AARoads Forum

Google Maps has a new look! Check it out!

The new fonts/spacing are questionable, and the new US route shields have a weird shape. That said, I've been doing Google Maps intensive work all day the last couple days, and the new shields do seem less stressful on the eyes after extended work- since it's not Google's job to shape shields correctly, I guess I like it because of the reduced eye strain.

I see new style highway markers and exit number icons. It appears the external line strokes on the roads were thinned too. Anything else besides this and what corco posted changed?

It looks more cartoonish to me.

I'm not liking the new shields.  Look worse than what they had before imo.

Especially the exit numbers.  Man, those are harder to read now for sure.

Personally, I like the Interstate ones and the State Route ones, but not the U.S. ones.

The UK changes of the actual data have been discussed on SABRE. There's some iffy stuff there.

It's a bit of both - obvious colouring problems (almost every motorway spur and slip road being non-motorway, the former M10 and the roundabout at the end still being blue) haven't been sorted while some less obvious ones (Isle of Man and Jersey in particular) have been - though I have to give them finally turning the A38(M) blue (it was reddy-orange before), but they lose it by making the Newry bypass in Northern Ireland blue. The data updates are hit and miss (including changing back a recent update that was correct), there's some really odd stuff in places where the changes have taken place - turning a trunk road into a track in a place where they will bypass a poor stretch, but prematurely. It looks like a gap in the road and directions don't work (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=Navidale+Rd%2FA9&daddr=A9&hl=en&sll=58.119515,-3.634329&sspn=0.037761,0.077162&geocode=FU3VdgMdnnjI_w%3BFZvfdgMdApHI_w&vpsrc=0&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=14&t=m&z=14), meaning Inverness - Wick is 103.6 mi, 2 hr 1 min on Bing, and 135 mi, 3 hours 40 mins on Google. The longest possible detour, from one side of the 'gap' to the other is about 90 miles and 2h45.

The new design of the Trans-Canada Highway shield is just so wrong...it's even worse than the botched job on the US ones...

Quote from: cu2010 on December 08, 2011, 05:47:19 PM
The new design of the Trans-Canada Highway shield is just so wrong...it's even worse than the botched job on the US ones...

Wow, I actually liked them when they resembled a maple leaf, now, I don't really know what that looks like, almost like a leaf on fire or something.
As for the Interstate shields, I don't know how I feel about the color scheme, they do kinda have a cartoonish feel to them.

If nothing else it's a testament to why graphic designers who don't have a particular interest in road signs shouldn't be allowed to design stuff like this. Forget just the US shields, every shield is stylized at best. Seriously guys, there are standard specs for these things which are publicly available for free, you don't need to redesign your own version of them!

It would be awesome if they actually used the standard design for state and provincial routes rather than ovals and home plates, but I've yet to see anyone but a state DOT or a roadgeek produce such.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 08, 2011, 07:48:28 PM
It would be awesome if they actually used the standard design for state and provincial routes rather than ovals and home plates, but I've yet to see anyone but a state DOT or a roadgeek produce such.

I've seen the occasional commercial paper map with the actual shield shapes (e.g. ACSC if I remember correctly).

In OpenStreetMap, some people are working on getting shields displayed instead of the current British-style markers. This would include state shields. Personally I think this is unnecessary and could hurt legibility in some cases (e.g. WV fractional routes, strangely-shaped county route shields).

I like the use of a few shapes (circle, square, pentagon), but I don't think they're applied in the right places. But I definitely like the colored shields in New Brunswick. I also like the simpler colors that hark back to much earlier versions - or to the version you get when you have a bad connection. I'm hoping that the API has lost a few pounds in the process, though I have my doubts. Dislike that county routes still get no respect.

ETA: Interestingly, Aussies seem to love the changes, it's cleared up a lot of their route numbering apparently. That's what they get for having so many overlapping numbering systems...

Quote from: NE2 on December 08, 2011, 07:53:53 PMIn OpenStreetMap, some people are working on getting shields displayed instead of the current British-style markers. This would include state shields. Personally I think this is unnecessary and could hurt legibility in some cases (e.g. WV fractional routes, strangely-shaped county route shields).

