Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[Kulerage]

They should've just kept how it was c. 2018, where every road was orange, but freeways were a noticeably more red orange. Minimal change to how it is now, wouldn't hurt anyone.

[kphoger]

it's much harder than it was (which was itself harder than it was before that) ... I mean, what actual problem does the new rendering solve?

This is most certainly true.  I really do wonder why Google chose to make the colors more similar.  We can debate whether they're still decently easy to distinguish or not, but the fact remains that there was apparently a conscious decision to make them more similar.  What could possibly have prompted that decision?

And I would dispute the idea that it's impossible to both show the roads well and show everything else ... and I don't think the roads need to be so homogeneous to make it work, either.

This is also true.  I can concede that, several years ago, it was kind of difficult to pick businesses out on the map;  but, now, it's quite difficult to pick city streets out at close zoom levels–to the point that I sometimes wonder if a gap between businesses is a street or just a parking lot or just some vacant space.  There has to be a good middle ground, and I think this latest iteration has overshot the mark.

[J N Winkler]

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?

I'm not sure how much that adjustment will actually add to our current troubles:  broken is broken.  Google Maps will not give accurate drive times (or even routings) for itineraries that include a closure that will be lifted by the time the trip is undertaken, times quoted assume immediate departure since there is no way to specify a planned time for the trip, etc.

[kphoger]

I'm not sure how much that adjustment will actually add to our current troubles:  broken is broken.  Google Maps will not give accurate drive times (or even routings) for itineraries that include a closure that will be lifted by the time the trip is undertaken, times quoted assume immediate departure since there is no way to specify a planned time for the trip, etc.

But how difficult would it be to add this?

[J N Winkler]

But how difficult would it be to add this?

I see your point--I hadn't actually realized that those options (as well as the ability to select departure time) had been added.  Has anything been done about the fact speeders are in the mix for averaging journey times?

[kphoger]

Has anything been done about the fact speeders are in the mix for averaging journey times?

I don't see that as a problem.  I figure Google Maps gives me the average travel time of people who use the roads.  If I'm slower than the prevailing speed, then I should add time;  if I'm faster than the prevailing speed, then I should subtract time.

[vdeane]

But how much time?  That's the thing - if your speed doesn't average out to the prevailing speed of traffic, it gets hard to estimate.  I've flirted with the idea of driving the speed limit instead of 5-7 over, but I'm stopped by two things every time I think of it:
-The unreasonably low freeway speed limits in the northeast (along with some surface roads, such as the Mid-Hudson Bridge)
-The fact that my currently spot-on Google Maps drive times would become significantly underestimated

IMO and overestimated time is far better than an underestimated time.



Meanwhile on the cartographic side, I've noticed something interesting: the new style looks much, much better on my laptop (Vista - the superhero, not the operating system) than my desktop (Antares).  At the zoom levels where it's possible to differentiate freeways and arterials due to width, it is far, far easier to do so on Vista than Antares.  I'm not sure why - they both run the Cinnamon edition of Linux Mint 20 Ulyana, but Vista has a much higher DPI (resulting in a screen area that's at least 50% larger, even though the physical screen size is smaller).  Maybe it's the video cards (Antares uses a Nvidia card with proprietary drivers, though such doesn't increase the available screen resolution; Vista uses an integrated Intel card that has no need of proprietary drivers).  Maybe it's the ASUS monitor (which isn't that old, but maybe it's not as good as I thought).  Or maybe it's the Wretch.  I don't know.  Either way, a lot of design decisions (on a lot of websites - not just Google Maps) make a lot more sense on Vista's higher-DPI display.

One thing I don't like on either computer is how the ability to differentiate the two goes away as one zooms in, eventually going away entirely.

[CoreySamson]

Another new thing I spotted on Google Maps today: they're now marking where traffic lights are if you zoom in pretty close.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4822412,-95.4002892,65m/data=!3m1!1e3

I'm not too sure what I think about this. On one hand it's cool to see where they are without having to use street view, but on the other hand I can see it getting cluttered. What will they add next, stop signs?

[STLmapboy]

Another new thing I spotted on Google Maps today: they're now marking where traffic lights are if you zoom in pretty close.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4822412,-95.4002892,65m/data=!3m1!1e3

I'm not too sure what I think about this. On one hand it's cool to see where they are without having to use street view, but on the other hand I can see it getting cluttered. What will they add next, stop signs?

