google's flirtation with withdrawing it in the past.  I wasn't setting out to make a rebuttal since you had indicated this way of displaying counties was not adequate for your purposes.  Since I do not know what these are precisely, it would be presumptuous for me to argue that Google Maps should be enough for them.

FWIW, I occasionally use Google Maps to check whether a particular road is within a particular county, but when I need something that displays all county lines, I use the Mob-Rule.com overlay.  It is an on-the-fly decision that depends partly on convenience and partly on the amount of memory I have already lost due to memory leaks.  I have a browser search plugin for Google Maps, but not for any other mapping services; meanwhile, the Mob-Rule.com overlay loads noticeably more slowly for me than straight Google Maps and is more likely to push the browser into a crash, especially when the underlying Windows session has gone stale (memory usage of > 6.5 GB out of 8 GB with no applications running versus 2.7 GB immediately after boot and initial login).

[kphoger]

you had indicated this way of displaying counties was not adequate for your purposes.  Since I do not know what these are precisely, it would be presumptuous for me to argue that Google Maps should be enough for them.

Someone had to point it out, so I guess it might as well be me...

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

[kphoger]

the Mob-Rule.com overlay

Thank you for directing me to this!

[J N Winkler]

. . . You had indicated this way of displaying counties was not adequate for your purposes.  Since I do not know what these are precisely, it would be presumptuous for me to argue that Google Maps should be enough for them.

Someone had to point it out, so I guess it might as well be me...

. . . 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 . . .

This discussion started on December 6 (two thread pages ago) and Empirestate's comment (quoted above) about his application was made on December 12.  It still does not entitle me to presume that I have a complete understanding of how he uses county lines.

Looking back at the preceding discussion, I see that in my original post I failed to specify that Google Maps' display of county lines and shading is for one county and only in the context of a search for that specific county.  In light of the subsequent conversation, this was a qualification I should have made clear at the outset (not leaving it to user 1's post immediately following mine), and I apologize for failing to do so.

[J N Winkler]

the Mob-Rule.com overlay

Thank you for directing me to this!

You are welcome.

In the meantime, I've discovered the Nominatim plugin for OSM and have been playing with it.  The main issue I see is that there are two layers of click-through to get to OSM with the searched-for feature appropriately highlighted.

Searching for my home address (search term specific as to house number, street, Wichita, KS, but no ZIP) --> results page, click on appropriate result (apparently there is a street with the same name in Wichita Falls, Texas) --> OSM profile page for the feature, click on OSM link --> feature (in this case, the entirety of the street, not my specific house) is highlighted.

Searching for my home county (search term {Sedgwick County, KS})--> results page, click on appropriate result (choose from among Sedgwick County, Colorado; Sedgwick, Sedgwick County, Colorado; Historic Sedgwick County Courthouse at 510 N. Main in Wichita; etc.) --> OSM profile page for the feature, click on OSM link --> feature (in this case, only Sedgwick County is highlighted or has borders shown at the landing zoom level; none of the surrounding counties have lines displayed).

In light of the discussion we've had about the hermeneutics of "show," it's worth pointing out that OSM displays county lines and county labels only at certain zoom ranges.

[kphoger]

In light of the discussion we've had about the hermeneutics of "show," it's worth pointing out that OSM displays county lines and county labels only at certain zoom ranges.

As it should.  Not everything should be visible at all zoom levels.  And this is how paper maps work too.

As for the hermeneutics of "show"... imagine if state boundaries didn't show up except when you searched for a specific state, and then the shading/boundaries disappeared at a certain zoom level.  There would be thousands of people complaining that Google doesn't show state lines, and their complaint would be legitimate.  Now, that doesn't mean all available boundaries should always be shown.  After all, you can also search Google Maps for ZIP codes, neighborhoods, and towns and get similar shading–but showing all of those on the base map at once would be insanity.  What we're all saying is that, when you open Google Maps in your browser window, there should be county lines visible to you on the map that first comes up (by default or by selecting an overlay).

I actually think it would be awesome to have each of these types of boundaries available as an on/off overlay.  Sometimes it's useful to see a map with no political boundaries, and sometimes only one or two types of political boundaries.

[kkt]

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

[kphoger]

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

While this is true, I find no other online map to be nearly as useful as Google Maps.  But, for the specific purposes mentioned so far on here, they would suffice.

[jp the roadgeek]

I have now sent 6 edit requests since November 29th for the same thing, and it has not been looked at.  Meanwhile, some other things that I send requests about, including adding a small road that wasn't on the map, was added the next day.  The change has to do with CT 31.  The portion south of US 44 is labeled correctly and the road is listed as "Connecticut 31".  However, the part concurrent with and north of US 44 is labeled incorrectly with a county route shield, and the road is listed as "State Hwy 31".  Just want them to combine the two and apply the correct labeling, and they haven't. 

