Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[vdeane]

AB 2 is noticeable different on the expressway portion than the freeway portion: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1310541,-113.1247283,7.71z

The roads between US 2 and the border should be showing up as noticeably thinner: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4925746,-104.7816046,8.21z

[jakeroot]

Ahh yes, I see now.

Freeways were always more visible to me because the double strokes just made them easier to see at a smaller scale, but they do seem to have adopted some extra weights for some roads.

[Michael]

Around mid-September, Google Maps got even more laggy than it had been over the past several months before.  Before mid-September, it was mostly Street View that would cause CPU spikes, but then panning and zooming the map started causing CPU spikes as well.  My CPU fan quickly sounded like a jet engine.  The computer I'm using was 13 years old (it recently turned 14), so I'm not expecting perfection, but the fact that Maps used to work fine, even after the new Maps was forced is annoying.  It got to the point where it became click, wait, click, wait and so on.  Just out of curiosity, I checked MapQuest, and that preforms better than Google Maps now!  I haven't noticed the CPU spikes lately, but I still have to deal with the click and wait if I don't use my iframe embed bookmarklet.

The CPU spikes occurred in my old version of Chrome and in Slimjet (a fork of Chrome that backports Chrome 50 and later to Windows XP).  I tried a Malwarebytes scan just in case I got something, and it was fine.  I also tried a VM with the same old version of Chrome as I normally use, and I got CPU spikes there too.  Also in mid-September, I noticed higher than normal CPU spikes on YouTube and even Google search was being glitchy.  I started looking at web frameworks to see if there was an update with one that could be causing my issues, and I found that Angular's past few releases correspond to the times I noticed that my CPU started spiking.  Since Angular is developed by Google and my issues are with Google sites, I suspect it's Angular causing the issues.  If I can find another hard drive, I'll have to put it in my computer and install the demo of Windows 10 to see what happens.  I'd be interested to see what happens with the same hardware but a newer OS with both my current browsers, and newer versions.

An additional annoyance is that since Google Maps is borderline unusable for me now, I haven't been able to enjoy the forum as much.  I like to look around the area of a Maps or Street View link that's posted, and that's basically impossible to do now.  It's gotten a bit better recently in my old version of Chrome, but the minimap is glitchy and I can't use the scroll wheel.  Using Slimjet fixes these issues, but Street View is horribly slow.

Here's a recent change I like: House numbers show up on the map when I'm zoomed in all the way.  I started noticing this about a month ago.  Obviously, you can right click a building to get its address, but it's easier with the numbers already on the map.

I've also finally figured out how to hide the business icons in Street View.  I used this filter in my ad blocker:

Code Select Expand

https://maps.gstatic.com/mapfiles/annotations/*

[CtrlAltDel]

I've also finally figured out how to hide the business icons in Street View.  I used this filter in my ad blocker:

Code Select Expand

https://maps.gstatic.com/mapfiles/annotations/*

Thanks! That is something that I've wanted for some time now.

[bm7]

I've noticed that now in some cities (so far I've only seen it in New York City, San Francisco, and London) the roads have much more detail when you zoom in. The width and shape of the roads is more accurate, and it shows exactly where crosswalks and medians are.

Also, many major landmarks now have their own depictions instead of the standard icons.

[Bruce]

A somewhat recent update added more visible boundaries for Indian/Native American reservations and sovereign nations.

For example, here's the Puyallup Reservation:

[Scott5114]

I'm not sure I'm seeing it. Is it the grey boundary to the south and west of Waller?

[Bruce]

I'm not sure I'm seeing it. Is it the grey boundary to the south and west of Waller?

Yes, and it continues around to the northeast of Fife Heights and to Dash Point.

[Scott5114]

That's not great symbology–without being told I would have never guessed it was a tribal reservation, and wasn't even sure it was meant to be a polygonal area and not, like, a few prominent railroads or something that intersected.

[Bruce]

That's not great symbology–without being told I would have never guessed it was a tribal reservation, and wasn't even sure it was meant to be a polygonal area and not, like, a few prominent railroads or something that intersected.

The previous version had no boundaries, and the version before that had a brown-tan color for them. I'm not sure which I prefer at this point.

[CtrlAltDel]

That's not great symbology–without being told I would have never guessed it was a tribal reservation, and wasn't even sure it was meant to be a polygonal area and not, like, a few prominent railroads or something that intersected.

One of the things that's always bothered me about Google Maps is that there is no legend.

[CtrlAltDel]

Here's a recent change I like: House numbers show up on the map when I'm zoomed in all the way.  I started noticing this about a month ago.  Obviously, you can right click a building to get its address, but it's easier with the numbers already on the map.

I just noticed that today. It can be a bit glitchy, though, as seen where I-290 meets I-294 in the Chicago area:



(Maybe they're using old plats, from before the highways were constructed?)

