Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[Scott5114]

I really don't have the time to argue about this anymore. So let me summarize the situation:

- I have asked at least a couple times for someone to draw up a conceptual legend for Google Maps. Nothing so far.

Well, starting with the 2007 Kansas DOT legend (which is the same as the 2005 that I posted above, but with the relief shading eliminated, because it was causing red-green colorblindness problems) would be a solid starting point. Set the background color to a warm grey. For urban areas at higher zoom levels, use four different shades of the same color (probably cool greys, but yellows also work surprisingly well) to make adjacent municipalities distinguishable. Mark park areas in green, water in blue, military areas in pink, tribal areas in tan.

This isn't a complete treatment, but Google isn't paying me to do it, so doing spec work for them, where there is zero chance they'll actually listen to any suggestions, doesn't seem like a particularly good use of my time.

Google doesn't even have to implement the entire legend, but just something like marking freeways, tollways, and primary arterials as different colors, rather than all of them being various shades of the same color, would be a huge step up. There are no uses of red, green, or violet lines anywhere on the map.

[kphoger]

- I have asked at least a couple times for someone to draw up a conceptual legend for Google Maps. Nothing so far.

You have to know what the symbols and colors represent in order to make a legend mock-up.  Considering that we keep finding exceptions to what we can only guess are the rules, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect us to produce one.

Example:  Beige and green swaths of land in my neck of the woods seem to be randomly assigned.  The only vague distinction I can make in real life is that, in areas marked by green, the farm fields tend to be slightly more verdant when seen in satellite view than those marked in beige.  But that's all dependent on the time of year the satellite imagery was taken.  I can plop the GSV pegman down in a beige section and see fields in every direction covered in green.  Considering that the green/beige color contrast is the most obvious part of the map, I'd say defining those colors would be Priority One in designing a legend for this area.  Yet I don't even know what they're supposed to represent.  Color of the ground cover?  Agriculture?  Vegetation?

Example:  What are white-colored roads?  I might assume they should perhaps be labeled "minor roads".  Yet right now I'm thinking of a multi-lane divided stretch of US-90 with an AADT over 8000 that's colored white–in the vicinity of two-lane US and state routes with less than half that AADT that are colored yellow.  In Guatemala, I can think of gravel roads colored yellow in the vicinity of paved roads colored white;  almost every national route is colored yellow, yet I can think of at least one counterexample.  How do you expect me to make a legend mock-up for road types, if I can't even figure out what criteria Google uses to differentiate them?

I have seen virtually no precedent of a legend in digital maps as, by and large, digital maps and paper maps are quite distantly related.

How do you figure they're "distantly related"?  I'd say the precedent is paper maps.

Also, before internet maps, I remember using CD-ROM mapping software.  I can't recall if those programs had a legend.  Does anyone on here remember?  If they did, then those would be the true precursors of Google Maps.

[J N Winkler]

Just a passing observation:  if Google doesn't use a legend, and thus doesn't have to commit to what a given symbol/design element actually means, then the errors are harder to see.

[jakeroot]

[clipped]

Obviously Google can do what it wants, but it would be odd to introduce a legend at this point, this many years later, despite have less complexity in its symbology than it had 10 years ago (if I recall correctly). Still, I agree that Google could do better. I'm just not sure we agree on how to accomplish that.

[clipped]

I think this is actually a good start. But I think whatever proposal we might "draw up" here, we also have to consider that Google Maps should, if possible, match the rest of Google's design language. Google has the rather unenviable task of trying to balance their design language against a map design that makes sense. I think it's harder to achieve than we may be giving them credit for.

[clipped]

Your post actually highlights a point I was trying to make before, and which vdeane (kind of) agreed with, which is that Google doesn't seem to have their symbology quite nailed down just yet. There are many exceptions to each rule to the point where I'm not confident that Google could make a legend that wasn't very basic.

