Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[J N Winkler]

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.

Sound and sensical...still there are those that just don't like it. I really don't get it.

I can understand why people would want to turn it off.  If you do directions search for journeys long enough to involve curvature of the Earth (e.g., Los Angeles to New York), you lose the use of screen area off the "globe" and features are compressed as they run toward the globe edge.  In this context it is more trouble than it is worth, especially since great circle routes (for airborne options) will still display correctly in both map and globe view--it is just that they appear as curves in the former.

[vdeane]

Agreed.  The globe is cool, and makes it easier to see why "curved" lines are the way they are, but it also looks odd at certain zoom levels (generally the ones that are far enough out to see the curvature but not the horizon), and you do see less when zoomed far enough to see the globe.  It does, however, allow me to confirm something that I long suspected: that Google Maps does not have tiles all the way down to the South Pole.

[jakeroot]

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.

Sound and sensical...still there are those that just don't like it. I really don't get it.

I can understand why people would want to turn it off.  If you do directions search for journeys long enough to involve curvature of the Earth (e.g., Los Angeles to New York), you lose the use of screen area off the "globe" and features are compressed as they run toward the globe edge.  In this context it is more trouble than it is worth, especially since great circle routes (for airborne options) will still display correctly in both map and globe view--it is just that they appear as curves in the former.

I'm not seeing that. Viewing a map of the US, it's almost impossible to notice any curvature. Viewing a flight from SEA to LGW looks like this (below). Even in cases where it's impossible to view two airports at once, what's stopping users from slightly moving the map to see the rest of the route? Besides, viewing any such route on a flat map could mislead users into thinking the distance being covered is less than it really is (due to flat map inaccuracies).



Now, I'm not saying there's no use for a flat map (if there weren't, they wouldn't have given users the option to exit "globe" mode), but flat maps are geographically incorrect, no matter how they're displayed. Google's job, being (to a degree) a mapping company, should be to, as accurately as possible, map the earth as we know it. This is best done by displaying the map as a sphere. Keep the flat map around for the extremely unusual circumstances that require it, fine. But would I go back to Google Maps a week ago, when there was no globe mode for map? Not a chance. Globe mode is a good addition with, as implemented, zero drawbacks.

you do see less when zoomed far enough to see the globe.

Sure, but did you ever do that before? I can only look at one section of a map at a time, and I don't mind spinning a sphere around to see a different part of the map.

[Rothman]

Have to say I am a fan of the globe.  Accurately comparing the size of Great Britain to Borneo is practically impossible in any 2D projection given their latitudes (even in my beloved Dymaxion projection). The Google globe is the closest I have seen to the fact that Borneo dwarfs Great Britain in size.

[empirestate]

Now, I'm not saying there's no use for a flat map (if there weren't, they wouldn't have given users the option to exit "globe" mode), but flat maps are geographically incorrect, no matter how they're displayed. Google's job, being (to a degree) a mapping company, should be to, as accurately as possible, map the earth as we know it. This is best done by displaying the map as a sphere. Keep the flat map around for the extremely unusual circumstances that require it, fine. But would I go back to Google Maps a week ago, when there was no globe mode for map? Not a chance. Globe mode is a good addition with, as implemented, zero drawbacks.

To be fair, it's still a flat map. It's a representation of a globe on a 2D screen, so the map is still distorted as our eye travels farther from the center of the image. And so, as you point out, all flat maps are geographically inaccurate in some way.

The globe view does offer the advantage, in that respect, of representing a 3D figure that our eyes and brains readily understand, so we can absorb much of the "responsibility" of compensating for the distortion, in lieu of things like complicated scale graphs that appear on traditional flat map projections.

[J N Winkler]

I'm not seeing that. Viewing a map of the US, it's almost impossible to notice any curvature.

I see curvature even with directions search for Wichita to Topeka (shortest driving distance of 139 miles).  Also, as Google Maps is currently configured, the flat projection loads first, then there is a pause, and the globe loads, which is a cognitive speed bump that hits just as you are starting to parse the detail.

