Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[STLmapboy]

Meanwhile, on that Arizona image... can you tell which road is the freeway and which roads aren't on the new one (ignoring the I-17 shields)?  Because I can't.  The roads are particularly difficult to see at certain zoom levels (zoom 7 was particularly hard, because that's when the arterials appear, but everything looks the same, and the green and yellow aren't as distinct as the beige background that was there before Google started trying to show greenery).  Way zoomed in, arterials and freeways and freeway ramps all look the same too, which at that scale you can usually tell by context, but still, it looks ugly.  Google had me switched over to the new one last night, so yeah, I've poked around with it, and navigation is certainly harder than it was before.

I haven't been switched over yet.  My impression, based on the views available in the article (zoom locked), is that roads in general will be easier to pick out of the background, but there may still be a slight differentiation in shade between freeways and other arterials comparable to what exists now.

I can barely pick out freeways from arterials in the new one.

Edit; the new stuff isn't showing up for me now. It showed up this morning, weird.

[vdeane]

Meanwhile, on that Arizona image... can you tell which road is the freeway and which roads aren't on the new one (ignoring the I-17 shields)?  Because I can't.  The roads are particularly difficult to see at certain zoom levels (zoom 7 was particularly hard, because that's when the arterials appear, but everything looks the same, and the green and yellow aren't as distinct as the beige background that was there before Google started trying to show greenery).  Way zoomed in, arterials and freeways and freeway ramps all look the same too, which at that scale you can usually tell by context, but still, it looks ugly.  Google had me switched over to the new one last night, so yeah, I've poked around with it, and navigation is certainly harder than it was before.

I haven't been switched over yet.  My impression, based on the views available in the article (zoom locked), is that roads in general will be easier to pick out of the background, but there may still be a slight differentiation in shade between freeways and other arterials comparable to what exists now.

I find the Arizona and Morocco images in the article to be indicative of my experience when I was briefly switched over last night.  The Mount Rainier example is cherry-picked from a zoom level and area where the new experience was optimized and does not match up with my reality.

[jakeroot]

Meanwhile, on that Arizona image... can you tell which road is the freeway and which roads aren't on the new one (ignoring the I-17 shields)?  Because I can't.  The roads are particularly difficult to see at certain zoom levels (zoom 7 was particularly hard, because that's when the arterials appear, but everything looks the same, and the green and yellow aren't as distinct as the beige background that was there before Google started trying to show greenery).  Way zoomed in, arterials and freeways and freeway ramps all look the same too, which at that scale you can usually tell by context, but still, it looks ugly.  Google had me switched over to the new one last night, so yeah, I've poked around with it, and navigation is certainly harder than it was before.

I haven't been switched over yet.  My impression, based on the views available in the article (zoom locked), is that roads in general will be easier to pick out of the background, but there may still be a slight differentiation in shade between freeways and other arterials comparable to what exists now.

This is kind of what I was seeing. Plus, and I feel like I'm on repeat when I say this: it really depends on your screen settings. To me, the new changes have improved contrast.

Meanwhile, on that Arizona image... can you tell which road is the freeway and which roads aren't on the new one (ignoring the I-17 shields)?  Because I can't.  The roads are particularly difficult to see at certain zoom levels (zoom 7 was particularly hard, because that's when the arterials appear, but everything looks the same, and the green and yellow aren't as distinct as the beige background that was there before Google started trying to show greenery).  Way zoomed in, arterials and freeways and freeway ramps all look the same too, which at that scale you can usually tell by context, but still, it looks ugly.  Google had me switched over to the new one last night, so yeah, I've poked around with it, and navigation is certainly harder than it was before.

There is a difference between enabling people to do things other than look at roads and making looking at roads harder.  Google is doing the latter.  After all, what is an interactive road atlas for, if not to look at roads?  Let's not forget that Google Maps began as a more browsable version of MapQuest.  It's ironic that one of their original key selling points (the ability to pan the map by dragging it with the mouse and zoom with the mouse wheel, rather than using search or the buttons on the side (which ties into another key selling point - not having onerous load times for panning/zooming the map!)) is made harder by recent changes!

Freeways, as a radically different type of road from surface streets with at-grades and driveways, deserve to pop out when looking at the map at a glance.  They are not the same as other arterials.  I don't get why Google doesn't understand this.

I can see a difference, yes. The freeway is thicker. Mostly because freeways have two strokes of parallel lines, and most arterials are shown as a single stroke. Subtle but important.

I would keep things as they are. Right now, surface roads that are colored yellow are basically as important to ordinary persons as a freeway, since both are meant to indicate those routes that can be used for interregional travel. In the Seattle area, yellow surface roads are only those that are extremely important to travel in the area. The vast majority of these are just as important as freeways.