Well, it's better than just not displaying any marker at all (see: almost every multiplex in the USA involving anything higher than a state route).

I think the exit numbers just need a slight improvement by making it a little bigger. I like the new font and the shields though.

I don't mind the new shield shapes, but the numbers in them look all grainy and pixellated on my computer. :\

I noticed this yesterday-I was using it in the afternoon and came back a few hours later and when I moved the map, I suddenly noticed shield fonts changing. I did notice the odd shape of the U.S. shields but other than that I haven't noticed many notable differences.

The rounded bottoms on US and interstate shields makes them look fat.  Maybe Google is trying to tell America to get some exercise. The two digit interstates look okay, I guess, but 3 digit shields are obnoxiously semi-circular. They look like lazy versions of what they're supposed to be.

I've got no quarrel with the flatted ovals for state highways, though.  That looks good.  At least in my area, they seem to be doing a better job of marking all the routes on multiplexes.

Huh, look at that, Google is labeling I-269 in Tennessee.  Guess they can't wait either.

Agreed on the exit number styling (it's really hard to read) and the rounded bottom of the US route shield. I like the new ovals for state routes.

They seem to have messed up some of the road types in the conversion, as I'm seeing the entire Las Vegas Beltway marked as freeway when there's still several stretches in the north that still have traffic signals...


Also, would it kill Google to add banners to the special route markers on its maps?!?!? MapQuest figured this out practically from day one, it shouldn't be that hard...

Well they fixed the fact that my street is (and has been for at least 50 years) one way finally, and a few other random local errors, but even though a few were fixed, a lot of roads still have the wrong line type. One example that quickly comes to mind is California SR 86 and 86S, which are shown as freeways even though they are plain old divided highways for all but a mile or so, and La Cienga Blvd's short expressway stretch in Los Angeles is shown as a freeway now, even through the intersection in the middle. CA SR's 58 and 14 have the same issue near Mojave / California City.

Well, I might not like the new look, but they have at least made I-381 a freeway FINALLY!!!

http://g.co/maps/hchru

Quote from: Duke87 on December 08, 2011, 07:48:28 PM
If nothing else it's a testament to why graphic designers who don't have a particular interest in road signs shouldn't be allowed to design stuff like this. Forget just the US shields, every shield is stylized at best. Seriously guys, there are standard specs for these things which are publicly available for free, you don't need to redesign your own version of them!

It would be awesome if they actually used the standard design for state and provincial routes rather than ovals and home plates, but I've yet to see anyone but a state DOT or a roadgeek produce such.

The standard designs might work in a digital "large print edition" tile map or on well designed printed maps.

In the tile maps like Google, the more complicated shield shapes, like the US highway shield, cannot be rendered so accurately when they must be represented by a graphic with only a few pixels in each dimension.  The same is true of shield designs where the most important part -- the route number -- is a rather small fraction of the area of the shield (e.g., Idaho, NC, MI).

For digital maps, you primarily need the route number to be a legible size to serve its functional purpose and for it to be inside a shield that is small to keep clutter low.  I would expect that using accurate state highway shields in states like Idaho, Florida, Michigan, or North Carolina (to name a few) would be a poor choice for standard tile maps. 

The US shields and oval US state highway "shields" are reasonable compromises, even if they are not perfect.

I'd love to see Google use a different font for the text in their maps so that the pairs "i","l" and "rn","m" are much easier to tell apart. 

I'm also on the fence here...not sure what to make of it  :-/

Google still hasn't addressed the following in Maps.

1. No county borders shown. Mapquest and Microsoft had this from the start
2. No county/state secondary route markers shown. Google added them as text for "state secondaries", so the data is there. There was also the US-527 goof in NJ a while back.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 10, 2011, 11:46:31 PM
Google still hasn't addressed the following in Maps.

1. No county borders shown. Mapquest and Microsoft had this from the start
2. No county/state secondary route markers shown. Google added them as text for "state secondaries", so the data is there. There was also the US-527 goof in NJ a while back.

3. Tolled limited access highways are not denoted on the map in a different color from free limited access highways.

Quote from: drrosenrosen on December 11, 2011, 03:23:57 AM
3. Tolled limited access highways are not denoted on the map in a different color from free limited access highways.

