Overuse of Google Maps Images?

[CanesFan27]

It's like I heard a lot about this concern while binging the Gribblenation Roadcast on my roadtrip yesterday.   

I totally forget, did I mention it in one of the Roadcasts?  I hardly ever remember the things I say when I do one.

Actually I am pretty sure it was Adam on the one talking about the research for the I-79 routing and the Twin River Scenic Route.

Yup, that was me.  Nice to know we have listeners!  Wish I had more time to record more!

[oscar]

If you just can't get the timing down...stopping the car and getting out is always an option.

That's my preference, but not always an option. What I have in mind is an overhead sign above a dangerous interchange with narrow lanes, almost no shoulders, lots of fast-moving traffic, and no passenger with me to take the photo. In that case, I found an adjacent park, and used playground equipment to get high enough that a fence wouldn't obstruct my camera's view. Usually, what happens instead is that I don't get the shot at all.

A dashcam (which I don't have) might be another option. Too bad my windshield seems to be a magnet for bug splats and bird crap.

[Scott5114]

If you just can't get the timing down...stopping the car and getting out is always an option.

That's my preference, but not always an option. What I have in mind is an overhead sign above a dangerous interchange with narrow lanes, almost no shoulders, lots of fast-moving traffic, and no passenger with me to take the photo. In that case, I found an adjacent park, and used playground equipment to get my camera over a fence. Usually, what happens instead is that I don't get the shot at all.

A dashcam (which I don't have) might be another option. Too bad my windshield seems to be a magnet for bug splats and bird crap.

Road Guy Rob had a pretty cool drone shot of a gantry in his video about the MUTCD sign colors. That could be an option for something like that. The owner of the OKCTalk forum has been taking drone shots of the progress on the I-235/I-44 interchange reconstruction, and they look fantastic.

I think drone technology is something that you would have seen the hobby really embrace had it been widely available before GSV was.

[tolbs17]

I think drone technology is something that you would have seen the hobby really embrace had it been widely available before GSV was.

Are you referring to photos like these?

https://vintageaerial.com/photos/north-carolina

1986 shot of the Carolina East Mall well, not really. It shows the parking lot more than the building... lol

[Scott5114]

I mean, I literally gave two examples in my post of what I was talking about, but if you insist on making me lead a horse to water:

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24127&page=88
https://youtu.be/pVkzCbFLA9k?t=900

[Route66Fan]

I've found as of late that a large percentage of people in the road community only post Google Maps Images to road media sites.  While in certain circumstances I can understand why Google Maps image may be useful the trouble is that I see it becoming watered down in terms of meaningful content.  Example; the "There is no way that is MUTCD Compliant"  Facebook group has probably a 70-80% rate of people posting images from Google Maps.

Personally, I much rather use Google Maps to find something interesting.  From there I would probably go see the interesting item for myself and take a photo.  I get it that a great many people in the hobby aren't interested in taking road photos, but I would have thought more would be into going to see items of interest.  Most of the best stuff I've found isn't even on roads that have Google Car images.  How is doing nothing but cropping images from Google Maps or posting links fun?  At this point I'm just trying to get an understanding from outside my point view.

I use Google Maps because I can't drive, It's the best that I can do right now. I do have some road pictures that my family had taken on road trips, years ago, but those pictures have, mostly, not been digitized & most of them aren't of old roads. Google Maps is the best that I can do right now.

[1995hoo]

Considering I don't drive, me sending pics from Google maps is the only way I can present things.

Sounds like there's an easy solution that involves a trip to the DMV.

[wanderer2575]

...

That being said, while I prefer to post photos of my own whenever possible, there are times when a sign near me has been relevant to a conversation, yet before that conversation I haven't ever taken the time to actually take a photo of it.

I agree, and I do the same.

I'll add that sometimes I would never take a photo because on its own the subject of that photo doesn't interest me; for example, service signs, traffic signals, and street blades.  But if I know a location that is relevant to the topic, I see no problem posting a GSV link.

[jemacedo9]

What bothers me is when someone views that their definition of roadgeekery is the only acceptable definition.
What bothers me is when someone views that their opinion of a topic is the only acceptable opinion.

[tolbs17]

Considering I don't drive, me sending pics from Google maps is the only way I can present things.

Sounds like there's an easy solution that involves a trip to the DMV.

But I do have a license...

[Max Rockatansky]

Expounding on my original post I do on occasion utilize Google Street View images even in my own writings when it serves a means to an end.  I've actually found Google to be somewhat useful if I miss something important in my own photos on mainline highways.  Trouble is though, a lot of lesser highways out west only have pre-2010 images or don't have images at all.  Personally I would prefer to substitute a link to someone else's work or use something they have with their permission.  Typically most things I write about start with a historic overview which is accompanied by a Route photo log if possible. 

