Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[Scott5114]

These days Google seems to be consistently rating roads [adjective] than I would expect under that system

You unfortunately seem to have omitted the single word in this sentence that is critical to understanding the rest of your post.

[vdeane]

These days Google seems to be consistently rating roads [adjective] than I would expect under that system

You unfortunately seem to have omitted the single word in this sentence that is critical to understanding the rest of your post.

Must have gotten lost in the many revisions while I tried to formulate everything.  They rate things better than I would expect.  Travel conditions that used to be reported as red with spots of mauve now seem to show as yellow with spots of red.  It feels like every day I'll say something along the lines of "no, Google, this isn't yellow (or red, or even green!)".

[Rothman]

I know it'll never happen now, but my kingdom for Google Timeline to be restored to the web, rather than just localized on our phones...

[jakeroot]

Yesterday I leaned that the web version of Google Earth has gotten a LOT more capable than it used to be, to the point where it can load KML files (which I haven't tested) and view historical imagery (which I did and is why it's now one of my bookmarks).

They've made a lot of changes to Google Earth Web over the past 6 months or so. It's the only Google software that has actually improved in recent years!

Many of these Google Earth website changes were also made to Google Earth apps on the phones and tablets. The historic imagery slider is now available on the mobile apps, and that's a feature I used constantly on the desktop version.

[JREwing78]

Honestly, I liked the old way better.  It gave me a consistent sense of what to expect.  The new way doesn't.  If the Northway is anything but green and I take my usual route home, do I still get home in time for the news?  It's a gamble now.  Used to be anything but mauve was safe, but not any more.

It's certainly made harder my decision making for when to bail on the tollways around Chicago. It also feels like it's slow to provide proper warning on when I'm approaching congestion. There's only so many alternative routes, and some of them I need to know 10-15 minutes in advance if I need to use them. I can't keep tearing my attention away to futz with the map to get it to warn me of the slowdown!

A 2nd E-W tollway option south of and parallel to I-80 would be immensely helpful in that regard. 

[1995hoo]

For years, if I've opened a new browser tab on my PC (using Firefox) and then opened Google Maps, it's defaulted to roughly the area where I live. Not necessarily centered on my house, which is fine, but overall this part of Fairfax County.

Late last week, I spent some time looking at San Francisco on Google Maps in connection with sending an e-mail to my mother about a trip she has planned for a tour that will begin and end in that city. So now this week when I open Google Maps on my PC, it defaults to showing me San Francisco.

Anyone know what's causing that and how to fix it (short of purging all cookies)?

[hotdogPi]

If you zoom in to the eastern end of I-395 in Florida, you'll see a label for Exit 836. That's supposed to be the route number, not the exit number.

Getting directions involving this spot doesn't give the error.

[jmacswimmer]

If you zoom in to the eastern end of I-395 in Florida, you'll see a label for Exit 836. That's supposed to be the route number, not the exit number.

Getting directions involving this spot doesn't give the error.

The access road connecting I-75 to Southwest Florida Int'l Airport has a similar error - the unnumbered exit from the access road to Lee County route 885 is mistakenly labeled exit 885.

[Roadgeekteen]

Some google complaints/things I've noticed

Sometimes I've seen the route shields on the map be replaced with just typed digits. Unsure which is going on.

So I've been scrolling between every national park on google street view, and sometimes there is some good coverage from 2024, but suddenly at no major intersection it randomly turns into 2008 coverage even though there would be no where for the car to turn, and then back to modern coverage randomly later.

Brett Norman's photo quality is terrible, and I can barely scroll, same with all the other motorcycle user,s which is a big problem in the PNW and in Lassen Volcano, where sometimes it's either 2008 or Brett.

They still haven't fixed the glitch where you are scrolling over a bridge and it jumps to a lower road. A big problem in major cities and near stack interchanges.

How are there roads in Connecticut with only 2009 coverage? It's Connecticut. Very densely populated. And these are state roads.

They need modern coverage in more national parks, like on the GTTS road, Lassen Volcano, and Crater Lake.

If you choose older coverage and try to scroll, it instantly defaults you to the newer coverage without letting you stay on the old coverage.

[kurumi]

There are a few state routes in CT with partial or no coverage yet. CT 126 was partially covered, but was completed in August 2025. CT 125 is not covered yet (though it's short enough that you can see most of it from either end :-). CT 182A: also, not yet.

[kphoger]

So I've been scrolling between every national park on google street view, and sometimes there is some good coverage from 2024, but suddenly at no major intersection it randomly turns into 2008 coverage even though there would be no where for the car to turn, and then back to modern coverage randomly later.

