Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[jamess]

This Streetview says its from May 2019, but the image quality is very bad

https://goo.gl/maps/aC5ECoop9DmGhDPdA

[kphoger]

This Streetview says its from May 2019, but the image quality is very bad

https://goo.gl/maps/aC5ECoop9DmGhDPdA

"Very bad" ???  I can read the trim line of the cars parked on the street.

[jakeroot]

This Streetview says its from May 2019, but the image quality is very bad

https://goo.gl/maps/aC5ECoop9DmGhDPdA

That's from a series of photos taken by someone, and posted to Google Maps. They sometimes show up in Street View, usually as a blue circle. Quality is usually quite a bit worse.

In this instance, the uploader posted a huge series of photos, probably taken from a bike or something, which is why so many streets in that area have his photos.

"Very bad" ???  I can read the trim line of the cars parked on the street.

Does your link take you to a photo by "Mark Henninger"? The quality is pretty poor on my end.

[hotdogPi]

"Very bad" ???  I can read the trim line of the cars parked on the street.

Does your link take you to a photo by "Mark Henninger"? The quality is pretty poor on my end.

I'm getting Mark Henninger, but the quality is pretty good.

[jakeroot]

"Very bad" ???  I can read the trim line of the cars parked on the street.

Does your link take you to a photo by "Mark Henninger"? The quality is pretty poor on my end.

I'm getting Mark Henninger, but the quality is pretty good.

Two screenshots on my end. First is the Henninger photos, the second from Street View. I can make out the car makes and names only in the latter.

[empirestate]

This Streetview says its from May 2019, but the image quality is very bad

But of course–because technological regression. :-)

[Verlanka]

"Very bad" ???  I can read the trim line of the cars parked on the street.

Does your link take you to a photo by "Mark Henninger"? The quality is pretty poor on my end.

I'm getting Mark Henninger, but the quality is pretty good.

Same here.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm getting Mark Henninger, but the quality is pretty good.

Same here.

You call this pretty good? Can I have some of what you're smoking? This is blurry as shit and the colors are slightly off. (Edit: chromatic aberration is the term I meant and couldn't remember until now.)



Going back to the topic, I wish Google would stop adding user submitted photos to places where GSV already exists. It's making a good product worse.

[jamess]

This Streetview says its from May 2019, but the image quality is very bad

https://goo.gl/maps/aC5ECoop9DmGhDPdA

That's from a series of photos taken by someone, and posted to Google Maps. They sometimes show up in Street View, usually as a blue circle. Quality is usually quite a bit worse.

In this instance, the uploader posted a huge series of photos, probably taken from a bike or something, which is why so many streets in that area have his photos.

I get the blue circle stuff, but this is the entire avenue. I ant find a way to switch to the official images or access the timeline to go to another date.

[kphoger]

I can make out the car makes and names only in the latter.

Nissan Altima 2.5 SL

You call this pretty good? Can I have some of what you're smoking? This is blurry as shit and the colors are slightly off. (Edit: chromatic aberration is the term I meant and couldn't remember until now.)

I wouldn't say it's "pretty good", but I certainly wouldn't say it's "very bad" either.  Go ahead and smoke some 2008 GSV imagery and see if you feel any different.

[jakeroot]

I can make out the car makes and names only in the latter.

Nissan Altima 2.5 SL

https://i.imgur.com/KU0jsA5.jpg

But you can't actually read 2.5 SL. And Altima looks more like "ALTIVA".

Note the screenshots I posted up-thread. From equal distances, Henninger's photos are much worse quality.

I wouldn't say it's "pretty good", but I certainly wouldn't say it's "very bad" either.  Go ahead and smoke some 2008 GSV imagery and see if you feel any different.

What we're smoking is Mark's photos and 2018-era GSV, not that crappy 2008 imagery you get in some places (many places have HQ 2008 imagery). Comparing the former two...well, there's no comparison.

[wxfree]

Google Maps intentionally distorts the aerial photography imagery in areas of very steep slopes.  Since the Acme Mapper site no longer uses Google's service, you can see cliffs clearly there.  In some places the imagery is of lower quality, but it's still better because it isn't distorted.  Google's photography is distorted in every method of access I've tried.  I think it's related to the way they portray the shape of the ground in the imagery, but that feature should have an option to disable, and its application should be limited so it doesn't completely mess up the data.

[Hurricane Rex]

Has anyone else noticed it's more tedious to get traffic data on google recently?

I skipped through the thread so I apologize if this was said.

SM-J737T

[J N Winkler]

I ran into the issue with third-party imagery substituting for StreetView when I was exploring the eastbound signing leading up to the Breezewood exit on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  I was trying to find the messages for a three-sign sequence that advises trucks to stay on the Turnpike until Fort Littleton rather than to exit and take US 30 to McConnellsburg, and it was a pain because the advance function would go forward or backward only a few feet at a time.  The third of the three signs also appeared to be missing (unless it has been posted past Breezewood) and there was no option to go to past imagery, which should have existed in high resolution for such an important route.

