Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[kphoger]

Back to the actual topic minus the profanity, one thing that frustrates me is when you search for a town (or township, as they're called in some states), and a little red pin comes up at the so-called town center (or even worse, the town hall) instead of a red outline of the entire town. Aaargh! Of course I'm not looking for an intersection here, I want boundaries!

But did any of those use to show up with outlines?  If not, then there's no "now" to go along with the "sucks" part of your complaint.

In the states I'm usually searching in, unincorporated communities and CDPs tend to show up with just a pin and no boundaries, while actual villages/towns/cities show up with boundaries.  However, there are counterexamples:  unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

Or I can REALLY dumb myself down and pass myself off as an absolute moron.

This tends to work best on aaroads, especially in fictional.

If you feel this way about people planning fictional highways, why in God's name are you on a road forum?

Uh, one might assume he's here to talk about actual roads.  Did you ever consider that might actually be the "normal" reason to be on this forum?

[SkyPesos]

According to Google Maps, these three interstates mysteriously have a gap in route now

Map is unclickable, although I think I know where that is.  That's in Illinois isn't it, east of St. Louis, yes?

Yes. I'll call the I-70 one the "Vandalia gap" , as according to google maps, that's around the point where I-70 now abruptly ends and all traffic are dumped onto US 40.

[jakeroot]

Back to the actual topic minus the profanity, one thing that frustrates me is when you search for a town (or township, as they're called in some states), and a little red pin comes up at the so-called town center (or even worse, the town hall) instead of a red outline of the entire town. Aaargh! Of course I'm not looking for an intersection here, I want boundaries!

But did any of those use to show up with outlines?  If not, then there's no "now" to go along with the "sucks" part of your complaint.

In the states I'm usually searching in, unincorporated communities and CDPs tend to show up with just a pin and no boundaries, while actual villages/towns/cities show up with boundaries.  However, there are counterexamples:  unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

Interesting. When I search for CDPs and unincorporated communities here in Washington State, I still get outlines.

In fact, it took me to search for "Tyre, NY" to get a pin for any community.

Simple explanation may well be that Google simply does not possess boundary data for every "community" (CDP, town, city, village, etc).

edit: "Newhalem, WA" gives me a pin. First place I could find in WA that did not have a boundary associated with it. Took me to click on the name on the map to discover this.

edit 2: It seems that everything labelled "unincorporated community" will give me a pin. Everything else gets a full boundary. Evidently there are no boundaries associated with unincorporated communities. Otherwise I'm sure Google would show it.

edit 3: for comparison, CDPs in WA like Summit or Spanaway will absolutely give boundaries. Apparently there is boundary data for CDPs but not unincorporated communities.

[kphoger]

unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

edit 2: It seems that everything labelled "unincorporated community" will give me a pin. Everything else gets a full boundary. Evidently there are no boundaries associated with unincorporated communities. Otherwise I'm sure Google would show it.

Did you click on my counterexamples, then?

[vdeane]

Back to the actual topic minus the profanity, one thing that frustrates me is when you search for a town (or township, as they're called in some states), and a little red pin comes up at the so-called town center (or even worse, the town hall) instead of a red outline of the entire town. Aaargh! Of course I'm not looking for an intersection here, I want boundaries!

But did any of those use to show up with outlines?  If not, then there's no "now" to go along with the "sucks" part of your complaint.

In the states I'm usually searching in, unincorporated communities and CDPs tend to show up with just a pin and no boundaries, while actual villages/towns/cities show up with boundaries.  However, there are counterexamples:  unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

Or I can REALLY dumb myself down and pass myself off as an absolute moron.

This tends to work best on aaroads, especially in fictional.

If you feel this way about people planning fictional highways, why in God's name are you on a road forum?

Uh, one might assume he's here to talk about actual roads.  Did you ever consider that might actually be the "normal" reason to be on this forum?

I don't know about the specific examples, but I know I've seen town outlines in NY before, and now I don't.  It seems like Google is prioritizing hamlet areas over the actual incorporated towns to a far greater extent now than it once did.

Then there are the oddballs, like Québec City which only gets a pin for some reason (and I think it always did, too, despite being an incorporated city with boundaries).

[jakeroot]

unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

edit 2: It seems that everything labelled "unincorporated community" will give me a pin. Everything else gets a full boundary. Evidently there are no boundaries associated with unincorporated communities. Otherwise I'm sure Google would show it.

Did you click on my counterexamples, then?

I did, but I was more referring to my discoveries within Washington State (which I did not make clear -- my bad).

Nevertheless, based on your counterexamples, it seems that Google will show boundaries if it happens to have the data, but otherwise does not. Why they have data on, say, Greenwich, KS I do not know.