In the US, I would shy away from separately colored freeways: unlike most countries, we truly have a disastrous way of classifying freeways, and standards seem to vary even state to state. It's easy enough to classify an interstate, but those are far from the only important freeways or roads in a city (although in New York, I know there are a lot of interstates, so your perspective may be skewed from mine slightly). Thus, rather than going to great lengths and deciding on a segment-by-segment basis "this is freeway" or "this is not freeway", and then spending thousands of hours defending your choices (as is often the case on OSM -- read: WA 500), it's simply easier to say "this is a major road" or "this is not a major road".

From the perspective of a GIS'er, my interest is not so much in what they classify as freeway, but actually what they classify as something qualifying for the yellow color. I personally feel like they've hit the nail on the head, although there's a couple roads I would highlight as yellow in my area that are currently white. Otherwise, I like what I see and I'm very excited to use the new Maps.

I wish there were a true competitor to Google Maps, but between street view, accurate drive times, the traffic layer, business information/photos/reviews, and the ability to set shaping points in directions, there's really nobody else that comes close.

To me, those additions (particularly business information, but many other things as well) have been made easier by reducing the level of detail given to the roadways. Maps cannot be all things to all users: Google has decided that their mapping service should be oriented towards someone interested in interactive mapping (traffic, business location, transit services); OSM is not good in this regard, as it is primarily designed for viewing. Google Maps was better for those simply interested in viewing a map without interacting, but the average Google Maps user expects more from them these days.

What I'm looking forward to from Google is greater geographic detail (not road detail). Viewing Mt Rainier on OSM versus Google Maps is a good example of how OSM can be far superior.

[SectorZ]

Fun new bug in Google Maps in Android Auto. Randomly, it will just stop updating my position and freeze me in place until I unplug my phone and plug it back in to the cable.

Even more fun is a side effect of it. If I leave it alone and let the freeze stay long enough, the app thinks I am not moving and must be in "traffic", therefore showing traffic on whatever road I was on when it stopped updating.

[mgk920]

It appears Google has added a feature (or I'm just noticing it) to GSV to better locate businesses while in that mode. Of course, this is bound to be troublesome with outdated imagery or recent changes to the area.

A good example of this new feature:

They added it sometime in June. At the time I was cruising up and down Barcelona following the lines of their orthogonal bus network, and now it's a PITA to go through narrow streets. You almost have to go photo by photo in order not to click in a business. Historic Street View imagery doesn't have that feature.

Is it no longer possible to rotate Google Maps (i.e. rotate the map to so that a direction other than north is at the top) from a computer??

If so, that is a massive oversight, and I can't believe I didn't notice until now.

AFAIK it has never been possible to rotate the browser-based Google Maps on map mode.

Also, I'm finding ad pegs on aerial images that remain after I've turned labels off.  It is royally annoying when I'm trying to do research on what's in the images.  Also, yes, those business ID pins on streetview images are annoying when I'm trying to check the buildings and not the specific businesses that are in them.

I have so far found no way to turn those 'features' off.



Mike

[Michael]

Within the last week or so, I've finally started getting the new map style.  At first, I sometimes got the new style, and sometimes got the old one.  A week or two before the change, I noticed that bus icons and dark blue business icons were a darker shade of blue.  When I first got the new style, I thought it was A/B testing, but after a quick Google, I found out it's not.  I looked earlier in this thread, and it turns out it was discussed, but I missed that part.  I don't completely hate the new style, but I'm not a fan.  I like that the major roads aren't bright yellow, but the new orange is bright in a different way, and it's still a bit too much, especially on green backgrounds. The green everywhere is too much in my opinion.  If I were looking for a park, the greens are too similar to easily distinguish them.  The contrast between gray towns and green rural areas is jarring.  It's neat to be able to see vegetation, but that's a different type of map, so I'd prefer if it was a layer that could be turned on or off.

I've also noticed a couple glitches.  At certain zoom levels, some segments of streams and rivers connect points along the path to make a lake where none exists.  After this started happening, towns and lakes started doing a similar thing.  At certain zoom levels, the detail in boundaries is missing.  I'd expect this when zoomed out, but this glitch happens when I'm zoomed in enough to where a detailed border would be visible.

Earlier this afternoon, I noticed a new feature I like.  Intersections with stoplights have a stoplight icon on them.  I think I saw something like this in Asia a few years ago and thought it was neat.  I looked at a few local intersections to see how accurate the icons are, and found it wasn't 100% accurate.  This pair of stoplights is shown as a single light and this blinking light is shown as a stoplight.

