Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[LilianaUwU]

My biggest pet peeve right now with GSV is that if there is independent GSV coverage on a road (i.e., Brett Norman), then it defaults to that, even if there is newer imagery by Google itself. You'd think Google would want to promote its own quality coverage.

Just switch to the latest coverage and it will let you scroll with it without defaulting to Brett's.

Going from the map to a road with Brett's imagery will still default to it, though.  And that's assuming the Google imagery is on the same track; if it isn't, switching will be hard.

Of course, I'm usually looking out east, so I'm more likely to encounter this issue with B&V Cam imagery on the PA Turnpike.

Why are these cameras always such low quality for user submitted imagery? Shouldn't google have better quality control?

It might be because unlike Google, the third parties don't have the budget of a trillion dollar company to make good cameras.

My crappy Android Camera takes better photos than that, plus interstate Kyle and others have great road coverage. The quality of user submitted gsv is AWFUL.

Yeah. I would say that they shouldn't be allowed on roads that already have imagery of less than a certain number of years ago.

There are tourism companies that I've seen who submitted their own coverage of St. Pierre & Miquelon, The Bahamas, and some rural areas in Botswana and Zimbabwe. These are valuable without a doubt, but I'd say that user-submitted imagery from a country that already gets regular, extensive coverage should outright not be included.

Even then, if it's a road Google refuses to go on for some reason (such as QC 199 - they can go to Nunavut but not the Magdalen Islands?!), then sure, third-party imagery is fine. But there's third-party imagery on A-40 west of Québec City, a road that already has multiple first-party captures, and some are newer, and yet it wants me to see the third-party dogshit one whenever I plop the pegman on that road!

[pderocco]

My biggest pet peeve right now with GSV is that if there is independent GSV coverage on a road (i.e., Brett Norman), then it defaults to that, even if there is newer imagery by Google itself. You'd think Google would want to promote its own quality coverage.

Just switch to the latest coverage and it will let you scroll with it without defaulting to Brett's.

Going from the map to a road with Brett's imagery will still default to it, though.  And that's assuming the Google imagery is on the same track; if it isn't, switching will be hard.

Of course, I'm usually looking out east, so I'm more likely to encounter this issue with B&V Cam imagery on the PA Turnpike.

Why are these cameras always such low quality for user submitted imagery? Shouldn't google have better quality control?

It might be because unlike Google, the third parties don't have the budget of a trillion dollar company to make good cameras.

Affordable high quality Street View type cameras are available. The components of them aren't expensive: the sensors are cheap, the graphics processor chips are cheap, the M.2 terabyte drives are cheap, and the optics are cheap because they're fixed focal length and fixed focus lenses with no moving parts, arranged in a fixed geometry. The stitching problems have been solved by using mirrors so that the nodal points of all the cameras match. The cameras can all capture at the same instant, so that the images align even at freeway speeds. And the color and resolution can be as good as what you get with a modern iPhone. So the crap imagery must be from really cheap toy cameras, or very old obsolete equipment.

[freebrickproductions]

My biggest pet peeve right now with GSV is that if there is independent GSV coverage on a road (i.e., Brett Norman), then it defaults to that, even if there is newer imagery by Google itself. You'd think Google would want to promote its own quality coverage.

Just switch to the latest coverage and it will let you scroll with it without defaulting to Brett's.

Going from the map to a road with Brett's imagery will still default to it, though.  And that's assuming the Google imagery is on the same track; if it isn't, switching will be hard.

Of course, I'm usually looking out east, so I'm more likely to encounter this issue with B&V Cam imagery on the PA Turnpike.

Why are these cameras always such low quality for user submitted imagery? Shouldn't google have better quality control?

It might be because unlike Google, the third parties don't have the budget of a trillion dollar company to make good cameras.

My crappy Android Camera takes better photos than that, plus interstate Kyle and others have great road coverage. The quality of user submitted gsv is AWFUL.

Yeah. I would say that they shouldn't be allowed on roads that already have imagery of less than a certain number of years ago.

There are tourism companies that I've seen who submitted their own coverage of St. Pierre & Miquelon, The Bahamas, and some rural areas in Botswana and Zimbabwe. These are valuable without a doubt, but I'd say that user-submitted imagery from a country that already gets regular, extensive coverage should outright not be included.

I would say it depends, especially if a country is rather large (like the US) and a user is able to get roads and streets that GSV has been avoiding for one reason or another.

[kphoger]

I would say that they shouldn't be allowed on roads that already have imagery of less than a certain number of years ago.

Then, whenever a road construction project wraps up, we'd all be complaining about how they don't update their imagery often enough.

It's almost like Google's purpose in having Street View isn't so roadgeeks can armchair-road-trip down a highway, but so normal people can see a panorama from a given point.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would say that they shouldn't be allowed on roads that already have imagery of less than a certain number of years ago.

Then, whenever a road construction project wraps up, we'd all be complaining about how they don't update their imagery often enough.

It's almost like Google's purpose in having Street View isn't so roadgeeks can armchair-road-trip down a highway, but so normal people can see a panorama from a given point.

Street view is still surprisingly fantastic for armchair road trips. Yes there are still small areas of no modern coverage but they are frequently out giving those areas new coverage. For example, WA 20 in the Cascades, US 3 near Canada, and practically all of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.