Google Offering Live Traffic Maps via Cell Phones

Kranfer writes "Reuters is covering the newest offering from Google: real-time traffic mapping on your cell phone. Now you can check how the traffic is ahead of you, of course as long as you don't cause the traffic incident yourself by checking the local issues on your cell phone while driving. Point your cell phone browser to http://google.com/gmm to get your local traffic maps if you live within one of the 30 U.S. cities where this is available."

Comments

I don't like this

[millisa]

Normally I am supportive of google and their endeavors . . . but I would argue that doing anything to *encourage* someone to be on their phone while driving wouldn't fall under the mantra 'Dont be evil'. It's bad enough people are talking and text messaging, but giving those retards who can't drive already an incentive to be less attentive . . .

You KNOW the times it'll be most hit is when people are stuck in traffic, which is when they should be most attentive to the road, not to their toys.

Bleh to this.

Re:I don't like this

[gigne]

I take it you disapprove of GPS navigation aids, or for that matter, a radio that might equally well distract you. Given that to use a phone in a car you have to have a holder or hands free kit (at least in the UK), doesn't this make it very similar to a GPS?

Re:I don't like this

[Skreems]

Personally, I would use this to check out my route BEFORE getting in the car, as that's when I'd need to know which route to take. Putting it on a cell phone is just handy because terminals aren't always available.

I am curious why they don't have a "show traffic" option on their normal web-based interface, though... you'd think it would be pretty wildly popular with people about to leave to/from work.

Re:I don't like this

[millisa]

Similar, but not the same. Navigational tools have hardware designed for that purpose. They are made with few buttons that can relay directions with the least amount of distraction. Cell phones generally aren't made this way since for some reason in the last 5 years they are to be the all-in-one wonder device (rather than a phone...). It means people will spend more time fiddling with the devices than they have any right to while driving a machine that can easily take lives. Even if there were 'hands-free' options created, I no more want some doof who's easily distracted using his phone than I want my doctor talking on his phone with a hands free kit while operating on me.

Radios aren't the same as they are passive devices (except for those ADD types who can't leave the dial alone, and in that case, they are just as bad . .not a justification for something that is worse to be 'ok').

If it takes your eyes off the road, it is bad. Plain and simple. Live traffic updates on a cell phone is just about guaranteed to do this.

Re:I don't like this

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

" but I would argue that doing anything to *encourage* someone to be on their phone while driving wouldn't fall under the mantra 'Dont be evil'."

Try living in L.A.. If you're pulling out your phone to get a traffic update, the odds are pretty darned good you're already stopped.

Re:I don't like this

[Alexandra Erenhart]

50-50 agreeing or not on your comment. Since it is true that it can take your eyes off the road, smart people who wants to check the maps stop at the side of the road and checks it safely. Don't blame the tool, blame the user.

Re:I don't like this

[madstork2000]

You don't necessarily have to be on the phone while driving, you could be a passenger. You could check it before leaving for work/home you could check it while at the gas station en-route.

Yes people will likely abuse it, like they abuse other tools. Complaining about useful tools. that could be abused is irritating and pointless.

Maybe they should shutdown their search engine too, I heard you can search for porno, bomb making materials, drug recipes, and lots of other naughty stuff. Heck maybe they should shut down the whole Internet because you KNOW people use it to steal credit card numbers, send spam and exploit children.

Short sighted, close minded people who shun new technology really drive me crazy, mainly because this knee jerk mentality is most often associated with the politicians, and lobbyists.

Oh well... My little comment and opinion won't change anything, but at least I got it off my chest.

BtW... The mobile maps application seems pretty slick in the few minutes I played with it (sitting at the safety of my desk). I am looking forward to some real word trials.

-MS2K

Re:I don't like this

[Proud like a god]

Talking on a hands-free kit is the same as talking to someone behind you in the same car. Would you bad talking in cars? In the UK we had this same fine line to avoid crossing concerning hands-free legislation.

Maybe they should add messing with your radio to the driving test, but they're legal and it's the driver's responsibility to use it and control the vehicle.

Re:I don't like this

[gigne]

Agreed, but there is so little distinction between the 'converged' devices these days that There is no real difference. Take my TomTom. It has MP3, video you name it. In fact to to navigate/re-route takes an immense amount of finger poking. Now lets look at the stereo. My car came with a fancy all singing stereo. Now i'm not you ADD type who can't leave things alone, but thing thing is lit up like a christmas tree. There are so many buttons and dials it's nigh on impossible to figure out how to skip the track, never mind concentrating on the road while there is a mobile disco going on in the dash. Now I'm not defending driving whilst looking and poking a screen, that is clear lunacy. I do advocate safe driving, and it's the responsibility of the user to make sure they do things sensibly. If all goes wrong, it would be apropriate to use the old mantra "Blame the user not the tools" B

Re:I don't like this

[Proud like a god]

Sorry, I meant ban talking, not bad.