On a side note, while getting Maps links for this post, it suddenly reverted to the old map style, but with the stoplight icons and new bus icon color.  I've also noticed that embeds and the card previews in search results still have the old style too.

EDIT: I just tried using WASD to move the map (Did that ever work?  I can't remember), and when I did, it started typing in the search box.  I thought maybe I accidentally typed a forward slash and that moved the focus to the search box like on YouTube, but it didn't.  I tried typing a question mark to see if that would do it, but it popped up a box with keyboard shortcuts I didn't know existed!  Also, it turns out that typing while your focus is on the map moves the focus to the search box and starts typing there.

[kphoger]

The green everywhere is too much in my opinion.  If I were looking for a park, the greens are too similar to easily distinguish them.  The contrast between gray towns and green rural areas is jarring.  It's neat to be able to see vegetation, but that's a different type of map, so I'd prefer if it was a layer that could be turned on or off.

I agree.

On the other hand, some state/national park/forest boundaries are easier to identify now.

[sprjus4]

Well, Google is at it again.  Sure, the natural features look pretty, but the roads look ugly, and it's now even more difficult to pick out freeways cities than it was before (seriously, freeways and arterials have gone from being nearly the same color to being actually the same color).

I don't care for that, either. Plus, I still don't understand why the new 2020 Streetview images were taken with a potato. Sure, the pandemic has hit budgets pretty hard, but you'd think Google can still afford HD cameras.

What images are you specifically referring to?

[sprjus4]

^

Regarding freeway vs. arterial, I usually will just turn on the "traffic" layer that makes it much easier to distinguish freeways over other roads. Much thicker lines.

[jakeroot]

I finally got a good look at the new Google Maps today thanks to a maps.google.ca link.

Thoughts so far, based on about an hour of use:

• the changing color scheme depending on scale is the first application of such that I'm aware of. No opinion yet. BUT...
• the 'geographically-accurate' color background is a nice touch, though I'd like to know what the meaning is of grey vs non-grey when zoomed out. I assume city vs non-city, but there are discrepancies in my area.
• roads are quite a bit easier to pick out now compared to before. The new background colors (when zoomed out) help a lot, and the increased saturation upon zooming in helps to maintain the contrast without colorful backgrounds
• when zoomed out, freeways definitely seem to be a touch darker and have slightly thicker lines. I can personally tell them apart from yellow surface roads (although I maintain that telling them apart is not necessarily important).
• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.
• parks are a shade darker than the grassy green that covers a lot of the map now. I can tell them apart quite easily.

Although the feature doesn't appear to have launched, I'm very excited to use the new detailed large-scale street maps. So far, the images I've seen are very reminiscent of Japanese Google Maps. I'd like to know if the company that provides all that detail to Google (Zenrin?) has helped them with this feature.

[thspfc]

At first I hated the new update, but it's sort of growing on me. The only real issue I've noticed is that it's more difficult to distinguish freeways/Interstates from regular state or US routes.

[STLmapboy]

• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.

Except when it gets caught up in rez border quirks like this. I guess there's no way around that though.

[jakeroot]

• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.

Except when it gets caught up in rez border quirks like this. I guess there's no way around that though.

Especially since that is the border of the "Navajo Nation Off-Reservation Trust Land". Just really quirky lines.

[J N Winkler]

• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.

Except when it gets caught up in rez border quirks like this. I guess there's no way around that though.

Especially since that is the border of the "Navajo Nation Off-Reservation Trust Land". Just really quirky lines.

(Cough, cough)  Dawes Act.

[MCRoads]

Anyone notice how they have added traffic signal icons to the map?

[hotdogPi]

Anyone notice how they have added traffic signal icons to the map?

Yes. I think it's a good addition.

I checked one spot (Walgreens and back entrance to The Loop next to MA 213 exit 3) that contains full signal heads, but only flashes red and yellow. No signal on Google Maps. Good.

[MCRoads]

Apparently it has been a thing in Japan for a while now, but I don't browse there, so I can't say for sure.

[paulthemapguy]

I got the Google Maps update on mobile (Android phone), and trying to find my user content (My Maps) has become a nightmare.

[jakeroot]

• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.

Except when it gets caught up in rez border quirks like this. I guess there's no way around that though.

Especially since that is the border of the "Navajo Nation Off-Reservation Trust Land". Just really quirky lines.

(Cough, cough)  Dawes Act.

Thank you. I was wondering, but didn't take the time to search.

Apparently it has been a thing in Japan for a while now, but I don't browse there, so I can't say for sure.

I've noticed it in NZ and Australia for a long time as well. Japan's implementation is nice because it shows the horizontal display preferred in most of Japan, with the right-hand drive left-to-right green-yellow-red configuration, rather than the opposite preferred in left-hand drive countries like the US.