That said, here's a quick mockup of a legend. Roads are difficult since the rules seem to vary from city to city:

Just a passing observation:  if Google doesn't use a legend, and thus doesn't have to commit to what a given symbol/design element actually means, then the errors are harder to see.

You're not wrong.

[kphoger]

Just a passing observation:  if Google doesn't use a legend, and thus doesn't have to commit to what a given symbol/design element actually means, then the errors are harder to see.

Google doesn't seem to have their symbology quite nailed down just yet.

It's just my armchair opinion, but I bet Google has their symbology nailed down perfectly well.  That is to say, I bet Google employees have access to a map legend, and a lot of the variances we see are actually misclassification errors–either the product of user input error or auto-generated data.

[Scott5114]

I think this is actually a good start. But I think whatever proposal we might "draw up" here, we also have to consider that Google Maps should, if possible, match the rest of Google's design language. Google has the rather unenviable task of trying to balance their design language against a map design that makes sense. I think it's harder to achieve than we may be giving them credit for.

If your "design language" (i.e. branding) interferes with the actual use of a product, then that design language needs to go, or at least be confined to the UI and leave the actual map alone. Making marketing considerations like design language take precedence over usability is a hallmark of corporate software design, and is one of the reasons I use the stuff as little as possible. (The Art of Unix Programming by Eric S. Raymond is basically my lodestar for what software design should look like.)

Having ambiguous symbols that are different enough that you can tell they're meant to be different, but similar enough it's hard to tell at a glance that they are different, is bad design. It's like that old vexillological maxim, be distinctive or be related. Avoid duplicating other symbols, but use similarities to show connections.

If I were product manager of Google Maps, I would jettison the existing legend wholesale in favor of something more usable (like the KDOT-derived legend), then mysteriously have just gone out to lunch every time anyone from Marketing wanted to meet with me to talk about "design language".

[jakeroot]

It's just my armchair opinion, but I bet Google has their symbology nailed down perfectly well.  That is to say, I bet Google employees have access to a map legend, and a lot of the variances we see are actually misclassification errors–either the product of user input error or auto-generated data.

There's definitely a "legend", or at least a set of design standards by which things are to be classified. It's just possible that they don't release it because they're fully aware that there are inconsistencies between each city. For instance, the meaning of a yellow road in one city versus another might actually be correct in both cases based on the data that Google has (probably sourced from the city, county, or state), but users would have no way of knowing this. So rather than saying "yellow means everything from this to this" and "white means anything from this to this", they just totally hide it and let the user decide the reasoning themselves.

As an example, a six lane road in my area would be very major, but it would not necessarily be in places like Los Angeles or Phoenix. So a six lane road with a 40 mph speed limit in Los Angeles might be colored white, but in my area it really should be colored yellow. Perhaps both scenarios would be colored yellow if the limit were 50 mph? So many variables, really.

OSM is perfect for this because each city basically has its own set of users editing things and can decide, on a case by case basis, which roads should be classified and why. Google really just has a team and mainly relies on outside data. So yeah, there's going to be inconsistencies perhaps to the level that they are better off just hiding the legend.

[jakeroot]

I think this is actually a good start. But I think whatever proposal we might "draw up" here, we also have to consider that Google Maps should, if possible, match the rest of Google's design language. Google has the rather unenviable task of trying to balance their design language against a map design that makes sense. I think it's harder to achieve than we may be giving them credit for.

If your "design language" (i.e. branding) interferes with the actual use of a product, then that design language needs to go, or at least be confined to the UI and leave the actual map alone. Making marketing considerations like design language take precedence over usability is a hallmark of corporate software design, and is one of the reasons I use the stuff as little as possible. (The Art of Unix Programming by Eric S. Raymond is basically my lodestar for what software design should look like.)

Having ambiguous symbols that are different enough that you can tell they're meant to be different, but similar enough it's hard to tell at a glance that they are different, is bad design. It's like that old vexillological maxim, be distinctive or be related. Avoid duplicating other symbols, but use similarities to show connections.

