Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

instant browser crash

10 (3.6%)

loads fine, then crashes the browser when attempting to do anything at all

23 (8.4%)

not quite terrible, but still worse

125 (45.5%)

I am indifferent

60 (21.8%)

I actually like the new Google Maps

57 (20.7%)

Total Members Voted: 274

[D-Dey65]

Hardly a new issue... there are a whole host of "state highways" in Utah and especially Nevada that were decommissioned long ago but are still marked on Google Maps. I don't trust any of their route designations in Nevada without confirming with another source.

Yeah, but that street was never a state highway.

[Rothman]

Hardly a new issue... there are a whole host of "state highways" in Utah and especially Nevada that were decommissioned long ago but are still marked on Google Maps. I don't trust any of their route designations in Nevada without confirming with another source.

Yeah, but that street was never a state highway.

When has that ever stopped Google Maps from marking a street with a shield?

I just went through some travel planning in Virginia where I found half-a-dozen errors of a similar sort.

[US 89]

Hardly a new issue... there are a whole host of "state highways" in Utah and especially Nevada that were decommissioned long ago but are still marked on Google Maps. I don't trust any of their route designations in Nevada without confirming with another source.

Heh.  Las Vegas state shields on Google Maps drive me nuts.  Definitely have to consult elsewhere.

It's not even just Vegas (which, to be fair, has a state route landscape that changes ridiculously quickly). It's the little roads out in the middle of nowhere that changed hands years and years ago that really get me. Say you're driving north on US 93 from Ely to the 93A split. Google says you'll junction SR 490, SR 486, SR 893, and SR 489 along the way...but only 490 is legitimate.

[CoreySamson]

Wonder if there was a bad data import from some ancient database or something. They're now showing OK 122, which was decommissioned in 1966.

It's also showing OK 124... which was decommissioned in 1970. I actually clinched the route retrospectively last week and there is no signage or anything suggesting that a state highway once was routed there.

[D-Dey65]

Hardly a new issue... there are a whole host of "state highways" in Utah and especially Nevada that were decommissioned long ago but are still marked on Google Maps. I don't trust any of their route designations in Nevada without confirming with another source.

Yeah, but that street was never a state highway.

When has that ever stopped Google Maps from marking a street with a shield?

I just went through some travel planning in Virginia where I found half-a-dozen errors of a similar sort.

'
And I remember when they added a New York State Route 495 shield to a cul-de-sac off of a service road between Medford and Yaphank. Here they just show the name "State Highway 25A" along the street and in the address box.

Okay, here's something else; I've been trying to make them realize a certain rest area along I-20 in South Carolina has an official designation, and despite the SCDOT website showing that name, they refuse to recognize it as evidence.

[D-Dey65]

Hoo boy. More Google Maps errors in New York, this time in Sears Corners.

New York State Route 312's eastern terminus is a NY 22 in Sears Corners. However according to Google, it continues onto a dead-end street which serves as the entrance to the Valley View Town Centre.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4282327,-73.5774848,838m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[vdeane]

At some point, Google stopped displaying the proper street names for the on-road section of the Empire State Trail with "Empire State Trl".

[vdeane]

Anyone notice that the numbers next to the measure distance tool are now way too small to read?

[jakeroot]

Anyone notice that the numbers next to the measure distance tool are now way too small to read?

Not seeing this. All is normal on my end (MacOS, Chrome 109.0.5414.119).

[IowaTraveler]

Anyone notice that the numbers next to the measure distance tool are now way too small to read?

Yeah, I just noticed that this morning. I normally use Waterfox, but the problem also occurred in when I tested it in Chrome, so it doesn't seem to be a browser-specific issue.

Another recent change that I noticed a few days ago is that they've updated the UI for looking at older Streetview images, so that the preview images are lined up across the bottom of the screen instead of in a timeline near the top left corner.

[flan]

Another recent change that I noticed a few days ago is that they've updated the UI for looking at older Streetview images, so that the preview images are lined up across the bottom of the screen instead of in a timeline near the top left corner.

And of course when you try to get rid of that annoying bar at the bottom, it moves you back to the newest streetview capture.

[CtrlAltDel]

Also, it's in reverse chronological order, which is odd when going left to right.

[vdeane]

Anyone notice that the numbers next to the measure distance tool are now way too small to read?

Not seeing this. All is normal on my end (MacOS, Chrome 109.0.5414.119).

For me it's happening at both work (Windows 10/Chrome) and at home (Linux Mint/Vivaldi).  It's not every time, but it's often enough that it's not worth it to screen for it and keep trying with new incognito windows until I get one that doesn't.