Re:I don't like this

[babtrek]

I don't think its any more dangerous than the navigation systems in many cars now, now if they could make it talk to warn of problems.

Re:I don't like this

[generic-man]

Seeing as though both Windows Live Local (JavaScript) and Yahoo! Maps Beta (Flash) already let you view live traffic on the web, I'd guess it's only a matter of time before Google adds traffic as an option to their full-scale mapping app.

Re:I don't like this

[texaport]

doing anything to *encourage* someone to be on their phone while driving

Instead of cities having traffic cameras every two miles, maybe Google can get people to stop in traffic and take pictures with their phone so we can have live shots every 50 meters?

A GoogleRewards program for every 10th upload from a major freeway.

Re:I don't like this

[955301]

Yeah, because helping a person who is stuck in traffic understand what caused the traffic jam is pure evil man, pure evil.

Re:I don't like this

[katsiris]

Seems a little short-sighted to me. Yes, it's possible, and I agree probable, that people will check in their car. But what if I'm out and want to check conditions before I come home? Should I be denied this feature because some idiot might check it while driving? Should all society be locked into a bubbled room because one person might find a way to hurt themselves and others?

Now, I still agree with you, but I imagine the intent here is a stepping stone to real-time in-car routing that factors traffic into the equation. Getting from a-z often involves stopping at several letters on the way.

Re:I don't like this

[kkrause]

I would ban bad talking in cars and be done with it.

Re:I don't like this

[vhogemann]

It's not like Google has a plan to fool every driver into using his cellphone while driving. This way raising the number of car crashes... what will make the insurance companies go bankrupt... causing a collapse to the USA economy ... what will bring the dollar value down, and will allow Google to buy the entire Country!!!

Hummm, Brain... what are we going to do tonight?

Re:I don't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed that it took 14 posts for anyone to wrap their head about the concept of a passenger. Isn't this a place where people are supposed to think?

Re:I don't like this

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Don't blame the tool, blame the user.

I agree with you, partly. Users are definitely responsible for misusing the tools they are given, but tool developers have the responsibility of creating tools that don't facilitate potentially damaging uses, or do so in the smallest way possible. We already know people are stupid, so we should develop tools under that assumption.

Re:I don't like this

[alphamerik]

Personally, I would use this to check out my route BEFORE getting in the car, as that's when I'd need to know which route to take.

Right... because traffic jams are static.

Haven't you ever been on a long road trip, and wondered how long the jam was, or if there was a better highway to take?

Re:I don't like this

[Alexandra Erenhart]

What you say is true, but in the same line of thought, we shouldn't make a lot of other tools because of the same reason. Just think about nuclear power. With all of the very good uses we can give it, stupid people go and blast a lot of innocents using it. I completely agree that people are stupid. But not all. I still have some faith in mankind. Otherwise it would be very, very sad.

Re:I don't like this

[hackstraw]

Sure, there are similarities and differences between using a cell vs a radio, but I believe that the current cell implementation is much, much worse.

Similarities, people can be distracted while fiddling with cells and radios. More so with changing a CD than changing the station. But it pretty much stops there.

Cell phone conversations while driving seem to be increasing and the radio is pretty much a constant. Cell phone users while driving often appear (and statistically are similar) to drunk drivers. Actually, they drive worse because drunk drivers are more careful because they are scared of being caught. They often drive below the speed limit and/or speed of traffic. They make erratic and impulsive turns. They don't stay in their lanes. They are more engaged in their conversation than driving. The list goes on.

I would bet that my cell phone driver vs drunk driver detection skills have a ratio of about 10:1 probably closer to 50:1.

Now, with the new Google offering. Close but no cigar.

I've been talking about a new p2p user contributed realtime traffic, police, roadblock, etc monitoring system with a good UI that "just works".

To me, that would be excellent, and will happen. Kinda like the CBs of yesteryear, but more 2006ish.

Re:I don't like this

[Serengeti]

Everyone who navigates city streets does not necessarily drive a car.

Re:I don't like this

[Lazbien]

I don't like spoons because they make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

I don't like computer because I spend 3 hours per day reading Slashdot.

Re:I don't like this

[ebtebee]

Use Yahoo Maps! for live traffic results to check out before you leave your office/house. Google Maps has slipped to a close third position behind MapQuest and Yahoo Maps.

Re:I don't like this

[Moofie]

"developers have the responsibility of creating tools that don't facilitate potentially damaging uses"

So hammer developers need to come up with hammers that can't be used to whack the crap out of my thumbnail?