Even stranger, they are in some places (e.g. France, Spain).

Quote from: Duke87 on December 08, 2011, 07:48:28 PM
It would be awesome if they actually used the standard design for state and provincial routes rather than ovals and home plates, but I've yet to see anyone but a state DOT or a roadgeek produce such.

MapArt does this. Don't know how their (MapMobility's) online mapping system is coming though...

I have been on Weather Underground's Wundermap Interactive Radar since last night (they use Google Maps) and I am not at all impressed by how the US highway shields look. It look more like a cat shield than a highway shield.

WHOAH!! Google Maps now shows corporate boundaries...but only for whatever municipality you happen to have searched for...try it!

Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
WHOAH!! Google Maps now shows corporate boundaries...but only for whatever municipality you happen to have searched for...try it!

Not doing this for me...

Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
WHOAH!! Google Maps now shows corporate boundaries...but only for whatever municipality you happen to have searched for...try it!

It still isn't exact. For example, there's no differentiation between Battle Creek and Springfield, and the Level Park neighborhood is shaded even though it's outside of Battle Creek's limits.

The shields look horrible and very pixelated. They were much sharper and better before.

Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
WHOAH!! Google Maps now shows corporate boundaries...but only for whatever municipality you happen to have searched for...try it!

I noticed this too-I always have Google maps set for my hometown, and I noticed yesterday that the boundaries were highlighted.

A couple other recent changes I noticed on Street View: the location given for any point now only includes a city if it is inside city limits, otherwise it only includes the state. Also, every image now includes the month and year the image was taken-something I find very helpful.

Quote from: Quillz on December 14, 2011, 03:25:06 PM
The shields look horrible and very pixelated. They were much sharper and better before.

I'm guessing this was done largely for mobile users...the new shields look much better on the iPhone than they do on my computer.

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on December 14, 2011, 03:35:04 PM
Also, every image now includes the month and year the image was taken-something I find very helpful.

Wow, that's sweet!  That will help answer questions about when a route was posted, that's for sure. :)

I use Google Maps every day at work to give directions to cable technicians.  Sometimes I use street view to describe a landmark or even a house description.  This will be useful to me, to be able to say 'A year and a half ago, it was a green house with a chain-link fence along the property line'.  That way the tech knows the house color and even the fence may have changed in that amount of time.

I do not like the new look of the shields on Google Maps. I thought they were the best looking for an online map but not anymore.

Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2011, 03:53:41 PM

Quote from: Quillz on December 14, 2011, 03:25:06 PM
The shields look horrible and very pixelated. They were much sharper and better before.

I'm guessing this was done largely for mobile users...the new shields look much better on the iPhone than they do on my computer.

Maybe, although the iPhone has a much higher DPI display than most devices in the first place.

I wonder why Maps doesn't just use .SVG elements. If anything, it should take up even less space than the .PNG elements they are likely using now.

I would think for a tiny lo-res pic, like 16x16, PNG would have to be smaller

How are you guys getting Google Maps to display municipal boundaries? I've tried searching multiple cities in multiple states, and nothing.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 16, 2011, 12:38:30 AM
How are you guys getting Google Maps to display municipal boundaries? I've tried searching multiple cities in multiple states, and nothing.

Maybe it was just a test, because it was working for me, but when I reloaded Google Maps earlier it wasn't doing it anymore. Actually, it still does show municipal boundaries, but they are just in the slightly darker shade than the unincorporated areas like before-not highlighted like they were talked about above.

Here in Southern Maine where everything is incorporated, I almost thought it went on a city/town distinction: Portland, South Portland and Westbrook all have the darker shaded background. Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, and Scarborough don't.
But scratch that: OOB is shaded in addition to Biddeford & Saco, and a portion of Scarborough near Oak Hill as well.

Quote from: yakra on December 16, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
Here in Southern Maine where everything is incorporated, I almost thought it went on a city/town distinction: Portland, South Portland and Westbrook all have the darker shaded background. Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, and Scarborough don't.
But scratch that: OOB is shaded in addition to Biddeford & Saco, and a portion of Scarborough near Oak Hill as well.