[jakeroot]

That's not great symbology–without being told I would have never guessed it was a tribal reservation, and wasn't even sure it was meant to be a polygonal area and not, like, a few prominent railroads or something that intersected.

If you zoom in another click, the name pops up in the traditional all-caps style used to label things like this:



(the black box is hiding my location since I'd rather not give away my exact address).

One of the things that's always bothered me about Google Maps is that there is no legend.

In my GIS program, we've discussed at-length how services like Google Maps differs from traditional maps. One of the major ways is a legend, as you mention. Among other things like map-maker information or a title.

But, we also discussed how Google Maps is, in many ways, intentionally different from those earlier services (like paper maps). For example, you really don't need a legend because, well, (A) there's too much on the map to have a reasonably-compact legend, and (B) due to 'A', you can simply click on the features you want to know more about.

[J N Winkler]

Maybe they're using old plats, from before the highways were constructed?

I suspect the parcels have been left on the books following their acquisition as ROW for the highway since it would be a worthless expense to consolidate them.

[CtrlAltDel]

For example, you really don't need a legend because, well, (A) there's too much on the map to have a reasonably-compact legend, and (B) due to 'A', you can simply click on the features you want to know more about.

It doesn't really work, though, does it? I mean, no one knows exactly what a yellow road, for example, is supposed to be as opposed to a white or gray one, and you can't click on any of them to find out either. You also can't click on the forest green or the desert beige or whatever else. You're just supposed to know, and that's not a feature, that's the problem.

Also, there's really no need for the legend to be on the map itself. It can be hidden under an icon until clicked on.

[jakeroot]

For example, you really don't need a legend because, well, (A) there's too much on the map to have a reasonably-compact legend, and (B) due to 'A', you can simply click on the features you want to know more about.

It doesn't really work, though, does it? I mean, no one knows exactly what a yellow road, for example, is supposed to be as opposed to a white or gray one, and you can't click on any of them to find out either. You also can't click on the forest green or the desert beige or whatever else. You're just supposed to know, and that's not a feature, that's the problem.

Also, there's really no need for the legend to be on the map itself. It can be hidden under an icon until clicked on.

It is entirely reasonable to exclude a legend from a map if the map itself does a good enough job labelling its contents (through decent symbology). 90% of the stuff on the map is labelled at various zoom levels. The only things that aren't always labelled are ground colors, and those are usually easy enough to interpret on your own: pink for hospitals, beige for deserts, yellow-ish for business clusters, etc (these things can't always be effectively labelled).

Roads are always labelled, so I'm not sure your point. Most users don't need to know the exact legal definition of the road in question, and Google may not even have that information anyways. They could have a legend for roads, but each color is going to show a dozen different possibilities. The current Google Maps relies more on stroke width to help drivers interpret roadway importance; having a legend for that is simply not necessary, as most people know that the thicker strokes are more important roads.

[jakeroot]

Unpopular opinion:

Why does Google Maps need to do everything? Why does it have to excel at everything?

Aren't there some things that it doesn't have to do?

And before anyone mentions it: just because its important to you, doesn't mean its important to everyone. And I would be inclined to assume Google knows their customer base better than we do.

[CtrlAltDel]

It is entirely reasonable to exclude a legend from a map if the map itself does a good enough job labelling its contents (through decent symbology).

This is precisely what we're disagreeing on, yes.

The only things that aren't always labelled are ground colors, and those are usually easy enough to interpret on your own: pink for hospitals, beige for deserts, yellow-ish for business clusters, etc (these things can't always be effectively labelled).

All of which is perfect information for a legend.

Most users don't need to know the exact legal definition of the road in question, and Google may not even have that information anyways.

This is something of a red herring. I'm not necessarily interested in the legal definition of the road, I'm interested in the criteria behind its labeling on Google Maps. Google certainly has that information.

They could have a legend for roads, but each color is going to show a dozen different possibilities. The current Google Maps relies more on stroke width to help drivers interpret roadway importance; having a legend for that is simply not necessary, as most people know that the thicker strokes are more important roads.

Thicker roads are more important, how? What it is that distinguishes the various thicknesses and colors of roads is not at all clear in the present situation, so much so that it's been argued time and again on this forum. A legend would clear this up.

[jakeroot]

It is entirely reasonable to exclude a legend from a map if the map itself does a good enough job labelling its contents (through decent symbology).

This is precisely what we're disagreeing on, yes.

You honestly think Google does a bad job labelling? Very well. To each their own.

The only things that aren't always labelled are ground colors, and those are usually easy enough to interpret on your own: pink for hospitals, beige for deserts, yellow-ish for business clusters, etc (these things can't always be effectively labelled).

All of which is perfect information for a legend.

So we should create legend to label things that most users already understand? Legends are not a requirement for a map. I don't need a legend to tell me "beige = desert".