[TheBox]

The one and only thing that grinds my gears is the way editing roads is now?

First, they removed Google Map Maker (or however it was) so you had to remember the type of streets (physical divider, expressway, freeway, etc.) when changing/editing.

They replaced with the new one before the current one (which i'll get to later) went from infinity amounts of length for road to edit, to limited amounts of length for road to edit.

But the current one is the worse one, its so time consuming AF now, cause you now have to edit one part of length for road to edit and as a result you have to edit piece by piece.

[LM117]

Is it my imagination or is Google using HDR in the new late-2018 and 2019 Streetview images?

For example, this image in front of the mall in my area: https://goo.gl/maps/JGT4ppcnoM9F1DqE9

[skluth]

Google Maps intentionally distorts the aerial photography imagery in areas of very steep slopes.  Since the Acme Mapper site no longer uses Google's service, you can see cliffs clearly there.  In some places the imagery is of lower quality, but it's still better because it isn't distorted.  Google's photography is distorted in every method of access I've tried.  I think it's related to the way they portray the shape of the ground in the imagery, but that feature should have an option to disable, and its application should be limited so it doesn't completely mess up the data.

I doubt Google intentionally distorts imagery with steep slopes. Distortion is a byproduct of every orthorectified image. To orthorectify imagery, you need:

• A satellite image that either comes with ephemeral data for georectification or (though less accurate) reference points you can georeference
• A Digital Elevation Model or DEM of the area

You can also use imagery stereo pairs but this is much less common.

Digital Globe, IKONOS, and every other satellite image comes with ephemeral data which can be read by imagery software. (Erdas Imagine on my workstation) This data contains the info to georectify without processing. A high density DEM will be more geographically accurate but will stretch the image in areas of steep slopes. This is inevitable. A low density DEM will be less accurate but the distortion will be spread over a large area of the imagery. Or you can just dispose of the DEM entirely. This leaves the user with a less accurate georectified image but almost free of distortion.

By your description, I would guess Acme Mapper is only doing georectification and not orthorectification, i.e., not doing any adjustments for elevation. It may look better on steep slopes, but it's less accurate geographically. The geographical accuracy may be good enough for your purposes. This doesn't make it better, just more useful for your purposes. Google is doing what is better for the majority of people who want an image that more accurately follows changes of elevation.

FWIW, once imagery is orthoed, you can't put it back easily as you've discovered. It's likely impossible to exactly revert it to the original. Not much different than when you might add a filter to an image in Photoshop.

[skluth]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A bit more on orthorectification.

Google gets most of its imagery from Digital Globe. DG sells some imagery already orthorectified, often done at the request of the customer. The orthoed imagery, when available, is often the default they sell when it's available as it's what most customers prefer. We had to make sure we ordered the original imagery to ortho for our purposes.

Orthorectification also distorts colors. Multispectral (color) imagery is not as dense as panchromatic (black and white) imagery. DG panchromatic is typically about 1 meter pixels though there is imagery down to 25 cm. Multispectral is typically 1/3 to 1/4 the resolution. It's not exact and as the panchromatic and multispectral images are orthoed, strong dark areas are typically muted. This is why very dark shingle roofs often look a blue-purple shade on satellite imagery.

Between the slope and color changes, it's essentially impossible to exactly restore the original imagery.

[Mr. Matté]

It seems as of late that if I try to grab the the orange man to view a Streetview location, the blue lines that show where imagery is available is much spottier than usual. However, if I do go to one of the roads where said blue line doesn't appear, the SV imagery is available.

[Rothman]

Street View doesn't seem to be working very smoothly, either.  I have been "stuck" in more areas recently despite available arrows or whatnot.

[thspfc]

Sometimes, usually on 2009 or older street view, I'll be clicking along a road, and then there will be a gap in the SV. Usually small and not that annoying, but weird.

[Rothman]

That situation I understand.  Clicking on arrows or the line to move and GSV refuses to do so is what I do not understand.

[jakeroot]

It seems as of late that if I try to grab the the orange man to view a Streetview location, the blue lines that show where imagery is available is much spottier than usual. However, if I do go to one of the roads where said blue line doesn't appear, the SV imagery is available.

I haven't had any issues with Street View since the last bug I reported was fixed (related to "tracks" and getting stuck in one).

That said, I seem to recall (a while ago) some situations where not all the areas covered by Street View were correctly highlighted. Not good to see that it's back for some.

[jp the roadgeek]

Once again, Google Maps rejected my request to get CT 31 along and north of US 44 changed from the square County Route shield to a round state route shield.  Is there anyone here that has the power to change it?  I have emailed them about it and even included pictures from GSV showing them it's the same damn route shield on both sides of US 44, and they still keep rejecting it.  It's been over 3 years and 20 requests, even with visual evidence, and they keep rejecting my edit suggestion, even though they've accepted several of my minor requests, including corrections to street names in my town.  They just don't grasp the concept that there are no county highways in CT and that it's the same damn route.    

[jakeroot]

over 3 years and 20 requests

There's no way it's that big of a deal.