I believe they have shaded not only municipalities, but also CDP's. And of course, I don't think their database is quite flawless.

And no, my Google isn't highlighting them anymore either...

I think it has to do with whether Google thinks an area is urban/suburban vs rural.

I remember when the entire northeast was shaded!

Quote from: deanej on December 16, 2011, 10:47:12 PM
I think it has to do with whether Google thinks an area is urban/suburban vs rural.

I remember when the entire northeast was shaded!

Well if you look at Monroe County (NY), you'll see that the towns of Irondequoit and Brighton are shaded, but no other towns (because they're not incorporated places census-wise). That's because both are also CDP's coextensive with the town borders.

Then you have some of Greece and some of Gates shaded as well (even labeled the mysterious Gates-North Gates, which is definitely not a placename). So that's where I figure their funny shading practices come from.

Quote from: corco on December 08, 2011, 04:16:27 PM
The new fonts/spacing are questionable, and the new US route shields have a weird shape. That said, I've been doing Google Maps intensive work all day the last couple days, and the new shields do seem less stressful on the eyes after extended work- since it's not Google's job to shape shields correctly, I guess I like it because of the reduced eye strain.

I came around to the US and state route shields. But I find the Interstate shields and exit numbers to be almost illegible and can't imagine how anybody proposed those changes without being fired.

Hmm, I guess the whole thing just doesn't bother me much at all, same as Facebook redesigns. In fact, it's something I rather enjoy about Google Maps, how they keep you on your toes with little changes to their cartographic style, like when they first introduced tunnels and the afore-mentioned urban area shading. (I'm less a fan of when they change their database though.)

As long as they never decide to look like Bing with its weird bluish-purple color scheme...

For those who don't know, Pemex is Mexico's gas station chain.
Apparently, this one wasn't really needed (south of Nuevo Laredo):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.375378,-99.558481&spn=0.007031,0.009602&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.375378,-99.558481&spn=0.007031,0.009602&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6)

Acutally, if you zoom in, you'll realize it refers to two separate structures (the pumps themselves, and the building - ????):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.375643,-99.558865&spn=0.001758,0.002401&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.375643,-99.558865&spn=0.001758,0.002401&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6)

does "extra" in this case mean "superfluous geometric region, please correct" or is "Extra" the name of the convenience store associated with the gas station?

(I can barely remember what US convenience store names are, never mind Mexico.  I think I once saw an Oxxo next to a Pemex but don't ask me to confirm that.)

Apparently, Extra is the name of the convenience store (owned by Grupo Modelo).  Why only the fuel pumps are labelled Pemex, who knows?  And, yes, usually Oxxo (owned by FEMSA) is the one you see.  I do frequently get a kick out of the businesses Google chooses to label, especially when the location is just a bit off.  Sometimes, if you search for the business's address, the pin will be in the wrong place; but, if you search by the name, it will actually be pinned correctly.  I wonder where they're getting the data.....

When I map a gas station in OpenStreetMap I draw the canopy over the pumps and tag it amenity=fuel name=* and draw the convenience store building and tag it shop=convenience name=*. If they both have the name name (e.g. 7-Eleven) it will look like a duplicate: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.450494&lon=-81.477397&zoom=18&layers=M
I don't separately tag the landuse=retail area though when I do this.

By the way, the highlighting of cities in your search results has returned...

Quote from: NE2 on December 08, 2011, 07:53:53 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on December 08, 2011, 07:48:28 PM
It would be awesome if they actually used the standard design for state and provincial routes rather than ovals and home plates, but I've yet to see anyone but a state DOT or a roadgeek produce such.

I've seen the occasional commercial paper map with the actual shield shapes (e.g. ACSC if I remember correctly).

Map Works (based in Rochester, NY) uses proper shields for the states they make maps for (NY, and parts of PA and CT).  In New York, (I don't know about PA and CT) AAA uses Maps Works maps with AAA branding.  Here's (http://www.mapworksinc.com/online_map.php?map_id=2) an online version of the Monroe County map.

As for Google Maps, I think the old US shields are more accurate, and, like most others here, think the new exit numbers are hard to read.