Besides, viewing any such route on a flat map could mislead users into thinking the distance being covered is less than it really is (due to flat map inaccuracies).

Eh?  On a flat map distances look longer the further away from the equator the origin and destination are.

you do see less when zoomed far enough to see the globe.

Sure, but did you ever do that before? I can only look at one section of a map at a time, and I don't mind spinning a sphere around to see a different part of the map.

I have done it.  Moscow-Vladivostok is noticeably less convenient to look at in globe view than in map view because of the edge distortion and the fact the route track covers a much smaller portion of the screen.  This appears to be because Google programs the initial view to show the origin point (Moscow in this case) in roughly the same place (horizontal middle of the upper quarter of the screen) in both map view and globe view.  As a result, on my 1920 x 1080 screen with side bar left open, almost all of Africa (completely irrelevant to this search) is visible in both globe view and map view, and the route track is about three times shorter in globe view than in map view.

Route length on initial load appears to be close to the same in globe view and map view only up to desert-belt latitudes--e.g. Sydney to Perth, or Jacksonville to Los Angeles.

And before you ask, yes, I was looking up Moscow-Vladivostok long before globe view became available, because I found Russian highway construction documentation online last month and this resurrected my daydream of driving the Amur Highway.

[vdeane]

True.  Plus I've been known to look at far-out views to get overviews of continents or to compare what places have street view and which ones don't.

[jakeroot]

Now, I'm not saying there's no use for a flat map (if there weren't, they wouldn't have given users the option to exit "globe" mode), but flat maps are geographically incorrect, no matter how they're displayed. Google's job, being (to a degree) a mapping company, should be to, as accurately as possible, map the earth as we know it. This is best done by displaying the map as a sphere. Keep the flat map around for the extremely unusual circumstances that require it, fine. But would I go back to Google Maps a week ago, when there was no globe mode for map? Not a chance. Globe mode is a good addition with, as implemented, zero drawbacks.

To be fair, it's still a flat map. It's a representation of a globe on a 2D screen, so the map is still distorted as our eye travels farther from the center of the image. And so, as you point out, all flat maps are geographically inaccurate in some way.

The globe view does offer the advantage, in that respect, of representing a 3D figure that our eyes and brains readily understand, so we can absorb much of the "responsibility" of compensating for the distortion, in lieu of things like complicated scale graphs that appear on traditional flat map projections.

It's the best we can do with computers, though. And, it's far better than a flat map when representing true size and distance.

I'm not seeing that. Viewing a map of the US, it's almost impossible to notice any curvature.

I see curvature even with directions search for Wichita to Topeka (shortest driving distance of 139 miles).  Also, as Google Maps is currently configured, the flat projection loads first, then there is a pause, and the globe loads, which is a cognitive speed bump that hits just as you are starting to parse the detail.

Must be your computer. For me, globe mode only starts to become clear around the 20-mi scale mark (well out from the default starting point of 1000-ft scale). Here's a map of the Topeka/Wichita area on my computer, with globe enabled. No obvious signs of curvature: https://i.imgur.com/aegsB9d.png

Besides, viewing any such route on a flat map could mislead users into thinking the distance being covered is less than it really is (due to flat map inaccuracies).

Eh?  On a flat map distances look longer the further away from the equator the origin and destination are.

My bad. *More than it really is. I should proofread a bit better when posting that late.

you do see less when zoomed far enough to see the globe.

Sure, but did you ever do that before? I can only look at one section of a map at a time, and I don't mind spinning a sphere around to see a different part of the map.

I have done it.  Moscow-Vladivostok is noticeably less convenient to look at in globe view than in map view because of the edge distortion and the fact the route track covers a much smaller portion of the screen.  This appears to be because Google programs the initial view to show the origin point (Moscow in this case) in roughly the same place (horizontal middle of the upper quarter of the screen) in both map view and globe view.  As a result, on my 1920 x 1080 screen with side bar left open, almost all of Africa (completely irrelevant to this search) is visible in both globe view and map view, and the route track is about three times shorter in globe view than in map view.

