Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[vdeane]

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.

Exactly.

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??).

Google has been getting worse with that over the years, especially since they seemed to adopt MapQuest's "freeway ends at last interchange, not the first at-grade" system at some point.  They should look at OSM, which tends to get it right (although not perfect - OSM has A-15 as a freeway to the border, when it should really downgrade to an arterial at the last at-grade).

At this point, Google won't let me go back to the old design, even by loading it in fresh incognito sessions multiple times until I get what I want (I tried over a dozen times this morning).  With that, I will no longer be able to use Google exclusively anymore.  I cannot get used to how freeways and arterials are identical at many zooms, and so close together that I have to practically squint to tell the difference at others.  That means I'll have to use OSM for browsing, and then drop into Google for street view, traffic, driving directions, and place info.  So inconvenient.

And to think I thought the last design was bad.  Now I'm practically pining for it.

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.

Still not a reason to get rid of the functionality.  And what does Google think people did with paper maps?  Functionality should never be removed by a product unless it's used by nobody (not "not many people", literally nobody) or is wholly redundant with other functionality (ie, the other functionality covers everything the old function could do just as well and with no loss of convenience or anything else, for anyone or any use case).

[hotdogPi]

I cannot get used to how freeways and arterials are identical at many zooms, and so close together that I have to practically squint to tell the difference at others.

This has been the case for several years now.

[vdeane]

I cannot get used to how freeways and arterials are identical at many zooms, and so close together that I have to practically squint to tell the difference at others.

This has been the case for several years now.

I've been able to tell them apart (although not as well as one once could) until this last update.  There was a difference in shade... muted from what it used to be, but still there.  That is gone now.  The thickness difference was also easier to see.  Google Maps is just an ugly sea of brownish yellow and green to my eyes with this last design.  The only upside I can think of to the new design is that one no longer needs to have their monitor brightness/contrast very precisely calibrated to see half the roads.

[J N Winkler]

I cannot get used to how freeways and arterials are identical at many zooms, and so close together that I have to practically squint to tell the difference at others.

This has been the case for several years now.

I've been able to tell them apart (although not as well as one once could) until this last update.  There was a difference in shade... muted from what it used to be, but still there.  That is gone now.  The thickness difference was also easier to see.  Google Maps is just an ugly sea of brownish yellow and green to my eyes with this last design.  The only upside I can think of to the new design is that one no longer needs to have their monitor brightness/contrast very precisely calibrated to see half the roads.

I've played around with my local area, which has been changed over and has a number of freeways (US 54-400 at both ends and K-254 near its west end) that become expressways or divided arterials.  There is indeed no longer a color distinction between freeways and non-freeways, but at zoom levels less than 16, breaks in control of access are indicated by outlining across the roadway that is more or less identical to the outlining used for freeway segments.  Most surface arterials continue to be shown as white.

Atlanta also seems to be similar.  I explored SR 400, which has its first at-grade intersection at SR 369 (Browns Bridge Road), and the outlining across the roadway is present there too.

As for consistency in what Google considers a freeway and non-freeway, I am not seeing much.  In the Wichita area, end of freeway for K-254 is shown at Rock Road (first at-grade intersection)--similar to SR 400 in Georgia--but east end of the Kellogg freeway (admittedly, still under construction with no clarity as to how K-Tag-only interchanges are to be handled) is shown at ramp terminals.  I don't know where Google is getting its information on limits of access control, but suspect it may not be collected on a consistent basis from state to state.

[jakeroot]

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.

It's not just "roads". We're coloring freeways and extremely important surface roads as yellow. It's not every surface road and freeway yellow. Important distinction.

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.

But, (A) even in Atlanta, there aren't that many yellow surface routes, and (B) those that are colored yellow, I'd argue are extremely important roads. Not necessarily for cross-region traffic, but important for the community in terms of how it connects areas not directly tied to freeways.

Looking at Salt Lake City, should Bangerter really have a different color than the 15 or 215 freeways? Should it change color every time it hits a signal? IMO, it is just as deserving of that yellow color as any other freeway in SLC. What exactly Google considers important enough for yellow surface routes, I couldn't say. That's probably a point of contention, I'll concede. But I still think this is the right approach.