In fact, given everything in this thread, it seems there is no hard and fast rule. Google either has boundary data or it doesn't. Full stop.

[kphoger]

I don't know about the specific examples, but I know I've seen town outlines in NY before, and now I don't.

Nevertheless, based on your counterexamples, it seems that Google will show boundaries if it happens to have the data, but otherwise does not. Why they have data on, say, Greenwich, KS I do not know.

And yet I doubt Google lost the data for the boundaries |vdeane| has noticed disappear.

[J N Winkler]

In my local area, there are a couple of ways in which Google Maps' presentation of township boundaries is squirrelly.

All of our named townships are PLSS survey townships six miles on a side.  (This is not always the case for Kansas counties in general--Shawnee County, for example, has irregularly shaped named townships.)  Thus, the starting expectation is that a Google search on any township will return a square.  In actuality, it returns the polygon that results from the subtraction of areas that belong to an incorporated municipality that the Census Bureau considers governmentally independent.  Thus, for Attica Township (the next one west from where I live), we get the following:

Attica Township minus Wichita

Although both Wichita and Goddard are incorporated municipalities, only the former is considered governmentally independent.  (Sedgwick County has just two cities that are so designated:  Wichita and Bel Aire.)

Also, if you search for Wichita Township, not to be confused with the city of Wichita, you get no meaningful result.  The Wikipedia article for Sedgwick County maintains that it used to exist but does so no longer.  I am not sure what definition of "exists" the editors rely on since it is still available on the county GIS site for searching for plat maps--it is basically the square delimited by Meridian Avenue, 29th Street North, Woodlawn Boulevard, and Pawnee Avenue--though it is completely subsumed by the city of Wichita except for a small tongue of Eastborough (an enclave founded in 1937 as a tax dodge and itself also an incorporated municipality in Kansas).

[jakeroot]

And yet I doubt Google lost the data for the boundaries |vdeane| has noticed disappear.

That is very interesting. I had started writing my reply before she posted hers, so I only saw it briefly right before I posted my own reply. I truly have no explanation for what Google is doing.

Also, if you search for Wichita Township, not to be confused with the city of Wichita, you get no meaningful result.  The Wikipedia article for Sedgwick County maintains that it used to exist but does so no longer.  I am not sure what definition of "exists" the editors rely on since it is still available on the county GIS site for searching for plat maps--it is basically the square delimited by Meridian Avenue, 29th Street North, Woodlawn Boulevard, and Pawnee Avenue--though it is completely subsumed by the city of Wichita except for a small tongue of Eastborough (an enclave founded in 1937 as a tax dodge and itself also an incorporated municipality in Kansas).

Assuming some form of automation was used to gather the GIS data, I truly do have to wonder if kphoger's idea of Google losing data may actually be accurate. It seems incredibly unlikely, but I don't see how we can't rule it out.

There could also be a bug preventing the boundaries from being called up.

[kphoger]

Quebec City really is an interesting one.

[hotdogPi]

Barre VT does show (the city), even though there's a town with the same name adjacent to it. Same with Rutland.

[Daniel Fiddler]

Back to the actual topic minus the profanity, one thing that frustrates me is when you search for a town (or township, as they're called in some states), and a little red pin comes up at the so-called town center (or even worse, the town hall) instead of a red outline of the entire town. Aaargh! Of course I'm not looking for an intersection here, I want boundaries!

But did any of those use to show up with outlines?  If not, then there's no "now" to go along with the "sucks" part of your complaint.

In the states I'm usually searching in, unincorporated communities and CDPs tend to show up with just a pin and no boundaries, while actual villages/towns/cities show up with boundaries.  However, there are counterexamples:  unincorporated Greenwich, KS, and unincorporated Future City, IL, show up with boundaries, for example.

Or I can REALLY dumb myself down and pass myself off as an absolute moron.

This tends to work best on aaroads, especially in fictional.

If you feel this way about people planning fictional highways, why in God's name are you on a road forum?

Uh, one might assume he's here to talk about actual roads.  Did you ever consider that might actually be the "normal" reason to be on this forum?

I don't know about the specific examples, but I know I've seen town outlines in NY before, and now I don't.  It seems like Google is prioritizing hamlet areas over the actual incorporated towns to a far greater extent now than it once did.

Then there are the oddballs, like Québec City which only gets a pin for some reason (and I think it always did, too, despite being an incorporated city with boundaries).

I enjoy talking about both actual and fictional roads.

[kphoger]

I enjoy talking about both actual and fictional roads.

Which is all well and good.  But you are, after all, the one who asked "why in God's name" someone who doesn't live in fantasyland is "on a road forum".