[Brandon]

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

For example, Bing Maps has county lines shown.  And in some regards, they're better than Google.

[jakeroot]

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

For example, Bing Maps has county lines shown.  And in some regards, they're better than Google.

Bing Maps' implementation of counties is rather impressive. The lines are shown only at closer zoom levels (to prevent busyness when zoomed out), plus the Locate Me tab (on the right) automatically changes when you scroll around to show you which county you're hovering over, plus the city if you're hovering over that.

I assume Bing Maps' implementation would fit empirestate's definition of "show".

[kphoger]

For example, Bing Maps has county lines shown.

Shown, yes.  Labeled, no.  But, as jakeroot has mentioned, it's still kind of usable.

[adventurernumber1]

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

For example, Bing Maps has county lines shown.  And in some regards, they're better than Google.

Bing Maps' implementation of counties is rather impressive. The lines are shown only at closer zoom levels (to prevent busyness when zoomed out), plus the Locate Me tab (on the right) automatically changes when you scroll around to show you which county you're hovering over, plus the city if you're hovering over that.

Wow! That is actually really cool. I had no idea that Bing Maps did that, so I am going to have to give that a look when I get the chance. 

There are other maps that do show all county lines.  Google Maps doesn't have to try to be all things to all people.

While this is true, I find no other online map to be nearly as useful as Google Maps.  But, for the specific purposes mentioned so far on here, they would suffice.

These are some good points, but I would like to see Google Maps be a little more useful when it comes to county lines and such, because it has such a pivotal status when it comes to online mapping, and at least before many of these bad updates in recent times (hence the creation of this thread in the first place), it has been highly admired, enjoyed, loved, and used by many, including myself. I think that if Google Maps could at least give you the option to turn on county lines at reasonable zoom levels, that would be an excellent decision. I would love it if they at least did that, as others have said.

[empirestate]

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.

OH! Oh, oh, oh, oh!!!! Now I finally see what the problem is.

Yes, you're absolutely right that being excessively pedantic about the meaning of "shows" is the problem here–but it was actually Mr. Winkler who was making that distinction, not me. I mentioned a functionality that Google doesn't have, and it was he who responded by saying that it depends on my definition of "shows". My point actually does not depend on that, for the very reason that I was not being so pedantic about the definition–I simply was not being as precise with my use of the term as Mr. Winkler was, as he explains and clarifies below.

(I hasten to point out that that's not a criticism of Mr. Winkler, merely identifying the source of our confusion. Indeed, I have always admired the comprehensiveness and precision of his comments in this forum.)

The issue here is that "doesn't show county lines" can easily be understood to mean "cannot be made to show the boundary of any county in any context," which is not true given the existence of county border search.  It seemed to me proper to point out that county border search does currently exist on Google Maps desktop, especially given Google's flirtation with withdrawing it in the past.  I wasn't setting out to make a rebuttal since you had indicated this way of displaying counties was not adequate for your purposes.  Since I do not know what these are precisely, it would be presumptuous for me to argue that Google Maps should be enough for them.

Absolutely; Google does indeed have the feature you describe, and it is informative to point it out. This misunderstanding arose by saying that my need to use other mapping services "depends on" what I mean by "shows"–it does not. I have that need regardless of what the word means (and regardless of whether Google has the functionality you mentioned.)

(jakeroot, you might be able to say I'm being overly pedantic about the meaning of "depends on"–I'm certainly capable of excessive pedantry when I'm so inclined, and so I certainly wouldn't deny it; it just doesn't happen to be the case with my use of "shows".)

For example, Bing Maps has county lines shown.

Shown, yes.  Labeled, no.  But, as jakeroot has mentioned, it's still kind of usable.

Yes, I have noticed that they're no longer labeled, which makes them less useful than previously.

I assume Bing Maps' implementation would fit empirestate's definition of "show".

It is one of the "other services" I had in mind. But as to whether that meets a specific definition, you'll have to let me know that, as I didn't have any particular definition in mind over another.

[kphoger]

This misunderstanding arose by saying that my need to use other mapping services "depends on" what I mean by "shows"–it does not. I have that need regardless of what the word means (and regardless of whether Google has the functionality you mentioned.)

This!

I don't care what "shows" means and doesn't mean when it comes to layers and capabilities.  The fact of the matter is that Google Maps doesn't display counties in a way that is useful for any purpose other than researching them one-by-one.  Counties are hidden on Google Maps, and they cannot be un-hidden except individually, and even then only up to a certain zoom level–the latter actually eliminating the usefulness of it from any in-depth study.

[jakeroot]

(jakeroot, you might be able to say I'm being overly pedantic about the meaning of "depends on"–I'm certainly capable of excessive pedantry when I'm so inclined, and so I certainly wouldn't deny it; it just doesn't happen to be the case with my use of "shows".)