As for consistency in what Google considers a freeway and non-freeway, I am not seeing much.  In the Wichita area, end of freeway for K-254 is shown at Rock Road (first at-grade intersection)--similar to SR 400 in Georgia--but east end of the Kellogg freeway (admittedly, still under construction with no clarity as to how K-Tag-only interchanges are to be handled) is shown at ramp terminals.  I don't know where Google is getting its information on limits of access control, but suspect it may not be collected on a consistent basis from state to state.

I would argue that this inconsistency is one of the key arguments against different colors for "freeways", since data quality can vary substantially from state to state. Never mind state to state differences in "what is a freeway". I feel that Google's attempts to find a middle ground have been hit and miss, and I feel that their new approach is better for users. Just my two cents.

[jakeroot]

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.

Still not a reason to get rid of the functionality.  And what does Google think people did with paper maps?  Functionality should never be removed by a product unless it's used by nobody (not "not many people", literally nobody) or is wholly redundant with other functionality (ie, the other functionality covers everything the old function could do just as well and with no loss of convenience or anything else, for anyone or any use case).

Paper maps often used the same color for many of the roads, with the variation being how the line appears on the map (thick vs thin, dashed vs solid, etc). Freeways in this Seattle map from 1970 (below) are shown as dual strokes. This is not at all unlike how Google Maps shows freeways today, with two adjacent strokes.

[

[hotdogPi]

jakeroot, look at the region bounded by I-81, I-90, I-87, and NY 17. Then look inside the Beltway in Maryland. Then between Miami and West Palm Beach. Some areas have WAY too many yellow roads.

[jakeroot]

jakeroot, look at the region bounded by I-81, I-90, I-87, and NY 17. Then look inside the Beltway in Maryland. Then between Miami and West Palm Beach. Some areas have WAY too many yellow roads.

It's very likely that the data Google is receiving for those areas meets their criteria for yellow. I couldn't tell you why this is.

At the very least, until Google refines their algorithm for what meets their standards for yellow (not super easy given the sheer number of data sources), freeways are still thicker, and do layer over surface routes. On this image, I can very clearly see which routes are "freeways":

[Scott5114]

But then take that view and compare it to a state DOT map at a similar scale and there's really no excuse for what Google's putting out–


I'll take the KDOT cartography every time, thanks. The only thing that Google Maps has going for it is its convenient zoomable interface (which OSM has too, so not a huge deal) and the integration of things like Street View. Cartographically, it's complete trash.

But I suspect that Google Maps development is being driven by the marketing department, not anyone with a GIS degree.

[kphoger]

But then take that view and compare it to a state DOT map at a similar scale and there's really no excuse for what Google's putting out–



I'll take the KDOT cartography every time, thanks. The only thing that Google Maps has going for it is its convenient zoomable interface (which OSM has too, so not a huge deal) and the integration of things like Street View. Cartographically, it's complete trash.

But I suspect that Google Maps development is being driven by the marketing department, not anyone with a GIS degree.

Why aren't you complaining that Kellogg and K-96 (freeways) are shown as the same color as K-254, K-15, S Broadway, and Southwest Blvd (not freeways)?

[US 89]

Looking at Salt Lake City, should Bangerter really have a different color than the 15 or 215 freeways? Should it change color every time it hits a signal? IMO, it is just as deserving of that yellow color as any other freeway in SLC. What exactly Google considers important enough for yellow surface routes, I couldn't say. That's problem a point of contention, I'll concede. But I still think this is the right approach.

OK, Bangerter is maybe fine as it is, but it absolutely should not be a different color than any of the Mountain View Corridor (SR 85) - which Google doesn't even show as an arterial. And some surface streets are randomly upgraded - there's barely any difference between 126th South or 114th South (which are yellow) and 106th South or 90th South (which are not). Those are all just urban arterials that don't really resemble anything more than a semi-expressway at best. State Street really shouldn't be yellow if Redwood, 7th East, and Van Winkle (an expressway!) can't be as well. And so on.

Overall, my number one issue is that it's totally random what they decide should and shouldn't be worthy of a yellow road - and it has a massive impact on the user end. And the concept of what gets upgraded to yellow seems to be extremely inconsistent between urban areas (places like SLC have very little yellow surface road mileage, while places like Denver and Atlanta have significantly more). Compare Candler Road near Atlanta (a yellow road) with Pioneer Crossing near Salt Lake (not a yellow road). I don't get it.

