Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[vdeane]

I think the old maps had something called the "Google Earth Plugin" that could do something like that.  You had to install it separately though.

Never worked on Linux though, so irrelevant to me. Either way, it's not so much the fact that it's in the browser that was impressive (although it is impressive), but the fact that every single building and even tree is now rendered in 3D. It was not like this before, even in the standalone Earth application (last time I checked). Plus. the draw distance is incredible.

Unfortunately, most Linux users can't use the new 3D Earth View either due to the crappy video drivers inherent to the platform.  Even ATI's proprietary drivers won't do WebGL on Linux, so it's a moot point.

[doorknob60]

I think the old maps had something called the "Google Earth Plugin" that could do something like that.  You had to install it separately though.

Never worked on Linux though, so irrelevant to me. Either way, it's not so much the fact that it's in the browser that was impressive (although it is impressive), but the fact that every single building and even tree is now rendered in 3D. It was not like this before, even in the standalone Earth application (last time I checked). Plus. the draw distance is incredible.

Unfortunately, most Linux users can't use the new 3D Earth View either due to the crappy video drivers inherent to the platform.  Even ATI's proprietary drivers won't do WebGL on Linux, so it's a moot point.

Yeah I haven't tried it on my laptop with AMD graphics, but it works great with the Nvidia proprietary drivers. I'll try it on my laptop sometime and report back.

[vdeane]

I've heard the Nvidia/Linux situation has improved a lot in the past couple years.  Too bad AMD/ATI is so ubiquitous these days.  I'll have to see what happens with my laptop and a live CD the next time I'm bored and can switch the ATI card for the built-in Intel one in BIOS.  My next desktop will probably have integrated graphics just to avoid the situation.

[doorknob60]

I just tried it out on my laptop, running Ubuntu 12.04. It has a Radeon HD 6520G GPU. I'm using the open source (default drivers, not the proprietary Catalyst ones. In both Firefox and Chrome, it defaulted to Lite mode and worked. I forced WebGL on Firefox, and it seems to work fine (albeit slow, but the hardware isn't exactly fast). On Chrome, it wouldn't let me activate WebGL (my GPU may be blacklisted by Chrome, there might be a way to fix that), but I got no browser crashes, and Maps still works in both by default.

EDIT: I enabled the ignore GPU blacklist flag in Chrome in about:flags, and then the WebGL version worked, and at a very usable framerate (probably in the 20-30 range, even in Earth 3D).

[Alex]

So my IE now prompts me to try the new google maps and to login with a google account while also not providing any option for the classic maps. I use IE with cookies turned off and prefer it as my map browser while using Chrome for everything else. Talk about a PITA.

[BrianP]

So my IE now prompts me to try the new google maps and to login with a google account while also not providing any option for the classic maps. I use IE with cookies turned off and prefer it as my map browser while using Chrome for everything else. Talk about a PITA.

Yeah I hit that last night in Firefox.  And no google I don't want to login.  Let me use the maps - I don't care which version just let me use something.   

[algorerhythms]

Apparently the new Google Maps allows you to zoom in on a city by clicking its name, and it shows you the city limits when it zooms in. So I tried it on a few cities and stumbled on this. I'm wondering whether this is a Google Maps slipup, or if Owasso actually did annex a bunch of roads in the surrounding area, but none of the land attached to the roads.

[J N Winkler]

Apparently the new Google Maps allows you to zoom in on a city by clicking its name, and it shows you the city limits when it zooms in. So I tried it on a few cities and stumbled on this. I'm wondering whether this is a Google Maps slipup, or if Owasso actually did annex a bunch of roads in the surrounding area, but none of the land attached to the roads.

This isn't a new feature--the old Google Maps showed you jurisdictional boundaries (states, counties, cities) too.  What Google Maps shows for Owasso is a classic deployment of the encircling-annexation tactic (which gained notoriety in Arizona when it was used by several municipalities in the Phoenix area to carve out parcels of rural land which their neighbors would then not be able to annex).

[NE2]

Houston may be the largest city to do this. Peep it.

[algorerhythms]

Maybe I'm not thinking it through well enough, but if they don't want other cities to annex the land, couldn't they just annex it themselves first? And I'm guessing the cities aren't allowed to have non-contiguous sections.

[NE2]

Property owners usually have to agree to be annexed.

[Brandon]

Apparently the new Google Maps allows you to zoom in on a city by clicking its name, and it shows you the city limits when it zooms in. So I tried it on a few cities and stumbled on this. I'm wondering whether this is a Google Maps slipup, or if Owasso actually did annex a bunch of roads in the surrounding area, but none of the land attached to the roads.