If I were product manager of Google Maps, I would jettison the existing legend wholesale in favor of something more usable (like the KDOT-derived legend), then mysteriously have just gone out to lunch every time anyone from Marketing wanted to meet with me to talk about "design language".

I think Google actually does a decent job with their map design in terms of keeping it within a certain design language relative to their other programs. The problem seems to be that the contrast between certain parts of the map is considered strong enough by Google, but perhaps not by others. And in fact, perhaps not by quite a lot of people.

From doing some Googling, there is this help article for Google Maps that actually lists a ton of different details about the colors and symbols. Some of you should definitely take a look at this!

From looking through it, they don't address the road colors, and they don't address the colors of the map itself, but they do dive into some of the lines and also some of the colors of symbols (orange vs blue vs green, etc). There's actually quite a bit of contrast in the symbols themselves, but the colors of the map (road lines, base map, topography) may need the bulk of the work from here on out. Some high-contrast variant might actually be a cool idea, if they wanted to try that out. I wouldn't need to use it, but others might.

[Scott5114]

From doing some Googling, there is this help article for Google Maps that actually lists a ton of different details about the colors and symbols. [...] From looking through it, they don't address the road colors, and they don't address the colors of the map itself, but they do dive into some of the lines and also some of the colors of symbols (orange vs blue vs green, etc). There's actually quite a bit of contrast in the symbols themselves, but the colors of the map (road lines, base map, topography) may need the bulk of the work from here on out.

Herein lies the problem–I barely use those symbols at all. They are most useful if you are browsing around the map to see what kind of businesses are around a certain area (say, you're staying at a hotel soon and you want to see what's nearby your room). If that's not your use case–and I'd imagine it's not for most people in most situations–those symbols are clutter; most users probably want to find the location of a certain business (and thus use search) or calculate a route.

For these sorts of use cases, a strong base map helps. Thus, I find myself preferring OpenStreetMap for pretty much anything that relies on the base map, and only use Google Maps now for use cases where satellite or street view imagery would be helpful. I hardly ever need to look up the location of businesses, mostly because I don't have any money.

[kphoger]

Herein lies the problem–I barely use those symbols at all. They are most useful if you are browsing around the map to see what kind of businesses are around a certain area (say, you're staying at a hotel soon and you want to see what's nearby your room). If that's not your use case–and I'd imagine it's not for most people in most situations–those symbols are clutter; most users probably want to find the location of a certain business (and thus use search) or calculate a route.

I believe jakeroot has already expressed (several pages back) his opinion that he disagrees with that fundamentally.  He assumes most users are using the site for purposes just like your hotel scenario.  And, besides, wanting to "find the location of a certain business" means you're wanting to find one of those little symbols on the map.

Really, I'm open to the possibility that the way an average roadgeek uses Google Maps is not the way an average person uses it.

From looking through it, they don't address the road colors, and they don't address the colors of the map itself, ...

So they don't address the two most obvious things on the map, the things that everyone notices immediately.  (or at least used to notice immediately, back before city streets all but disappeared)

[thspfc]

Yeah, we're totally missing the point here. 999 out of 1000 people don't inspect US route termini or look to see if the map shows the new freeway upgrade to Highway XX. The overwhelming majority of people use it for directions or finding businesses. With that being said, an inaccurate map is not a good map so it's important that Google gets the details right. But most people do not use Google Maps the way we do.

[Scott5114]

Herein lies the problem–I barely use those symbols at all. They are most useful if you are browsing around the map to see what kind of businesses are around a certain area (say, you're staying at a hotel soon and you want to see what's nearby your room). If that's not your use case–and I'd imagine it's not for most people in most situations–those symbols are clutter; most users probably want to find the location of a certain business (and thus use search) or calculate a route.

I believe jakeroot has already expressed (several pages back) his opinion that he disagrees with that fundamentally.  He assumes most users are using the site for purposes just like your hotel scenario.  And, besides, wanting to "find the location of a certain business" means you're wanting to find one of those little symbols on the map.