Most users don't need to know the exact legal definition of the road in question, and Google may not even have that information anyways.

This is something of a red herring. I'm not necessarily interested in the legal definition of the road, I'm interested in the criteria behind its labeling on Google Maps. Google certainly has that information.

Then you should use OSM. They are the only digital mapping service that offers that (so far as I know). Why should Google offer this? You're telling me what you want, but not why you want it, nor even why it would be helpful.

The answers you seek may best be handled by directly reaching out to Google. My grandma doesn't need this information to find her way to Target.

They could have a legend for roads, but each color is going to show a dozen different possibilities. The current Google Maps relies more on stroke width to help drivers interpret roadway importance; having a legend for that is simply not necessary, as most people know that the thicker strokes are more important roads.

Thicker roads are more important, how? What it is that distinguishes the various thicknesses and colors of roads is not at all clear in the present situation, so much so that it's been argued time and again on this forum. A legend would clear this up.

The solution you seek is not a legend but a better color scheme. I'm not going to argue further about Google Maps' color scheme, as it has (indeed) already been argued at-length in this thread.

[BrianP]

Unpopular opinion:

Why does Google Maps need to do everything? Why does it have to excel at everything?

Aren't there some things that it doesn't have to do?

And before anyone mentions it: just because its important to you, doesn't mean its important to everyone. And I would be inclined to assume Google knows their customer base better than we do.

Yeah.  They realize that their customers are mostly just looking for destinations.  The customer enters the address or looks on the map for their destination.  They are not really interested in roads on the map for navigation.  They just ask google to navigate for them.  So in that context the roads are on the map to help find destinations. 

For example, you may be looking for the stadiums in Baltimore.  But you don't know where they are.  But you remember using I-395 to get there.  So you look for I-395 on the map.  And when you find that you look in the vicinity for the stadiums.  Then select a stadium and ask google to navigate you there.

Granted googling Camden Yards address would be easier if you know the name.

[CtrlAltDel]

You honestly think Google does a bad job labelling? Very well. To each their own.

At times, the map is unclear. This is why those arguments have arisen.

Legends are not a requirement for a map.

For a good map, for a complete map, I would say they are.

Then you should use OSM.

This thread is not about OSM.

The answers you seek may best be handled by directly reaching out to Google.

If no one knows these answers, then it clearly seems that a legend would be useful.

The solution you seek is not a legend but a better color scheme. I'm not going to argue further about Google Maps' color scheme, as it has (indeed) already been argued at-length in this thread.

I'm not sure why a legend would not help here.

[CtrlAltDel]

On a different note, I don't think I've ever seen stitching off by quite so much before. There's no freeway within even a mile of there:

[jakeroot]

At times, the map is unclear. This is why those arguments have arisen.

How, specifically, are they unclear? Not being labelled does not make them unclear. That's the art of symbology, frankly.

For a good map, for a complete map, I would say [legends are required].

My professors have taught me otherwise; nearby schools also agree. Legends are not a requirement if the symbology is clear enough. Has it not occurred to you why digital maps so rarely include legends? OSM (as I'll mention below) is an example of one with a legend, but OSM has many different colors that Google Maps does not have, making a legend rather helpful as a result.

This thread is not about OSM.

Correct, it is about a mapping application for which its primary usage is not necessarily what you are asking of it.

I would point you to my standalone post above: Google Maps does not have to do everything. There are other mapping services that offer what you are looking for.

If no one knows these answers, then it clearly seems that a legend would be useful.

The solution you seek is not a legend but a better color scheme. I'm not going to argue further about Google Maps' color scheme, as it has (indeed) already been argued at-length in this thread.

I'm not sure why a legend would not help here.

There are white and yellow roads. Great. We could put that in a legend, but what are they labelled? Even OSM keeps it as simple as either "motorway" or "main road".

Understanding why each road is symbolized the way it is does not necessarily help the end-user. It's clearly a complex process and likely there is no real answer for all situations. You seem to want something but I don't know if you truly understand the complexity behind your request.

[CtrlAltDel]

Overall, in my view, a legend is important to maps for reasons of clarity, thoroughness, and consistency, and my responses to your comments are largely aimed at pointing out that you ignore or otherwise dismiss the ambiguities, and omissions, and aberrations that arise here and there with Google Maps. In seems then that your understanding of what makes a good map tolerates more uncertainty than mine does. With that in mind, I don't think there's any reason to go through your points one by one, since I would largely be repeating what I've already said.

[empirestate]

I've noticed that now in some cities (so far I've only seen it in New York City, San Francisco, and London) the roads have much more detail when you zoom in. The width and shape of the roads is more accurate, and it shows exactly where crosswalks and medians are.

That's one of the newly-announced features, indeed...but I don't see it yet on my end. Can you share a screenshot or two?