Route length on initial load appears to be close to the same in globe view and map view only up to desert-belt latitudes--e.g. Sydney to Perth, or Jacksonville to Los Angeles.

And before you ask, yes, I was looking up Moscow-Vladivostok long before globe view became available, because I found Russian highway construction documentation online last month and this resurrected my daydream of driving the Amur Highway.

I made a gif of the Moscow-Vladivostok drive, switching between globe and flat modes (default view for both). Definitely some obvious, and perhaps annoying, curvature in globe mode. But I don't see any advantage, beyond just looking at the route quickly, of viewing the route from that far out. My first instinct would always be to zoom in to view the route in more detail. Globe mode is not meant to provide great detail, obviously, since less map can be displayed at once than using the flat mode. But it does provide a more accurate representation of the route, and once you zoom in to view more detail, the globe effects are not anywhere near as noticeable (though still perhaps having a positive effect on size and scale).

True.  Plus I've been known to look at far-out views to get overviews of continents or to compare what places have street view and which ones don't.

If you zoom all the way out in globe mode, and grab the pegman, you can drag him to the edges of the screen and the globe will spin in the appropriate direction. Flat map has this feature, but it makes it easier to see which countries have street view without having to put the pegman back and keep spinning.

I have noticed that, in flat mode, not all of the earth is visible at the 1000-mi scale point (all the way out for me). For instance, I can't see Hawaii and New Zealand on the same screen, when the former is placed on the west edge of the map.

[J N Winkler]

Jakeroot--the difference between map and globe seems to be much less pronounced on your PC.  Here is what it looks like on mine:

[jakeroot]

Jakeroot--the difference between map and globe seems to be much less pronounced on your PC.  Here is what it looks like on mine:

https://i.imgur.com/bF6IKBm.gif

Yikes! No wonder you guys hate the new globe mode. Weird that it would display so differently. I see you're using Firefox, instead of the memory-hungry Chrome. Maybe that's the difference? Vdeane, which browser do you use?

To be sure that I wasn't experiencing something unusual, I opened a new tab, went back to GMaps, hit the "directions" button, entered in Moscow (waited for it to pull up Moscow), entered in Vladivostok, hit "enter", and then it pulled up the overview. It pulled up the same view as in my gif.

[20160805]

Let me just say that this new globe feature is probably going to tick off a few of those crazy Flat-Earthers.

[Brandon]

Let me just say that this new globe feature is probably going to tick off a few of those crazy Flat-Earthers.

Don't worry, they'll just call it "fake news".

[empirestate]

To be fair, it's still a flat map. It's a representation of a globe on a 2D screen, so the map is still distorted as our eye travels farther from the center of the image. And so, as you point out, all flat maps are geographically inaccurate in some way.

The globe view does offer the advantage, in that respect, of representing a 3D figure that our eyes and brains readily understand, so we can absorb much of the "responsibility" of compensating for the distortion, in lieu of things like complicated scale graphs that appear on traditional flat map projections.

It's the best we can do with computers, though.

Sure; it's a very useful tool. My point simply is that it is also geographically inaccurate, as it is also a flat map.

And, it's far better than a flat map when representing true size and distance.

Well, because we compensate for its distortion as we view it; essentially, our eyes create an optical illusion that happens to give us a more correct image, rather than the less correct one that most illusions produce. (You could argue that the same thing happens when we look at a real globe–we can't see around the other side of the globe, but we can move it around and relate what we see to what we remember seeing when the globe was in a different position.)

We also compensate for other flat maps, of course: with Google's Mercator display, we compensate for the distortion at high latitudes when we view the map at large scales. A map of Alaska, viewed in Mercator at a close zoom level, is substantially in scale with itself, even though it's grossly out of scale to a map of Puerto Rico at the same zoom level.