I've already noticed the light feature; it works for some beacons also imo. It's not really helpful since you have to zoom in pretty close to see them; if you could toggle a light feature on/off and see them when zoomed out further than I (a big traffic signal geek) would be really interested.

[Katavia]

Pictured: Google Maps gets drunk and thinks NC 3 is also SR 1609.

Freeway colors and importance hierarchies are one thing, but I would think El Goog could at least get a route number straight? Clicking around on the main map correctly returns "NC 3". Street View also calls it "State Rd 1609", despite the fact that SR 1609 isn't assigned to any street in Cabarrus County whatsoever.

https://goo.gl/maps/y53aWLxfEMocddU79

[Plutonic Panda]

In case anyone didn't know and wants to know, here is how you can blur out your home on street view:

1. Go to Google Maps and enter your home address

2. Enter into Street View mode by dragging the small yellow human-shaped icon, found in the bottom-right corner of the screen, onto the map in front of your house

3. With your house in view, click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right corner of the screen

4. Center the red box on your home, and select "My home" in the "Request blurring" field

https://mashable.com/article/how-to-blur-your-house-on-google-street-view/

[hotdogPi]

In case anyone didn't know and wants to know, here is how you can blur out your home on street view:

1. Go to Google Maps and enter your home address

2. Enter into Street View mode by dragging the small yellow human-shaped icon, found in the bottom-right corner of the screen, onto the map in front of your house

3. With your house in view, click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right corner of the screen

4. Center the red box on your home, and select "My home" in the "Request blurring" field

https://mashable.com/article/how-to-blur-your-house-on-google-street-view/

Can I blur out Yankee Stadium in this way?

[I-55]

In case anyone didn't know and wants to know, here is how you can blur out your home on street view:

1. Go to Google Maps and enter your home address

2. Enter into Street View mode by dragging the small yellow human-shaped icon, found in the bottom-right corner of the screen, onto the map in front of your house

3. With your house in view, click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right corner of the screen

4. Center the red box on your home, and select "My home" in the "Request blurring" field

https://mashable.com/article/how-to-blur-your-house-on-google-street-view/

Can I blur out Yankee Stadium in this way?

If the guy from Chicago can reroute all of UPS's mail to his apartment, I think blurring a landmark on Google Maps shouldn't be a problem. I don't even think anyone would look twice.

[Scott5114]

In case anyone didn't know and wants to know, here is how you can blur out your home on street view:

Why would you want to, though? If you could go by my house on GSV now (it's actually inexplicably never been mapped) it's just an unremarkable house. If there's a big honking blur there, that attracts attention.

Besides, in my county (and most counties in Oklahoma) you can get photos of houses along with the full names of their owners off the county assessor's website.

[Plutonic Panda]

In case anyone didn't know and wants to know, here is how you can blur out your home on street view:

Why would you want to, though? If you could go by my house on GSV now (it's actually inexplicably never been mapped) it's just an unremarkable house. If there's a big honking blur there, that attracts attention.

Besides, in my county (and most counties in Oklahoma) you can get photos of houses along with the full names of their owners off the county assessor's website.

I suppose the same reason people live in gated communities. If someone really wants to get in they'll get in. Just an extra layer of security. Me personally, I'm not blurring out my house as I don't see the point.

[Scott5114]

Except I don't think it's even a security measure. It's more like hanging a neon sign in your window that says "NOTHING TO SEE HERE".

Besides, I'd be more concerned with satellite view than Street View. Street View can't see anything that someone driving by couldn't see, whereas satellite view can see into fenced-off areas.

[jakeroot]

I make a point of visiting homes that have been blurred to see what the hell is so fishy.

[Mr. Matté]

What I hate about the blurring sometimes is that if someone requests a blur, the only GSV imagery available is the shitty 2007-2009 passbys but nothing from 2013-onward, even if the road was covered more recently. Back when Geoguessr worked well (before all the adblocker blockers and pay accounts), I saw a pretty major road that had the crappy imagery because there was one car on the road that had requested a blur. Sure enough, I went back to Google Maps itself and followed that road, crappy imagery throughout the road until the one blurry car drove onto/off of it, then great imagery again.