This isn't a new feature--the old Google Maps showed you jurisdictional boundaries (states, counties, cities) too.  What Google Maps shows for Owasso is a classic deployment of the encircling-annexation tactic (which gained notoriety in Arizona when it was used by several municipalities in the Phoenix area to carve out parcels of rural land which their neighbors would then not be able to annex).

Which is considered challengeable in Illinois.  Municipalities have tried this in Illinois only to be shot down by their neighbors in court.  So now the tactic is to annex the road plus properties along the road to be annexed, even if it remains agricultural for the foreseeable future.

[Brandon]

Property owners usually have to agree to be annexed.

In most cases, yes.  Some states allow for forcible annexation of smaller properties.  Illinois does, as well as a few other interesting ways of annexation:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=006500050K7-1-1

[J N Winkler]

Which is considered challengeable in Illinois.  Municipalities have tried this in Illinois only to be shot down by their neighbors in court.  So now the tactic is to annex the road plus properties along the road to be annexed, even if it remains agricultural for the foreseeable future.

It doesn't work in Arizona anymore either, since the annexation statutes were reformed to curb the worst abuses.  (My reference is Carol E. Heim, Border Wars:  Tax Revenues, Annexation, and Urban Growth in Phoenix, published by the UMass Amherst economics department as a working paper.)  What I have called "encircling annexation" is also called "strip annexation" when the purpose is to isolate an area of unincorporated land--a "county island"--so that neighboring municipalities cannot annex it.  In 1980, Arizona banned strip annexation by imposing a minimum width requirement of 200 feet (exclusive of highway width) and requiring that the annexed area be no more than twice as long as it was wide.  In 1986, it also required the consent of half of the landowners in the annexed area, not just a group of such landowners representing half the assessed property value, and it also required a public hearing to be held.  The 1980 measure came after a number of annexations in the 1970's created county islands ranging in size up to 86 square miles.

But, as we all know, annexation law varies from state to state.  As long as abuses are not too flagrant, many states refrain from restricting annexation in order to keep the number of municipalities in a given area down, and thus limit the opportunities for coordination failures in land-use planning.  The Phoenix area has only 24 incorporated municipalities, for example, while Chicago has 265.

[NE2]

Does Kansas allow you to annex only a highway ROW? Would I be able to create a town, annex all of a state highway, and force KDOT to turn over maintenance to me?

[J N Winkler]

Does Kansas allow you to annex only a highway ROW? Would I be able to create a town, annex all of a state highway, and force KDOT to turn over maintenance to me?

I haven't done a detailed study of what statutes and court rulings allow in terms of annexation in Kansas.  However, there is abundant precedent for annexing land other than a highway right-of-way (US 54 and 119th Street West near west Wichita being cases in point), and there is apparently precedent for noncontiguous land (e.g. the proposed Furley landfill site) being annexed if it is to be used for a defined municipal purpose.

In regard to your last question:

*  You can create a town if you have the necessary number of people (300, basically) for at least a third-class city.

*  Whether you can annex a state highway depends on whether strip annexation is allowed under Kansas law.  I don't know if it is, but a casual inspection of the Kansas City area (where one would expect competitive annexation to be at its fiercest) turns up no examples of it.  The closest approximations are pene-enclaves belonging to Overland Park where the isthmus connection is the width of a street.  I don't know if strip annexation Arizona-style has been tried in Kansas.

*  If you annex a state highway, I am not sure you can force KDOT to relinquish it, though I think you remove the ability of the KDOT secretary to exercise certain powers which he or she enjoys in respect of state highways but not city connecting links, including the power to relocate to a new alignment.  Again, I am not sure annexation for this purpose has been tried.

Edit:  It appears that strip annexation is not generally allowed under Kansas law owing to certain perimeter requirements under KSA § 12-520:

*  Annexation of up to 21 acres allowed if two-thirds of the boundary line of the annexed land adjoins the city boundary.

*  Annexation of up to 21 acres allowed if it will make the city boundary "straight and harmonious" (the precise opposite of the usual result of strip annexation).

Annexation can be involuntary (Kansas is one of a handful of states that permits this), with no area limit, as long as the annexed land is contiguous with the city and is platted.  However, a separate provision bans annexation of highway right-of-way unless the land on one or both sides of the highway is already part of the city.

Annexation can also be reversed if residents of the annexed land feel the city has not provided adequate public services--an issue that has surfaced in Sedgwick County.

However, there is a catch:  per KSA § 12-521, a city can annex outside the parameters of KSA § 12-520 if it files plans for the services it intends to provide in the annexed land and gets the approval of the county commissioners.  So, in principle, strip annexation can happen if a city can get buy-in from the county, but I don't think this happens often (if at all) since it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which it is in a county's interest to allow municipalities in its area to fight border wars with each other.