There needs to be a better way to pick apart freeways, expressways, larger urban arterials, and smaller urban connecting routes on a map that's consistent from city to city. I don't know the answer to that question (though I'd guess it probably involves more colors for different grades of road). But whatever it is, Google is getting farther and farther from it.

[Scott5114]

But then take that view and compare it to a state DOT map at a similar scale and there's really no excuse for what Google's putting out–



I'll take the KDOT cartography every time, thanks. The only thing that Google Maps has going for it is its convenient zoomable interface (which OSM has too, so not a huge deal) and the integration of things like Street View. Cartographically, it's complete trash.

But I suspect that Google Maps development is being driven by the marketing department, not anyone with a GIS degree.

Why aren't you complaining that Kellogg and K-96 (freeways) are shown as the same color as K-254, K-15, S Broadway, and Southwest Blvd (not freeways)?

Older KDOT maps had a special red-and-black line for non-Interstate freeways. And I'm not sure why they stopped using it. But the current map is still way better than Google Maps.

[jakeroot]

Overall, my number one issue is that it's totally random what they decide should and shouldn't be worthy of a yellow road - and it has a massive impact on the user end.

Without quoting everything: I actually agree with most of what you're saying. There are clear inconsistencies that need to be tied up at some point. Although these issues with yellow vs non yellow have existed for some time. It just seems to be a bigger issue now that freeways are the same color (although they are not the same thickness and always show above surface roads -- an important point).

But as to your quote: I simply don't agree that the roads that are colored yellow vs non yellow are truly having a "massive impact" on those using Google Maps. There are inconsistencies between regions, but most people are only looking at their city, so that's not really a problem. And those that are looking at their city, are we really supposed to believe that the user is somehow having only half an experience thanks to too many yellow surface roads? Or that not being able to immediately recognize freeways is somehow ruining the experience?

No one here seems to recognize the purpose of Google Maps relative to something like OSM: most using Google Maps aren't just farting around looking at roads and complaining about colors. They're actually using the service to locate businesses, find directions, or mark stuff or whatever. These things have been made much faster and easier with recent updates. OSM is much better for "looking at roads" because of their classification system (which, true to real life, seems to vary from state to state -- don't tell me OSM is perfect) but without Street View, it's only half a service in my opinion.

[kphoger]

But the current map is still way better than Google Maps.

Other than little squares, how can you tell a freeway apart from a non-freeway on that map?  That's the whole problem people are having with Google Maps right now.

Broadway south of 47th has stoplights and doesn't even have a median–yet it's drawn the same color as Kellogg, which is a six-lane divided freeway.  That's not "way better than Google Maps".

[kphoger]

While I agree that the colors of freeway and non-freeway are hard to tell apart, I should point out that they aren't the exact same color.  For example, here I've illustrated where you can tell one color changes to the other.  (One of them is obscured by words.)

[kphoger]

At this point, Google won't let me go back to the old design, even by loading it in fresh incognito sessions multiple times until I get what I want (I tried over a dozen times this morning).  With that, I will no longer be able to use Google exclusively anymore. 

Have you tried google.com/mymaps with the base map called 'Map'?  For me, at least, that still gives me the previous rendering.  Of course, it's only good for looking at, not for directions or anything.

[Ben114]

There's only one thing that bugs me with the redesign. When in the "traffic" view, the new orange border for freeways is way too similar to the orange traffic color.

[jakeroot]

While I agree that the colors of freeway and non-freeway are hard to tell apart, I should point out that they aren't the exact same color.  For example, here I've illustrated where you can tell one color changes to the other.  (One of them is obscured by words.)

This is one point that is not getting enough attention. I can still tell them apart, even being the same color. The lines are not exactly the same: freeways are thicker, and layer above surface routes. They also have heavier borders when zoomed out.

I'm not even going to put an arrow on which are the freeways in these images. It's still that obvious to me. Subtle compared to making them like bright blue, but cartography is deeper than just a rainbow of colors.

[Scott5114]

Fine, then. I didn't ever want to have to do this. But it's come to this.
ODOT isn't the worst at something.



Google is the ODOT of cartography. Yeah, I said it. Cause ODOT is actually better than Google at cartography. Pathetic that I can say that, but here we are.