If I do utilize Google Images I will generally try to replace them when/if opportune with something I took.  The below blog I did on CA 53 is a good example of this.  I wrote the CA 53 blog during peak COVID restrictions at work (when I couldn't travel more than 150 miles) and I originally used Google Images to splice a Route photo log together.   When I drove CA 53 a couple months later I uploaded my own photos into the Route photo log segment of the blog.  CA 53 is a rare example where I kept the Google Images in addition to to my own given they illustrated different directions of travel and some changes along the highway:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/california-state-route-53.html?m=1

In the US 299/CA 299 blog I used Google images to patch holes in my own photo coverage in the highway.  For the most part I started to get serious about Route photo logs around early 2017 and everything before that was decidedly way more laid back.  Most of the photos west of I-5 in the blog were my 2016 images of locales on 299 spliced with Google Street View photos.  I would like to replace these photos eventually but I have no idea when I'll be in the 299 corridor again and I wanted to illustrate the highway as best as I could given the huge volume of historic information:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/11/adventure-us-route-299-california-state.html?m=1

My preference for when I don't have a proper log of my own photos would be to do a substitution media such as CA 73.  I had a photo for the blog cover but I utilized Roadwaywiz media with permission from the content owner:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/10/california-state-route-73.html?m=1

I think Tom hit on what I would view as ideal use of Google Maps images above for standalone road posts.  He's generally very selective in what he posts and I think most would agree subjectively.  But one could probably say something similar with any kind of media in that some things are worth sharing whereas others aren't. 

[Scott5114]

I think Tom hit on what I would view as ideal use of Google Maps images above for standalone road posts.  He's generally very selective in what he posts and I think most would agree subjectively.  But one could probably say something similar with any kind of media in that some things are worth sharing whereas others aren't. 

That's probably the key problem–some people apparently can't live without vomiting GSV links everywhere, whether or not they're interesting to look at.

[Bruce]

I wouldn't mind GSV links so much if they were paired with a screenshot instead of just the link with almost no context. On mobile, it overrides the Google Maps app, and on desktop it's easy to scroll past.

[hotdogPi]

I used to use the Google Maps API, which let you embed map images and satellite images without people having to click a link, although getting the coordinates right involved trial and error. Unfortunately, they stopped allowing it a few years ago.

[webny99]

I think Tom hit on what I would view as ideal use of Google Maps images above for standalone road posts.  He's generally very selective in what he posts and I think most would agree subjectively.  But one could probably say something similar with any kind of media in that some things are worth sharing whereas others aren't. 

That's probably the key problem–some people apparently can't live without vomiting GSV links everywhere, whether or not they're interesting to look at.

I am probably one of the most frequent users of Street View links on this forum. I don't think they're a big issue unless they are severely lacking context. I normally try to embed them into the text of my post if possible, so readers have context and know more or less what the link is going to show, and then can make their own judgment if they want to open it or not.

[formulanone]

The problem is inanity. An interesting post would be just as good whether taken by the submitter or cropped from the Goog. But people love to post inane nitpicks because they think it's helpful.

^ This.

A good post is a good post; there's always going to be those who take a different appreciation for the hobby, and won't care for it the same way you do. Unless someone's being a jerk about it, that's okay. After all, I can't get every shot with my camera (but I can take nicer ones than GSV can...for now), that's why we all play a part.

All I ask is that if you're going to take a screenshot of GSV, please don't take a photo of your monitor; that's just lazy and looks half-assed. Figure out how to make an image file right from your desktop.

For the fellow facebookers out there; if you're just going to criticize some trivial design flaw in someone's photo, and they're not looking for suggestions, please don't bother. It's actually kind of disrespectful. If it gives you the shakes so badly, print it out and destroy the paper in your spare time.

[SkyPesos]

My 2 cents

GSV is pretty much my main way of attaching some sort of image/visual representation to my examples in a lot of threads. I don't have a car right now, and full time in school, so I can't really go out to take road pictures of my own. I also think a GSV link or image is much more useful for pointing out locations than with nothing at all, if that's an alternative option you have in mind. For example, if a thread is about DDI locations, and I mention "I-70 exit 229B at 5th St" as one, it would be much easier for someone that's interested to see the location for themselves with a link than to manually open up Google Maps and type it in.

I remember this quote from another thread, and it sums up my thoughts pretty well:

Given where tolbs17 lives ...

Pet peeve of mine.  Sorry guys, but don't post something vague and then expect me to determine where it is based on where you live.  That means I have to look at your profile (if you even have your location listed), assume you're not on vacation and posting about wherever you happen to be at the time, then break out a map and figure it out myself.  Chances are, I'm just not that interested in whatever you have to say to make it worth it.  Just include a Google Maps link and make life easier for the rest of us.  Then we might actually enter the discussion.

[/rant]

[jmacswimmer]

I think Tom hit on what I would view as ideal use of Google Maps images above for standalone road posts.  He's generally very selective in what he posts and I think most would agree subjectively.  But one could probably say something similar with any kind of media in that some things are worth sharing whereas others aren't. 