[CtrlAltDel]

Anyone notice that the numbers next to the measure distance tool are now way too small to read?

Not seeing this. All is normal on my end (MacOS, Chrome 109.0.5414.119).

For me it's happening at both work (Windows 10/Chrome) and at home (Linux Mint/Vivaldi).  It's not every time, but it's often enough that it's not worth it to screen for it and keep trying with new incognito windows until I get one that doesn't.

That change happened to me while I was using it. I measured something and it was totally fine, and then I moved somewhere else to measure something else, and it was different.

[CovalenceSTU]

Another recent change that I noticed a few days ago is that they've updated the UI for looking at older Streetview images, so that the preview images are lined up across the bottom of the screen instead of in a timeline near the top left corner.

And of course when you try to get rid of that annoying bar at the bottom, it moves you back to the newest streetview capture.

Even worse is that following a link to old Street View doesn't show the bar, but if you open and close it it will take you to the latest one.

[TheGrassGuy]

At least:

1. Now when you click on a road/street as a destination (e.g. "I-95" or "Fifth Ave"), it now highlights the whole road/street despite Baidu Maps having had this feature for ages already

2. They've been very good at updating old info. Like, the rest of I-840 now has GSV despite it being finished VERY recently

[MultiMillionMiler]

I've had this trouble where it fails to load the color coded traffic data, multiple times in the same hour. Also, sometimes when planning routes, it alters the end point by itself and gives a very awkward route that doesn't make much logical sense.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

2. They've been very good at updating old info. Like, the rest of I-840 now has GSV despite it being finished VERY recently

Not entirely true. They haven't done the new N52 between Marange Silvange and Rombas in Northeastern France yet despite having been open since last May.

[Rothman]

2. They've been very good at updating old info. Like, the rest of I-840 now has GSV despite it being finished VERY recently

Not entirely true. They haven't done the new N52 between Marange Silvange and Rombas in Northeastern France yet despite having been open since last May.

There's a ton of old stuff they haven't updated.    Not sure why Grass said what he did.

[LilianaUwU]

2. They've been very good at updating old info. Like, the rest of I-840 now has GSV despite it being finished VERY recently

Not entirely true. They haven't done the new N52 between Marange Silvange and Rombas in Northeastern France yet despite having been open since last May.

There's a ton of old stuff they haven't updated.    Not sure why Grass said what he did.

Dare I mention the US highways in Montana/Idaho with 2007 imagery?

[invincor]

I've grown to prefer Apple Maps over Google Maps because it's turn-by-turn driving instructions are more pro-active.  Frequently the instructions from Google Maps come 5 to 10 seconds too late, whereas Apple Maps is saying things like "go past this light, but then at the next one turn left" right on time. 

There is, however, one area I'm not sure of it with.  Traffic.   I can look at Google Maps and see that it's always got its eye on the traffic situation, whereas I can't always tell with Apple Maps.  But then, I'm not often driving in high traffic areas, so I'm not sure. 

Has anyone here done a good comparison of the two when it comes to getting you around or through high traffic?

[IowaTraveler]

2. They've been very good at updating old info. Like, the rest of I-840 now has GSV despite it being finished VERY recently

Not entirely true. They haven't done the new N52 between Marange Silvange and Rombas in Northeastern France yet despite having been open since last May.

There's a ton of old stuff they haven't updated.    Not sure why Grass said what he did.

Dare I mention the US highways in Montana/Idaho with 2007 imagery?

Dare I mention the section of US 6 near the Colorado/Nebraska border that still hasn't been imaged by GSV?
(It's also worth mentioning the section of US 34 near the Colorado/Nebraska border that wasn't imaged for the first time until August 2022.)

An example that's closer to home for me is that nearly all of Iowa's county roads still had 2008 and 2009 GSV imagery for the longest time, until Google finally started another round of comprehensive imaging in 2021. It's gotten to the point now that the majority of Iowa's county roads have updated GSV imagery (Which has been a godsend for trip planning), but there's still a sizable chunk with grainy 2008-09 images.

[Scott5114]

Why does Google Maps route Yuma to Dallas via Albuquerque rather than El Paso? The southern route is 79 miles shorter.

[Rothman]

Why does Google Maps route Yuma to Dallas via Albuquerque rather than El Paso? The southern route is 79 miles shorter.

I-20 has a closure, silly man.

[Scott5114]

Why does Google Maps route Yuma to Dallas via Albuquerque rather than El Paso? The southern route is 79 miles shorter.

I-20 has a closure, silly man.

Any local bypass would be shorter than 79 miles.....