There's another new look to Google Maps lately. Seems to be more terrain in the default view, including coloration of brown and green. But just now I discovered the best feature - while trying to locate a one-lane bridge, I found that zoomed in sufficiently, waterway names are appearing! I used to have to go to USGS topo maps to find names, which wasn't always successful. Now all I ask is for mountain range names, and then I'm totally set.

And there's yet another new look to Google Maps: in some metropolitan areas, including Detroit, the footprints of every building are now appearing! They appear to have been traced over the aerial imagery. Though there may be inaccuracies, I bet that it will be useful for finding where your house appears in relation to the nearby buildings.

Quote from: Steve on October 28, 2012, 04:05:45 AM
There's another new look to Google Maps lately. Seems to be more terrain in the default view, including coloration of brown and green. But just now I discovered the best feature - while trying to locate a one-lane bridge, I found that zoomed in sufficiently, waterway names are appearing! I used to have to go to USGS topo maps to find names, which wasn't always successful. Now all I ask is for mountain range names, and then I'm totally set.

Also, shaded relief now appears in low-to-mid zoom levels (it's only apparent in areas of high relief, however). Alaska now makes much more sense!

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on October 28, 2012, 09:54:48 AM
And there's yet another new look to Google Maps: in some metropolitan areas, including Detroit, the footprints of every building are now appearing! They appear to have been traced over the aerial imagery. Though there may be inaccuracies, I bet that it will be useful for finding where your house appears in relation to the nearby buildings.

The buildings have been around for a while now; the current set is largely compiled from the 3D warehouse models, such as you see in Google Earth.

For me the shaded relief appears on mid-to-high zooms; not at the low ones.

Quote from: deanej on October 28, 2012, 05:48:00 PM
For me the shaded relief appears on mid-to-high zooms; not at the low ones.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's our terminology that's backwards, not our browsing experience. :)

Low-to-mid as in relative scale (if said scale were expressed as a fraction), or more obviously, position of the zoom slider.

Mid-to-high if expressed in terms of apparent altitude.

Instead of making a new thread, I'm just gonna post here and say that the Allentown, PA area has just recently (within 24 hours) been given 45º imagery all throughout the area.

Hopefully a lot more places did as well, although if it was my decision, I'd prefer the super HD street view in the area, like this is just amazing: http://goo.gl/maps/ZIDhy
Especially compared to places like http://goo.gl/maps/5JtKK where signs are unreadable

Here's a full list of places that got new imagery in the update Some_Person mentioned:
http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2012/11/imagery-update-tour-sites-around-world.html

I hardly use Google Maps regardless of the makeup the corporate possy changed. Half the time, Google's wrong anyway. Like for MT Secondary 210, they mark that as US 210, but it's clear over on the other side of the state near Yellowstone! I'm not too impressed with it. Google just wants to slapdash things just to confuse people even moreso than they did with the previous version.

Their Map Maker feature sucks worse. So, pretty much, Bing is what I use. They're not right completely, but they're not completely half-wrong like Google Maps.

Quote from: Some_Person on November 19, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Instead of making a new thread, I'm just gonna post here and say that the Allentown, PA area has just recently (within 24 hours) been given 45º imagery all throughout the area.

Hopefully a lot more places did as well, although if it was my decision, I'd prefer the super HD street view in the area, like this is just amazing: http://goo.gl/maps/ZIDhy
Especially compared to places like http://goo.gl/maps/5JtKK where signs are unreadable

They've been pretty aggressively pursuing oblique imagery to incorporate in Google Earth (already done, though limited) and to compete with the likes of C3 technologies (ex-Nokia, now Apple...how that turned out) and to generally make strides beyond their existing user-created 3D Warehouse environment. Of course, Bing–er, Microsoft, had it the whole time with Bird's Eye, which is now ironically most useful as a historical tool!

Google will do pretty will with it, I predict...it will still have the pitfalls of uninterpreted data, but they seem to build that onto a pretty good base technologically (compare Street View with competing products like Bing's Streetside).

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 19, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Like for MT Secondary 210, they mark that as US 210, but it's clear over on the other side of the state near Yellowstone!

???

Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2012, 09:56:31 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 19, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Like for MT Secondary 210, they mark that as US 210, but it's clear over on the other side of the state near Yellowstone!