[Brandon]

But, as we all know, annexation law varies from state to state.  As long as abuses are not too flagrant, many states refrain from restricting annexation in order to keep the number of municipalities in a given area down, and thus limit the opportunities for coordination failures in land-use planning.  The Phoenix area has only 24 incorporated municipalities, for example, while Chicago has 265.

Part of that is that incorporation as a village (governmental type) is relatively easy in Illinois in addition to fairly easy annexation.  So you get a mixture of municipal sizes with some far more aggressive than others.

[Scott5114]

Duncan is another Oklahoma city with similar annexation patterns to Owasso. It appears non-contiguous annexing is allowed, because Duncan has annexed several lakes east of town with no connection to the main city.

[NE2]

Duncan is another Oklahoma city with similar annexation patterns to Owasso.

What the hell line do those follow? Underground water pipes?

It appears non-contiguous annexing is allowed, because Duncan has annexed several lakes east of town with no connection to the main city.

This appears to be the annexation of the lakes: http://www.tax.ok.gov/boundary/Duncan%20Sec%2015.pdf

Current law (effective 1978 at the latest) bans noncontiguous annexation:

The municipal governing body by ordinance may add to the municipality territory adjacent or contiguous to its corporate limits and increase or diminish the corporate limits as the governing body deems desirable for the benefit of the municipality.

This may mean that strip annexation is illegal: http://www.ofblegalfoundation.org/past/item.aspx?archive=0&page=8381.htm&id=8381

PS: I love the Oknoname reservoirs.

[J N Winkler]

Current law (effective 1978 at the latest) bans noncontiguous annexation:

The municipal governing body by ordinance may add to the municipality territory adjacent or contiguous to its corporate limits and increase or diminish the corporate limits as the governing body deems desirable for the benefit of the municipality.

This may mean that strip annexation is illegal: http://www.ofblegalfoundation.org/past/item.aspx?archive=0&page=8381.htm&id=8381

After looking at the petition for declaratory judgment, I suspect Oklahoma law includes exceptions for noncontiguous annexation similar to those that exist in Kansas (where, for example, a city may annex land it owns whether that is adjacent to its borders or not), since it was apparently necessary for the plaintiffs to argue both that the annexed parcels were noncontiguous and served no tangible municipal purpose.  There may be another exception for municipal services with approval of the county, since the plaintiffs also addressed this in the petition.

Durant was attempting to create county islands of 5 square miles in the west and 12.5 square miles in the east, which is pretty egregious even by 1970's Arizona standards.

[kkt]

Apparently the new Google Maps allows you to zoom in on a city by clicking its name, and it shows you the city limits when it zooms in. So I tried it on a few cities and stumbled on this. I'm wondering whether this is a Google Maps slipup, or if Owasso actually did annex a bunch of roads in the surrounding area, but none of the land attached to the roads.

This isn't a new feature--the old Google Maps showed you jurisdictional boundaries (states, counties, cities) too.  What Google Maps shows for Owasso is a classic deployment of the encircling-annexation tactic (which gained notoriety in Arizona when it was used by several municipalities in the Phoenix area to carve out parcels of rural land which their neighbors would then not be able to annex).

Oh, kind of like a giant game of Go?

[J N Winkler]

Oh, kind of like a giant game of Go?

Yup.  Bigger stakes, more players, no requirement to play in turn, plus some consent requirements (which in the bad old days could be gotten around by holding secret meetings in the small hours of the morning)--but, yes, very similar.

[DSS5]

Yesterday I discovered that you can set Google Maps to use "Lite" mode (which automatically is used for slow connections) by default, the only big change being that you get satellite instead of 3D "earth" imagery. Now it is actually usable and not so bad.

As of yesterday almost brand-new imagery for Boone, NC and surrounding areas, which is awesome. The old imagery was very low resolution and from 2008. Also some new Street View imagery, but only main roads.

[1995hoo]

Earlier today I found something odd with the new Google Maps: It appears the satellite view (or "Earth" view as it calls it) is far more zoomed in than the map view. If you zoom in fairly close on the map, then click over to the satellite view, the zoom level is so high that you have to zoom out to see anything. Very strange. I don't know why they don't have it use the same zoom on both views.

[hotdogPi]

Earlier today I found something odd with the new Google Maps: It appears the satellite view (or "Earth" view as it calls it) is far more zoomed in than the map view. If you zoom in fairly close on the map, then click over to the satellite view, the zoom level is so high that you have to zoom out to see anything. Very strange. I don't know why they don't have it use the same zoom on both views.

True with the old Google Maps too.