I've noticed. You and Mr Winkler are much more skilled at writing and comprehension, so I sometimes get quickly confused, and/or misconstrue a comment by taking it out of context, and making an arse of myself. Nothing wrong with what you're doing, I'm just not good at following along.

[vdeane]

Anyone notice that Google seems to be routing over more non-freeways as of the last update?

Also, these issues may well be because of self-driving cars.  Who needs to differentiate freeways when the car will do the navigating? (said no roadgeek ever)
https://www.simpartners.com/google-maps-might-be-preparing-us-for-a-driverless-future/

[kkt]

I dunno... self-driving cars are still a long way away.  I think there are other reasons.  Probably non-roadgeeks don't care so much what type of road it is, they care how fast the traffic on it is.

[Hurricane Rex]

For the last few years, Google has had the fishhook section of the Newberg Dundeee bypass as a road but under road closed if you are in traffic mode only, its due to open on January 6th so it will be accirated about that then.

[wxfree]

Anyone notice that Google seems to be routing over more non-freeways as of the last update?

Also, these issues may well be because of self-driving cars.  Who needs to differentiate freeways when the car will do the navigating? (said no roadgeek ever)
https://www.simpartners.com/google-maps-might-be-preparing-us-for-a-driverless-future/

Indeed.  Just playing around, I requested a route from Fort Worth to Edmonton.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8029309,-97.3084119/53.5268903,-113.4050132/@47.1329948,-106.6690695,5z?hl=en

"Non-freeways" doesn't quite cover where Google wants me to go, which includes a stretch of gravel road in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9016299,-98.2889044,3a,75y,3.97h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTL68j24bqTZj1YvfYqZtxQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e4?hl=en

I doubt if many people think that saving 10 minutes on a 2,000 mile drive is worth the sense of uncertainty and actual risk of driving up an escarpment on an isolated unpaved road like that.

[Rothman]

Google made this mistake a few years back, when their preferred route going from points north of DC to points south of DC was -- I kid you not -- Taking US 50 down Rhode Island Ave and then down I-395.

[J N Winkler]

"Non-freeways" doesn't quite cover where Google wants me to go, which includes a stretch of gravel road in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9016299,-98.2889044,3a,75y,3.97h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTL68j24bqTZj1YvfYqZtxQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e4?hl=en

I doubt if many people think that saving 10 minutes on a 2,000 mile drive is worth the sense of uncertainty and actual risk of driving up an escarpment on an isolated unpaved road like that.

Another anomaly I noticed in casual exploration--Google Maps suggests a minimum-length route that is three miles longer than a plausible route with approximately the same amount of travel on unpaved roads.  This is the initial result for a Google Maps desktop search on {Wichita, KS to Castle Rock, Gove County, KS} using the Firefox search plugin:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wichita,+KS/Castle+Rock,+Larrabee,+KS+67752/@38.4490808,-99.2696349,8.5z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x87badb6ad27f182d:0x9396d5bf74d33d3e!2m2!1d-97.330053!2d37.6871761!1m5!1m1!1s0x87a0f609f8ed05af:0x3c7b9bb17dfb6e1!2m2!1d-100.169852!2d38.861122!5i2

Shortest suggested route of 227 miles is three miles longer than this perfectly logical route that is free of construction:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wichita,+KS/Castle+Rock,+Larrabee,+KS+67752/@38.4490808,-99.2696349,8.5z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x87badb6ad27f182d:0x9396d5bf74d33d3e!2m2!1d-97.330053!2d37.6871761!3m4!1m2!1d-97.6462284!2d37.8761959!3s0x87bb2fbed988deb9:0xd94bae37f70f1b59!1m5!1m1!1s0x87a0f609f8ed05af:0x3c7b9bb17dfb6e1!2m2!1d-100.169852!2d38.861122!3e0

I don't understand why Google Maps ignores K-96 when the combination of US 54-400 and K-14 (incidentally mismarked under its old designation of K-17) is ten miles longer and of worse standard (all-expressway versus about 20 miles of two-lane on K-14).

[doorknob60]

Speaking of odd routings, this was back in September and they fixed it now, but this is what it was coming up when looking directions from Meridian, ID to Idaho Falls, ID. The first one is perfectly fine, and my preferred route. But the second one is ridiculous. I mean, it's a cool scenic route, but not practical and should not show in in Google Maps.



Here is the second suggestion that should have shown up. The funny thing is the time is the shortest of all of them, so Google really should have known better. I had to drag the route manually to get this routing.



To be fair, they fixed this. Now all 3 routes show as options. It now picks I-84 to I-86 as the first option (fair enough, it estimates 7 minutes faster) and US-20 as the second option, though I'm not sure why the scenic route is even on there. I think there may have been a ramp closure on one of the off ramps near Burley, or maybe a bridge closure with a crossover (so 1 lane per direction over one bridge) but Google thought the actual highway was closed in that spot, so just avoided the entire thing.