Right, but when you want to find the location of a certain business, you don't go to the map and pan around until you find it. You go to the search bar and type in "Wet Pets By Steve" or whatever and then there's a big red pin on it that overrides the colorful icons.

[webny99]

Really, I'm open to the possibility that the way an average roadgeek uses Google Maps is not the way an average person uses it.

I don't see you couldn't be open to that possibility. For as long as I can remember, I've never thought that I use maps with the same frequency, or for the same reasons, or in the same way as an average person.

Right, but when you want to find the location of a certain business, you don't go to the map and pan around until you find it. You go to the search bar and type in "Wet Pets By Steve" or whatever and then there's a big red pin on it that overrides the colorful icons.

Oh, this might be another roadgeek oddity. How you described it is certainly how most normal people would do it - and in fact might be the only way they could do it - but if I already know where the business is, I'm absolutely panning all the way!

[Scott5114]

Oh, this might be another roadgeek oddity. How you described it is certainly how most normal people would do it - and in fact might be the only way they could do it - but if I already know where the business is, I'm absolutely panning all the way!

If I already know where the business is...I type the address in, like "200 N. Main Street" or whatever. Not a typical thing most people would do, but it guards against things like there being several businesses with similar names (or one business with several locations), or a misspelled name, or the business not being added to Google Maps yet.

[webny99]

Oh, this might be another roadgeek oddity. How you described it is certainly how most normal people would do it - and in fact might be the only way they could do it - but if I already know where the business is, I'm absolutely panning all the way!

If I already know where the business is...I type the address in, like "200 N. Main Street" or whatever. Not a typical thing most people would do, but it guards against things like there being several businesses with similar names (or one business with several locations), or a misspelled name, or the business not being added to Google Maps yet.

I was referring more to cases where I know the location in general terms ("southeast corner of intersection X", "far end of plaza Y", etc.) and could find it easily on the map, but don't necessarily know the exact address. There's only a handful of businesses that I could give you that for; my local McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts aren't even among them!

[vdeane]

Oh, this might be another roadgeek oddity. How you described it is certainly how most normal people would do it - and in fact might be the only way they could do it - but if I already know where the business is, I'm absolutely panning all the way!

I know I definitely pan the map around a lot more than anyone else I know.  Most people seem to use search even for places that they know.

I definitely use the business icons when planning roadtrips, looking around where I'd stop for lunch, gas, hotels, etc. and just see what's around.  Or I'll just browse around for fun.

If I already know where the business is...I type the address in, like "200 N. Main Street" or whatever. Not a typical thing most people would do, but it guards against things like there being several businesses with similar names (or one business with several locations), or a misspelled name, or the business not being added to Google Maps yet.

If you start typing in the name, once Google figures out you're typing the name of a business, it will change the drop-down from towns to business locations with much of the address visible.

That said, usually when I'm clicking on businesses it isn't even for directions - it's to look up their hours, website, menu, or to look at photos or reviews.  Or just browsing to see what's around approximate target points for roadtrip stops for lunch, lodging, etc. as mentioned above.

[kphoger]

Herein lies the problem–I barely use those symbols at all. They are most useful if you are browsing around the map to see what kind of businesses are around a certain area (say, you're staying at a hotel soon and you want to see what's nearby your room). If that's not your use case–and I'd imagine it's not for most people in most situations–those symbols are clutter; most users probably want to find the location of a certain business (and thus use search) or calculate a route.

I believe jakeroot has already expressed (several pages back) his opinion that he disagrees with that fundamentally.  He assumes most users are using the site for purposes just like your hotel scenario.  And, besides, wanting to "find the location of a certain business" means you're wanting to find one of those little symbols on the map.

Right, but when you want to find the location of a certain business, you don't go to the map and pan around until you find it. You go to the search bar and type in "Wet Pets By Steve" or whatever and then there's a big red pin on it that overrides the colorful icons.