[stevashe]

Anyone notice how they have added traffic signal icons to the map?

Yes. I think it's a good addition.

I checked one spot (Walgreens and back entrance to The Loop next to MA 213 exit 3) that contains full signal heads, but only flashes red and yellow. No signal on Google Maps. Good.

I noticed it about a month ago, but there was very spotty coverage back then. And I was perusing the map around Connecticut yesterday and did see some red/yellow flashers marked as traffic lights, unfortunately. Here's one example:

I finally got a good look at the new Google Maps today thanks to a maps.google.ca link.

Thoughts so far, based on about an hour of use:

• the changing color scheme depending on scale is the first application of such that I'm aware of. No opinion yet. BUT...
• the 'geographically-accurate' color background is a nice touch, though I'd like to know what the meaning is of grey vs non-grey when zoomed out. I assume city vs non-city, but there are discrepancies in my area.
• roads are quite a bit easier to pick out now compared to before. The new background colors (when zoomed out) help a lot, and the increased saturation upon zooming in helps to maintain the contrast without colorful backgrounds
• when zoomed out, freeways definitely seem to be a touch darker and have slightly thicker lines. I can personally tell them apart from yellow surface roads (although I maintain that telling them apart is not necessarily important).
• the tribal reservation overlay is quite lovely.
• parks are a shade darker than the grassy green that covers a lot of the map now. I can tell them apart quite easily.

Although the feature doesn't appear to have launched, I'm very excited to use the new detailed large-scale street maps. So far, the images I've seen are very reminiscent of Japanese Google Maps. I'd like to know if the company that provides all that detail to Google (Zenrin?) has helped them with this feature.

I got the update when opening maps on my computer today, overall it's a great improvement, and I agree with what your thoughts, Jake, though I am a bit annoyed about the same color scheme for freeways and main roads. I'd be interested to know why you don't think it's important since I do find it quite useful to be able to see a region's freeway system at a glance without having to look closely to spot minor differences in the lines (especially in an area with which I am not familiar). It was already somewhat difficult to tell them apart when they changed the colors a few years ago and made them have less contrast.

[jakeroot]

I got the update when opening maps on my computer today, overall it's a great improvement, and I agree with what your thoughts, Jake, though I am a bit annoyed about the same color scheme for freeways and main roads. I'd be interested to know why you don't think it's important since I do find it quite useful to be able to see a region's freeway system at a glance without having to look closely to spot minor differences in the lines (especially in an area with which I am not familiar). It was already somewhat difficult to tell them apart when they changed the colors a few years ago and made them have less contrast.

My general argument was that "freeway" is just too loose of a term in the US to make it a special color. In most areas that I've seen, the yellow surface routes are just as important as freeways.

As an example, there's really no reason for WA-410 in Sumner to appear differently from WA-410 in Bonney Lake or Enumclaw. It's the same users for both roads, and the only difference is maybe 10 mph in speed limit, and the existence of on and off-ramps. Otherwise: bikes, tractors, and everyone else can still use the road. Things are different for many stretches of "Interstate", but then are we going to use an exclusive color for interstates? It gets complicated, and I feel this is a good compromise.

One thing worth pointing out: prior to this update, there were stretches of "freeway" colored more like surface roads, and surface roads incorrectly colored as freeways. This solves that completely, since "what is a freeway" varies way too often, even amongst users here (eg: US-395 south of Ritzville?? WA-8 west of Olympia??).

[Rothman]

So...since we couldn't perfectly color freeways and roads differently, we are just going to color them all the same?  That's not a solution.

[webny99]

I browse Google Maps almost exclusively with traffic on, so I hadn't noticed that surface streets and freeways are now the same color.
I did notice the traffic signal icon, which is cool. It will be nice to know at a glance whether there is one at a given location.

[US 89]

My general argument was that "freeway" is just too loose of a term in the US to make it a special color. In most areas that I've seen, the yellow surface routes are just as important as freeways.

I strongly disagree with this. Most yellow surface routes I come upon are urban arterials that actually don't move that fast and have a lot of lights. Look at Atlanta for an example - there's a lot of yellow, but the only freeways are the interstates plus GA 400, 166, and 78 and 141 east of I-285.

[kphoger]

I am a bit annoyed about the same color scheme for freeways and main roads. I'd be interested to know why you don't think it's important since I do find it quite useful to be able to see a region's freeway system at a glance without having to look closely to spot minor differences in the lines (especially in an area with which I am not familiar).

I'd suggest that what I've bolded is not a common use of Google Maps, other than by roadgeeks.