Those Interstate shields are ugly as shit, and putting two numbers in one shield on duplexes is the bane of my existence. And I will never understand the decision to make two-lane roads be blue. But you know what? As ugly as the ODOT map is, it's actually easy to tell apart what type of road is what. So yeah, on this one, I like the organization that gave us the Craig County sign better than Google.

[jakeroot]

^^^^
No offence: that is just not a good map unless the point of the map was to show freeways and expressways.

There is other stuff on the map, but it's hidden away in the background thanks to very distracting freeway lines.

Google Maps HAS to strike a balance between everything, since it's way more than a digital road atlas.

[Scott5114]

Keep in mind that's also a PNG screenshot of a PDF, so there is aliasing.

It is a good map because the freeway lines are "distracting". There is a clear hierarchy of importance between the map symbols, and the eye is drawn to the most important ones. This is how maps are supposed to work. "Oklahoma City" is set with the biggest type because it is the most important city. Newcastle is much smaller because it's a smaller and unimportant city. That's not "hiding it away", it's de-emphasizing it to get it out of the way so that the more prominent features stick out better.

Of course, with the way things are going, in 2022 Google Maps is going to just display a plain grey square when you open it and someone on here will be like "I love the new Google Maps! It's so convenient that when I touch the map, the phone reads reviews for local plumbing businesses at full volume without any way of stopping it!"

[jakeroot]

It is a good map because the freeway lines are "distracting". There is a clear hierarchy of importance between the map symbols, and the eye is drawn to the most important ones. This is how maps are supposed to work. "Oklahoma City" is set with the biggest type because it is the mos

But not all maps are about viewing roads, Scott. My eyes are drawn to the freeways, and everything else drifts into the background. That is brilliant for a map of road networks, but not for a map that is also meant to show dozens of other things. That map from ODOT is about viewing roads; well done them. Google Maps is more than that. Google Maps will never look like that map, because Google Maps is more than just roads.

[Scott5114]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's relevant to the underlying issue here. If all the roads had to be the same shade of orange because ferries were using blue lines, and transit was using red lines, and walking paths were using purple–okay, then you'd have a point. But they're not. A typical video card can show 16,777,216 (256³) colors, so why must everything be orange?

Besides, if you have that many competing use cases, the better thing to do would be to create different tilesets that you can switch to, so that the user can choose what is important to them. It'd be really neat if you could press a Transit button and have all of NYC's subway lines mapped out in glorious detail, with only the most major streets shown to provide context of where they connect. Or a Bike button where roads with bike lanes are the big, bold ones and everything else falls away. (This would not be terribly difficult to do with GIS software. It would be processor intensive to initially render the tiles, but it would be an entirely automated process.)

But the most common use case for Google Maps is road transportation. This was an actual issue for me when I was in Spearman, Texas this past Saturday and was trying to figure out how to get from to FM 759 from the gas station that I was at. It was harder than it needed to be because while the line for FM 759 is slightly thicker than the others, it's the same shade of white as everything else in town. My solution was actually to get out of the car and walk around the gas station lot until I could spot a FM 759 sign.

I don't have to give them points for homogenizing their legend because they are trying to put too many things on the map. That just means that instead of doing one thing well, they are choosing to do a lot of things poorly.

[hotdogPi]

It'd be really neat if you could press a Transit button and have all of NYC's subway lines mapped out in glorious detail, with only the most major streets shown to provide context of where they connect.

Apple Maps actually does this.

[vdeane]

I think it's interesting that the people pushing "you can tell the freeways from the arterials just fine" always use pictures from zoom levels where the difference is at is maximum.  Still, that doesn't deny that it's much harder than it was (which was itself harder than it was before that).  And I would dispute the idea that it's impossible to both show the roads well and show everything else.  I mean, what actual problem does the new rendering solve?  It strikes me as a gimmick that doesn't really add functionality (are people looking for accurate features really using map view instead of satellite?) - and I don't think the roads need to be so homogeneous to make it work, either.

In any case, we now have a new issue.  Google has changed how they calculate drive times.  While it will help people doing drives in the near term, what if you're planning a trip for well into the future, once things go back to normal?  And after that, the new system still won't deal well with things like seasonal variation.  Google is sacrificing planning accuracy for immediate gains - and honestly, is a drive that goes faster than planned a problem?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/03/covid-19-forced-google-maps-to-change-how-it-predicts-traffic.html