???

Yeah, some sort of link would be helpful for that.
The response "???" is unacceptable. Please add content with your posts. Underline what you're questioning, or write it out.

I snipped the post to the sentence I'm questioning. There's no US 210.

Speaking of new satellite view, Google finally updated the satellite view of Reading, Harrisburg, and in that huge general area in central PA. It was so old that it showed the US 222 freeway still under construction southwest of Reading, and that's been done for years!

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 19, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Half the time, Google's wrong anyway.*
[. . .]
completely half-wrong like Google Maps.*

* Rounding may have been used.

Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2012, 10:18:44 PM

Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2012, 09:56:31 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 19, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Like for MT Secondary 210, they mark that as US 210, but it's clear over on the other side of the state near Yellowstone!

???

Yeah, some sort of link would be helpful for that.
The response "???" is unacceptable. Please add content with your posts. Underline what you're questioning, or write it out.

Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2012, 10:59:44 PM
I snipped the post to the sentence I'm questioning. There's no US 210.

I'm pretty sure that Billy meant US 310 which runs from I-90 at Laurel MT to US 14/16/20 at Greybull WY.  ;-)

To clear the confusion, here's what I meant about US 210 being incorrectly marked.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi917.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad16%2FBJFRacing01%2FUS210_questionmark.png&hash=cab3429000228cc2c0d19b7e65230f6ec4cc1df9)

Yes, that is NOT US 210. US 210 is the Carlton to Motley, MN route. Google thought this was US 210. It's Montana Secondary 210, a route that starts at Montana 200 in Bonner/Milltown and ends east of Turah.

Quote from: Some_Person on November 19, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Instead of making a new thread, I'm just gonna post here and say that the Allentown, PA area has just recently (within 24 hours) been given 45º imagery all throughout the area.

Hopefully a lot more places did as well, although if it was my decision, I'd prefer the super HD street view in the area, like this is just amazing: http://goo.gl/maps/ZIDhy
Especially compared to places like http://goo.gl/maps/5JtKK where signs are unreadable

Mine got it a week ago.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 21, 2012, 08:04:02 PM
To clear the confusion, here's what I meant about US 210 being incorrectly marked.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi917.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad16%2FBJFRacing01%2FUS210_questionmark.png&hash=cab3429000228cc2c0d19b7e65230f6ec4cc1df9)

Yes, that is NOT US 210. US 210 is the Carlton to Motley, MN route. Google thought this was US 210. It's Montana Secondary 210, a route that starts at Montana 200 in Bonner/Milltown and ends east of Turah.

Jesus Christ, what does it take to get a damn link around here? (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eddy+Ln,+Clinton,+Missoula,+Montana+59825&hl=en&ll=46.810355,-113.784649&spn=0.007343,0.020192&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=34.596091,82.705078&geocode=FQVCygId7tQ3-Q&hnear=Eddy+Ln,+Clinton,+Missoula,+Montana+59825&t=m&z=16)
It's just a case of taking the current route number and putting it in the shield of the former designation (US 12). Meanwhile, anyone think to report this to Google?

Okay! Nevermind, then! Friggin' A, dude! I was trying to clear the confusion but, screw it! It's worse now! Probably should have made those observations about US 210 incorrectly marked in "Incorrect highways marked on Google Maps"! Damn! Don't come blowing up on me, cause I already did, and I'm sorry!

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 21, 2012, 10:52:38 PM
Okay! Nevermind, then! Friggin' A, dude! I was trying to clear the confusion but, screw it! It's worse now! Probably should have made those observations about US 210 incorrectly marked in "Incorrect highways marked on Google Maps"! Damn! Don't come blowing up on me, cause I already did, and I'm sorry!

My response was somewhat sarcastic - of course that never comes across on the Internet. I'm not actually angry/upset.

Google's implementation is not as harsh as Bing's, but the perspective of the angled imagery still doesn't work properly when panning, which is bothersome.

As you pan "up", the bottom of the image should appear to move towards you if the perspective were done properly.

This is doable, but it would require texture mapping, which is not compatible with Google Maps' current method of loading image tiles.

Google Earth does it, though!