Says who?  Or, rather, who says that's how I use Google Maps?

In general, if I already know the name of the business, then I probably already know where it is too.  However...

If my wife is driving during a road trip and she wants to know what services are at the exit 10 miles down the Interstate, then I open up Google Maps for that area and zoom in.  I then tell her what's available.

If I'm planning a trip and want to know where to stop for lunch along the way, then I estimate what part of the state we'll be in around that time, and scroll along the highway, looking to see what restaurants are in which towns.

If my family is trying to decide where to go out to eat, but we want to make sure we aren't forgetting about an option, then both my wife and I zoom in on several restaurant-heavy neighborhoods and make sure nothing jumps out at us that we hadn't thought of yet.

If I'm staying with company and need to run to the grocery store, but our hosts aren't home at the time, then I open Google Maps and look for the nearest grocery store icon (and if I can't find one nearby, then I just search for "grocery stores").

[Scott5114]

Says who?  Or, rather, who says that's how I use Google Maps?

That's the royal You. As in not you, Kyle P. Hoger, but phrased so as to convey the general sentiment "I don't think this is a typical use case for J. Random Mouthbreather," in much the same way as someone might say "You don't eat peanut butter straight out of the jar!" (which my wife would argue with if I said so to her).

I think roadgeeks are more comfortable panning and browsing maps by eye than the average user, is what I'm saying.

[kphoger]

Says who?  Or, rather, who says that's how I use Google Maps?

That's the royal You. As in not you, Kyle P. Hoger, but phrased so as to convey the general sentiment "I don't think this is a typical use case for J. Random Mouthbreather," in much the same way as someone might say "You don't eat peanut butter straight out of the jar!" (which my wife would argue with if I said so to her).

I think roadgeeks are more comfortable panning and browsing maps by eye than the average user, is what I'm saying.

Hmm, I was figuring plenty of non-roadgeek types would be more likely to use it the way I was outlining.  My wife, for example, is not a roadgeek, yet that's the say she uses Google Maps.  I've noticed she's actually not very good at or used to entering the name or address of a place.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

For one day the thread title isn't valid (BTW, for this post I've ammended it as approved by Tarsdorf, Austria on November 17 ). Most Mr. Google services are down at the moment, and Google Maps is about the only thing still running now (well, along with web search), at least in my area of the world, IDK what is happening in the USA. Now that is something.

[hotdogPi]

For one day the thread title isn't valid (BTW, for this post I've ammended it as approved by Tarsdorf, Austria on November 17 ). Most Mr. Google services are down at the moment, and Google Maps is about the only thing still running now (well, along with web search), at least in my area of the world, IDK what is happening in the USA. Now that is something.

It's mostly western Europe, but there seems to be a few spots much farther east, as well as a straight line from New York City to Buffalo. I can access it just fine.

[J N Winkler]

When I am on the road, I don't feel how I use Google Maps is strongly dominated by my identity as a road enthusiast.  For example, when I am staying in a motel, I often search for "breakfast near me" to get an idea of which coffee shops, 24-hour restaurants, etc. are acceptable to me and within walking distance of where I am staying.  If I don't find any, I then search for Denny's, IHOP, and independently-owned establishments (usually in that order) until I find one that is reasonably accessible by car.

It is mainly when I am comfortable, with good Internet access and no need to try to read a screen in sun, that I use Google Maps to explore road layouts, signing, and other features of roadgeek interest.

[1995hoo]

Google Maps has seemed glacially slow the past few days when switching between map and satellite view or when trying to turn off the blue lines you click to enter Street View.

[vdeane]

That it does.  And it often will need a reload to get the labels back after switching out of satellite view or street view.

[jakeroot]

Google Maps has seemed glacially slow the past few days when switching between map and satellite view or when trying to turn off the blue lines you click to enter Street View.

What platform? Seems about normal speed for me at the moment.