[Eth]

Jakeroot--the difference between map and globe seems to be much less pronounced on your PC.  Here is what it looks like on mine:

https://i.imgur.com/bF6IKBm.gif

Yikes! No wonder you guys hate the new globe mode. Weird that it would display so differently. I see you're using Firefox, instead of the memory-hungry Chrome. Maybe that's the difference? Vdeane, which browser do you use?

Maybe the difference is related to the window size/screen resolution. My browser window is 1152x980 (not maximized, so that's only part of the screen) and what I see falls somewhere in between what the two of you have shown.

[J N Winkler]

Yikes! No wonder you guys hate the new globe mode. Weird that it would display so differently. I see you're using Firefox, instead of the memory-hungry Chrome. Maybe that's the difference?

Speaking for myself, I don't hate globe view, but with the usability issues it creates on my system, I am happy to have the ability to turn it off as needed.  I'm happy you had the idea of posting a screen comparison as an animated GIF because otherwise it would not have occurred to me that there would be such an enormous difference in screen rendering.

And yes, it is Firefox 48.0 under Windows 7 with a screen resolution of 1920 x 1080.  Both maps were pulled up by entering {Moscow, Russia to Vladivostok, Russia} (no braces) in the search plugin box and choosing a Google Maps search plugin.

[vdeane]

Yeah, I suspect screen resolution is the big thing.  Mine varies based on whether Chrome is maximized or not (which it almost never is).

If you zoom all the way out in globe mode, and grab the pegman, you can drag him to the edges of the screen and the globe will spin in the appropriate direction. Flat map has this feature, but it makes it easier to see which countries have street view without having to put the pegman back and keep spinning.

I have noticed that, in flat mode, not all of the earth is visible at the 1000-mi scale point (all the way out for me). For instance, I can't see Hawaii and New Zealand on the same screen, when the former is placed on the west edge of the map.

True, though the fact that I can see less is an annoyance when zoomed out far.  And, of course, it is an adjustment when you've been using mercator for so long.  I routinely hit zoom level 5 when quickly panning across the US, and even further out if panning overseas (yeah, I still pan to different places rather than use search).

[Roadrunner75]

I guess I'm missing out on all the fun of "Globe Mode".  I was wondering where this even was until I realized I was still defaulting (via Bookmark link) to "Lite" mode (2D) which doesn't have it, which is just fine with me.

[jakeroot]

Jakeroot--the difference between map and globe seems to be much less pronounced on your PC.  Here is what it looks like on mine:

https://i.imgur.com/bF6IKBm.gif

Yikes! No wonder you guys hate the new globe mode. Weird that it would display so differently. I see you're using Firefox, instead of the memory-hungry Chrome. Maybe that's the difference? Vdeane, which browser do you use?

Maybe the difference is related to the window size/screen resolution. My browser window is 1152x980 (not maximized, so that's only part of the screen) and what I see falls somewhere in between what the two of you have shown.

Normally, I would say that would be the normal culprit. A small window wouldn't work as well with this feature. But Winkler's experience is apparently worse than yours, despite using a higher resolution and full screen.

I routinely hit zoom level 5 when quickly panning across the US, and even further out if panning overseas (yeah, I still pan to different places rather than use search).

Actually I do that too. Mostly in Google Earth, since it has to do that god-damn animation every time you search for some place else. Sometimes I'll pan to challenge my memory; I use search far more often, though.

Yikes! No wonder you guys hate the new globe mode. Weird that it would display so differently. I see you're using Firefox, instead of the memory-hungry Chrome. Maybe that's the difference?

Speaking for myself, I don't hate globe view, but with the usability issues it creates on my system, I am happy to have the ability to turn it off as needed.  I'm happy you had the idea of posting a screen comparison as an animated GIF because otherwise it would not have occurred to me that there would be such an enormous difference in screen rendering.