Camera issue?

The same thing happens on my block, and I swear there used to be intermediate coverage that isn't there anymore.

They still haven't fixed the glitch where you are scrolling over a bridge and it jumps to a lower road. A big problem in major cities and near stack interchanges.

Agreed.  Super annoying.  Using the keyboard instead of the mouse works better.

How are there roads in Connecticut with only 2009 coverage? It's Connecticut. Very densely populated. And these are state roads.

They still require a driver to actually drive them in the Google car, same as any other road.

They need modern coverage in more national parks, like on the GTTS road, Lassen Volcano, and Crater Lake.

Need?  Really, need?  Nobody actually needs GSV.  It sure is nice to have, but it's not really needed.

If you choose older coverage and try to scroll, it instantly defaults you to the newer coverage without letting you stay on the old coverage.

This drives me up the wall!

[Roadgeekteen]

I mean I guess I wouldn't say it's needed. It would be nice though. There is also still a chunk of US 34 east of Wray Colorado with no coverage at all, not even 2008 coverage, which is just stunning to me given how dense the coverage is elsewhere.

[CoreySamson]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[pderocco]

I mean I guess I wouldn't say it's needed. It would be nice though. There is also still a chunk of US 34 east of Wray Colorado with no coverage at all, not even 2008 coverage, which is just stunning to me given how dense the coverage is elsewhere.

When they started Street View back in 2007, it looks like their first impulse was to go to really scenic places to capture the imagery, crappy as the technology was. Later, when they made the cameras ten times better, they preferred to send their cars out to capture new roads, rather than to redo the coverage of the old ones. So we end up with some of the nicest places having the worst imagery.

But they are gradually getting around to obsoleting that old imagery, now that their policy seems to be to capture as much imagery, even repeated every year, that they can get their hands on.

[pderocco]

They still haven't fixed the glitch where you are scrolling over a bridge and it jumps to a lower road. A big problem in major cities and near stack interchanges.

Agreed.  Super annoying.  Using the keyboard instead of the mouse works better.

If you choose older coverage and try to scroll, it instantly defaults you to the newer coverage without letting you stay on the old coverage.

This drives me up the wall!

They should organize the imagery into sequences that were shot consecutively, and by default it should always stay on the same sequence, even if that means the sequence ends somewhere where there exists more imagery from ananother sequence. If you want to be able to switch to another sequence just by clicking with the mouse, perhaps holding the shift key should make the available image locations show up as dots with dates on them, and clicking on one would switch to its sequence. On a mobile device with no keyboard, a button could be provided for showing those imagery location dots until one of them is tapped.

[kphoger]

They should organize the imagery into sequences that were shot consecutively, and by default it should always stay on the same sequence, even if that means the sequence ends somewhere where there exists more imagery from ananother sequence.

But, in the large majority of cases, I wouldn't want that.  If I'm scrolling down the most recent April 2024 GSV coverage, then I wouldn't want it to stop just because the next block only has January 2024 coverage instead.

It only drives me up the wall if I'm looking at older imagery and want to scroll along without jumping to newer imagery.  That happens a lot less often.

[pderocco]

They should organize the imagery into sequences that were shot consecutively, and by default it should always stay on the same sequence, even if that means the sequence ends somewhere where there exists more imagery from ananother sequence.

But, in the large majority of cases, I wouldn't want that.  If I'm scrolling down the most recent April 2024 GSV coverage, then I wouldn't want it to stop just because the next block only has January 2024 coverage instead.

It only drives me up the wall if I'm looking at older imagery and want to scroll along without jumping to newer imagery.  That happens a lot less often.

I get jumps from new to old imagery too, and it often seems as though it's based on a larger than normal gap between two shots from the same sequence (perhaps one shot was bad and got discarded), so it picks something as close as possible to the new spot. I can imagine an algorithm that would rigorously stick to one sequence to the end, and then allow the next click or tap to go to a new sequence without the shift key. But given that a particular well-traveled area may have many sequences from different dates, I'd really prefer to be visually presented with a set of choices so I don't get some random new sequence, possibly one from 2007.

[kphoger]

I get jumps from new to old imagery too, and it often seems as though it's based on a larger than normal gap between two shots from the same sequence (perhaps one shot was bad and got discarded), so it picks something as close as possible to the new spot.

Yep.  I just assume that the camera takes a shot every so often, and so we're working with multiple overlapping series of dots.  It also means that, as I'm scrolling along a road, it jumps back and forth between the left and right sides of the road.

[vdeane]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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?

[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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[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.

[Molandfreak]

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.