In typing the last words of that previous sentence, I wonder if in the future, people will request blurs on their house because they had something incendiary hanging off their front porch when GSV drove by, like say Ronald Thump paraphernalia...

[vdeane]

I noticed something interesting: the new Google Maps symbology has brought back the distinction between toll roads and free roads for freeways.  Unfortunately, this distinction only exists when zoomed in closely.  Interestingly, freeways and arterials handle it oppositely - freeways become more wispy, while arterials have darker outlines.

[kkt]

I make a point of visiting homes that have been blurred to see what the hell is so fishy.

Ever find anything interesting?  Retired celebrities?  People on the sex offender list?

[jakeroot]

I make a point of visiting homes that have been blurred to see what the hell is so fishy.

Ever find anything interesting?  Retired celebrities?  People on the sex offender list?

Old woman chasing me with a tire iron!

Actually never seen anything special. Which only makes me more curious as to what they think they're hiding by blurring their home. It's not like it's actually blurred in real life.

[STLmapboy]

Newest Street View right now that I can find is June 2020, and some of the user-submitted content is...not great.

[briantroutman]

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed that Google Maps now uses a light green background to denote what assumably are undeveloped or rural areas (not to be confused with the slightly darker green used for designated parks and forest areas). Developed or urban areas retain a gray background unless color coded for another purpose. But I've noticed some unusual inconsistencies (and downright inaccuracies) in how the gray/green colors are applied, and I'm wondering if anyone here knows what factors Google uses in determining what's urban vs. rural.

For example, the entirety of the City of Philadelphia is expectably color-coded as urban, and as you progress westward, so are all of the inner-ring suburbs inside of I-476 as well as the Borough of Media. Then from there, the background changes to green along a line that's precisely congruent with the eastern border of Middletown Township.



Yet at the center, there's a gray area that corresponds to the CDP of Lima, PA. This despite the fact that the Lima CDP (arguably useless and out-of-date) includes undeveloped forested areas while other nearby developed areas (particularly along US 1) are color-coded green on Google Maps.



Elsewhere across the state:

The Borough of New Morgan (I was unaware of its existence until just now–population 71 and a landfill) is "urban", but the much better known Morgantown, with its commercial, industrial, and residential areas, is "rural".



A large region of heavily developed territory just west of the City of Allentown is "rural" .


Overall, whatever system Google is using seems to place a great deal of importance on a municipality being a borough or city vs. a township (at least in Pennsylvania), as a great number of the gray "urban"  patches in the middle of rural nowhere tend to correspond with de-populated former towns that never relinquished their borough status. Or Disney-esque sham boroughs intended to circumvent legitimate governmental oversight, taxation, and control (SNPJ, Valley-Hi).

It also seems to place a great deal of importance on CDPs in determining urbanity, though not universally. Morgantown is a CDP yet still "rural"  according to Google Maps. So, too, are many of the CDP's west of Allentown (Wescosville, Dorneyville, etc.).

[jakeroot]

First of all, great screenshots. Definitely the highest quality I've ever seen posted here. At least for those that are fans of drop shadows!

As to your point about inconsistencies: I mentioned this a while back as one of the main issues with the update:

• 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.

As someone who works with GIS and city boundaries more than frequently, I knew immediately that Google was not using cities to determine the grey areas. At least because in my area, I know the rough boundaries for most census-designated places, and not encompassed grey areas.

Whatever data they're using (it must be shapefiles from somewhere?), it must be fairly obscure, and they're mapping things either grey or green (or tan) depending on the outcome of the equation. I still have another year of GIS courses before I'm done, but I think I'll be able to get a solid answer once school starts back up and I can speak to my GIS professor about the inconsistencies on Google Maps.

For the record: while checking through shapefiles on the Pierce County, WA GIS data hub, I was running through all of the different boundary shapefiles. The first one that actually more-or-less lined up was "sheriff patrol blocks" but even those had inconsistencies. Google Maps has marked the WA-512 freeway as a border between grey and green in the Summit, WA area as an example, and the sheriff patrol blocks are one of the few things that have that freeway as a boundary.

[thenetwork]

My work has me using a tracking/routing app that uses Wayz. 

Not a bad GPS app, but the Wayz app has a tendancy of popping up random I-65 icons on both other numb3red highways and even on railroad tracks!

And I live out in Colorado!!!