I was just really confused. Unlike other issues with Maps, I really didn't notice this one. So when the complaints started rolling in, I just assumed it was because users here don't seem to like change. Apparently things changed more for other users!

And yes, it is Firefox 48.0 under Windows 7 with a screen resolution of 1920 x 1080.  Both maps were pulled up by entering {Moscow, Russia to Vladivostok, Russia} (no braces) in the search plugin box and choosing a Google Maps search plugin.

Most oddly, although the browser is different, I'm running the same 1920x1080 resolution. I am just stumped. You don't use any UI scaling, do you? Your UX seems slightly larger than mine. Maybe that's just a Windows 10 thing.

Here's a video I made using Google Maps on my computer/browser/resolution combo. Anyone else's look like this? Or just me?

https://youtu.be/BE9Znn1lSXQ

[J N Winkler]

Most oddly, although the browser is different, I'm running the same 1920x1080 resolution. I am just stumped. You don't use any UI scaling, do you? Your UX seems slightly larger than mine. Maybe that's just a Windows 10 thing.

I don't scale anything at the level of the OS.  In Firefox, however, I scale things up by a factor that corresponds to 4 mouse wheel clicks larger than normal size and between 3 and 4 strikes of the Ctrl+Plus key combination.  (Mouse wheel and keyboard seem to use different incrementing schemes and I cannot reach my preferred scale on the keyboard.)  However, while this affects the size of text I see on this forum and on other websites, it doesn't affect Google Maps rendering in either globe or map view.

[jakeroot]

Most oddly, although the browser is different, I'm running the same 1920x1080 resolution. I am just stumped. You don't use any UI scaling, do you? Your UX seems slightly larger than mine. Maybe that's just a Windows 10 thing.

I don't scale anything at the level of the OS.  In Firefox, however, I scale things up by a factor that corresponds to 4 mouse wheel clicks larger than normal size and between 3 and 4 strikes of the Ctrl+Plus key combination.  (Mouse wheel and keyboard seem to use different incrementing schemes and I cannot reach my preferred scale on the keyboard.)  However, while this affects the size of text I see on this forum and on other websites, it doesn't affect Google Maps rendering in either globe or map view.

Have you tried using Google Maps on another browser?

That's probably not a realistic long-term solution, but I am curious if Firefox is to blame.

[ipeters61]

Works just fine for me in Firefox.  Using Firefox 61.0.1 on Ubuntu MATE 18.04, with my $60 desktop.   It's a Lenovo ThinkCentre M79, AMD A4-6300B dual core 3.7 GHz, 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM, AMD Radeon 8370D graphics - definitely not a high end machine but it is modern.  Regardless, seems to work fine, and Linux is pesky with non-Intel video drivers.

Display resolution is 1600x900 on some HP monitor my friend got at a Goodwill for $3 (and yes, that works fine too!).

[jakeroot]

Works just fine for me in Firefox.  Using Firefox 61.0.1 on Ubuntu MATE 18.04, with my $60 desktop.   It's a Lenovo ThinkCentre M79, AMD A4-6300B dual core 3.7 GHz, 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM, AMD Radeon 8370D graphics - definitely not a high end machine but it is modern.  Regardless, seems to work fine, and Linux is pesky with non-Intel video drivers.

Display resolution is 1600x900 on some HP monitor my friend got at a Goodwill for $3 (and yes, that works fine too!).

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HyiL4Jl.png

I'll wait for Winkler to chime in and confirm that Chrome or Edge have the same issue (if that's the case), but until then, I'm still baffled.

$3 wide-screen monitor with a resolution higher than 720p?! Not a bad deal!

[Kulerage]

The globe is fine to me. We don't have the horrible Mercator Projection anymore.

[J N Winkler]

I'll wait for Winkler to chime in and confirm that Chrome or Edge have the same issue (if that's the case), but until then, I'm still baffled.

The issue is present but less pronounced in Internet Explorer version 11.0 with zoom returned to the neutral level:

[MNHighwayMan]

Your problem is using Internet Explorer.