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

[webny99]

Back to the actual topic minus the profanity, one thing that frustrates me is when you search for a town (or township, as they're called in some states), and a little red pin comes up at the so-called town center (or even worse, the town hall) instead of a red outline of the entire town. Aaargh! Of course I'm not looking for an intersection here, I want boundaries!

But did any of those use to show up with outlines?  If not, then there's no "now" to go along with the "sucks" part of your complaint.

Oh, I'm not sure, considering I haven't been using Google Maps since its inception. 
I strongly suspect this has always been the case, but I was using "now" in the sense of "right now / presently".

(Side note: is it use to or used to? I can't keep it straight.)

[Daniel Fiddler]

I enjoy talking about both actual and fictional roads.

Which is all well and good.  But you are, after all, the one who asked "why in God's name" someone who doesn't live in fantasyland is "on a road forum".

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

I apologize. I did not think my statement would be interpreted that way.

What I was asking was why he thought people planning / discussing fictional highways were imbeciles (which I do believe I should defend everyone who does), unless he merely thought I was actually an imbecile (which I don't mind being called) or acting like one (which I admit I frequently do act like one).

[webny99]

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

Eh... I'm not sure about that comparison. Plenty of real football players are annoyed by fantasy football, in part because it leads to players being treated like objects/commodities rather than actual real people.

And with that said, plenty of real roadgeeks are probably annoyed by fictional highways, too. Not everyone follows or even pays attention to the fictional board, and some only do so mostly just to provide a dose of reality for everyone's fantasies.

[Daniel Fiddler]

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

Eh... I'm not sure about that comparison. Plenty of real football players are annoyed by fantasy football, in part because it leads to players being treated like objects/commodities rather than actual real people.

And with that said, plenty of real roadgeeks are probably annoyed by fictional highways, too. Not everyone follows or even pays attention to the fictional board, and some only do so mostly just to provide a dose of reality for everyone's fantasies.

Most of my "fictional highways"  are changing route numbers to fit the grid better and more appropriate, reasonable, and prudent speed limits and minimums.  What upgrades and new terrain routes I suggest may cost a few hundred million, however, they are feasible.  No interstates out to the middle of nowhere or 100+ mile long bridges and tunnels.  Not saying FritzOwl and Roadgeekteen aren't visionaries, they indubitably are, they just need a jolt of reality.

[kphoger]

(Side note: is it use to or used to? I can't keep it straight.)

Well "used" and "did use" are grammatically equivalent.  Therefore, it should be Did you use to but You used to.

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

Eh... I'm not sure about that comparison. Plenty of real football players are annoyed by fantasy football, in part because it leads to players being treated like objects/commodities rather than actual real people.

And with that said, plenty of real roadgeeks are probably annoyed by fictional highways, too. Not everyone follows or even pays attention to the fictional board, and some only do so mostly just to provide a dose of reality for everyone's fantasies.

It sounds like you just agreed with my comparison.

[webny99]

It's sort of like asking, If you feel this way about people playing fantasy football, why in God's name are you a football player?

Eh... I'm not sure about that comparison. Plenty of real football players are annoyed by fantasy football, in part because it leads to players being treated like objects/commodities rather than actual real people.

And with that said, plenty of real roadgeeks are probably annoyed by fictional highways, too. Not everyone follows or even pays attention to the fictional board, and some only do so mostly just to provide a dose of reality for everyone's fantasies.

It sounds like you just agreed with my comparison.

I thought you were saying that the football question would be a weird question to ask. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question.

[kphoger]

Yeah, I was.

Someone not liking fantasy football shouldn't preclude his playing football.

Someone not liking fictional highways shouldn't preclude his participation on a roadgeek forum.

[1995hoo]

....

(Side note: is it use to or used to? I can't keep it straight.)

The latter.

[Daniel Fiddler]

Yeah, I was.

Someone not liking fantasy football shouldn't preclude his playing football.

Someone not liking fictional highways shouldn't preclude his participation on a roadgeek forum.

I concur.  Everyone liking roads should be able to participate in the forum.  I am just saying that people should not imply that EVERYONE who plans fictional highways are imbeciles. I don't give a shit if someone calls me one, hell, I insult myself all the time.  It's when people berate an entire group I defend them.  He is entitled to his opinion.  Although everyone is welcome to participate here as far as I am concerned and should be cordial, and I apologize if you felt I was not.

[kphoger]

....

(Side note: is it use to or used to? I can't keep it straight.)

The latter.

It depends.

[CtrlAltDel]

According to Google Maps, these three interstates mysteriously have a gap in route now

There are some pretty big gaps in Texas as well:

[sprjus4]

In other news, I-42 is now complete between Morehead City and Raleigh.