That's probably the key problem–some people apparently can't live without vomiting GSV links everywhere, whether or not they're interesting to look at.

I am probably one of the most frequent users of Street View links on this forum. I don't think they're a big issue unless they are severely lacking context. I normally try to embed them into the text of my post if possible, so readers have context and know more or less what the link is going to show, and then can make their own judgment if they want to open it or not.

This is how I look at streetview - I also tend to embed streetview links into my posts frequently, but being an extremely visual learner I look at it as a way of providing visual backup to what I'm typing up in my post.  Furthermore, when I do link streetview it's typically something I first noticed while driving but didn't get a picture of, and then went back later to jog my memory (as opposed to, say, clicking around streetview and then posting stuff the instant I come across it).  So I don't have an issue with streetview if it's being used to support a thoughtful post, but I can agree that the zero-context streetview spams (which seem to be disproportionally located in one state) get irritating after a while.

[CtrlAltDel]

This is how I look at streetview - I also tend to embed streetview links into my posts frequently, but being an extremely visual learner I look at it as a way of providing visual backup to what I'm typing up in my post.

That's also why I like when various rerouting and renumbering proposals have a map as opposed to a verbal description.

[formulanone]

This is how I look at streetview - I also tend to embed streetview links into my posts frequently, but being an extremely visual learner I look at it as a way of providing visual backup to what I'm typing up in my post.

That's also why I like when various rerouting and renumbering proposals have a map as opposed to a verbal description.

Yup, same here...sometimes, I need a visual picture in my head, and for this forum, map puts it into perspective.

Some posts are better than others about context; though sometimes, that's based on assumptions of the audience. If there's a new post in the Maryland thread, then there's a good chance that there's not a lot of need for backup context about where it's located.

But if it's in the Central Ohio thread, and somebody mentions something in Idaho that's very specific to a project in Idaho, then it helps to have a link or give the us some clues so we know what you're talking about.

[Alex]

I almost exclusively read the forum on my tablet. GSV links are a pain in the ass as the application on my tablet sucks as compared to using Google Maps on my PC. As such, I rarely go to a GSV link here unless it's something that seems like it might be interesting. Unfortunately the bulk of posts vomiting GSV links (that's funny), don't convince me to want to bog down my tablet loading up a GSV link that is likely not worth viewing.

I occassionally will post here indicating to members to provide more context as to what your GSV link is covering. Too often posts come off as "look at this" without much of anything else.

As for the Facebook posts with just GSV screenshots, I almost always ignore those. Seeing images with giant street name text overlaying the road is meh, and furthermore I can view GSV myself. I get that people can't get around on their own, or aren't in an area to shoot things themselves because they are located somewhere else in the country, but that doesn't mean I want to see posts with screenshots from their couch roadding either.

And the whining on the forum about the lack of updated GSV imagery is increasing. 

But otherwise, I can echo your sentiment Tom.

[Tom958]

Also, a thing for the pro-GSV posters to consider: GSV must be very expensive to keep updated and running. What happens if Google decides GSV does not actually result in enough profit to justify its existence, and they take it down? They've done it before with other services they own, even popular ones. 

We would then have a 10-year period left greatly undocumented, and broken links all over the forum. It would be devastating to the hobby.

Which is a good argument for taking GSV screenshots and posting them to the internet. 

Or archive them privately, but that wouldn't help the hobby much.

[adventurernumber1]

I fear I am guilty in this regard, and on two counts, as I also don't drive (due to physical limitations).

Authentic photos are no doubt far superior to those from GMSV, and look better. Since I rarely have the opportunity to get natural photos outside of my immediate area, Google Maps is often the only way I can present something if I don't already have the photo. However, I would probably do well do be more selective in what I derive from Google Maps, as my contributions aren't always the most compelling.

My YouTube channel and Flickr page have been stagnant for a long while, but I hope to change that soon. Bit by bit I am catching up on my backlog, but whatever happened a few years ago (partially an overload of videos/media at one time, compromising both my storage and my motivation due to being overwhelmed, and external factors as well) has taken far too long to clean up, and it is still being cleaned up. All that to say is I really should get on the ball with my road photos and videos and don't have much of an excuse, but still have a ways to go.

I do treasure the quality of authentic road photos, but often Google Maps is the most convenient way to go, and in certain cases the only way. To me, GMSV links can assist in what someone is trying to convey (about a road) in a post, and can be quite essential (although I agree with webny99's advice about how to incorporate them into a post smoothly). I definitely understand the argument that images from Google Maps just don't look good posted to the forum (compared to real photos), and with that said I will try to avoid doing this in the future.

[NE2]

Here's a good example of a bad Goog post (in the Old Highway Alignments group):

No text, uncropped, just screenshot and upload.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Reminds me of the people who post road photos that are 70% car interior and 30% whatever they were intending to photograph.