No, no they don't.

Re:I don't like this

[Pneuma ROCKS]

So hammer developers need to come up with hammers that can't be used to whack the crap out of my thumbnail?

All within reason. You're referring to the accidental misuse of a rarely used household item. Furthermore, this accidental use causes harm to the user and nobody else.

In this case we're talking about intentional misuse (people are well aware of the dangers) of an almost ubiquitous device while handling a very dangerous (and also ubiquitous) piece of equipment. It's a public hazard, and has and will take many lives. If this map feature is designed to be used while driving I say it's irresponsible as hell.

Re:I don't like this

[punkr0x]

Oh boo hoo. This is a nice tool! How many times have I been out somewhere and thought, boy, google maps sure would come in handy right now! And as far as the traffic monitoring... if you're checking traffic on the road while driving, it's probably because you're NOT MOVING and want to know how long you should expect to be stuck not moving. If you're cruising along at 75 you have no reason to glance at your phone and make sure traffic is clear, you can SEE that it is.

Re:I don't like this

[Moofie]

OK. So hammer designers have to design hammers that can't be used by carpenters to whack people in the head. Same principle.

Re:I don't like this

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Similar, but malice and stupidity are quite different. I'll add to this that there's a compromise that needs to be done between need and safety. I don't think we can really do without hammers, but we can do without this cellphone traffic thing. And there's a greater danger of people being killed by a vehicle driven by an irresponsible driver than being hit in the head by a deranged carpenter.

Re:I don't like this

[Moofie]

"I'll add to this that there's a compromise that needs to be done between need and safety"

I disagree with your fundamental thesis. You think you're smarter than the Average Joe (which may or may not be true), and you should be able to make judgements on what is and is not appropriate for Joe to do (which is utterly not true).

Liberty is more important than safety. People should be as free as possible to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cause direct harm to somebody else's interests. It's completely reasonable to hold people responsible for their foolish actions, but it is NOT reasonable to prevent them from doing anything that might in some circumstances be foolish.

More to the point, I don't trust YOU (or anybody else for that matter) to make that determination.

Re:I don't like this

[Dewin]

Talking on a hands-free kit is the same as talking to someone behind you in the same car.

Another comment I read in some other Slashdot article suggested (and I agree) that this is not neccessarily true. Passengers in the car with you will react with you -- if traffic gets hairy, they'll usually be quiet and let you drive. Not to mention that they can alert you to obstacles you might not have been able to see. People talking to you on your phone, however, don't see what you do and can care less that the guy in front of you just slammed on his brakes and is doing a rapid 60-to-zero.

Re:I don't like this

[Pneuma ROCKS]

People should be as free as possible to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cause direct harm to somebody else's interests.

Who decides when harm is being done? You? Me? No, there's usually some regulatory system that deals with this, and, ideally, it's properly tuned to ensure the well being of the majority. This is exactly what I mean about having a compromise. If you know that some product is going to be mostly used in a way that will cause harm to others (drugs and weapons come to mind) then it is only sensible to restrict the usage of such products. Do you think everybody should have access to rocket launchers or industrial-strength chemicals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasonable uses for those.

All I'm saying is that this map tool may be one of those products that do more harm than good.

Re:I don't like this

[Moofie]

"All I'm saying is that this map tool may be one of those products that do more harm than good."

All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Unless there's a case to be made that it does DRAMATICALLY more harm to a LOT of people (See whacking people in heads with hammers), people should be free to do what they want.

My freedom to look at maps in the backseat of a car should not be impaired by your inability to refrain from doing so while driving. Sorry.

Re:I don't like this

[Proud like a god]

Any reasonable person could say that they're busy when taking a call, or the other person could wait a second for the driver to drive. Plus it's the driver's responsibility alone to be aware of the traffic situation and to react to it, not rely on a passenger.

It's all a matter of the driver understanding proper priority and responsibility. It is possible to use a hands-free phone safely while driving, just as it is holding a conversation with a passenger.

Re:I don't like this

[asuffield]

All the idiots who would use this while driving are currently driving around looking at a map which they're holding on one hand, instead of watching the road and controlling their vehicle. The number of people who get ticketed for that every day is horrifying. Changing the thing they're holding isn't going to make a lot of difference.

Smart people give the map, or the hardware, to their passenger. Or they pull over to consult it if they don't have a passenger.

Re:I don't like this

[scuba964]

Don't blame the tool, blame the user.
Guns don't kill people, I do.

Re:I don't like this

[kiha1972]

I totally agree with you.

Re:I don't like this

[jounihat]

You know, there's a dramatic fact you didn't seem to notice: there might be SOMEONE ELSE with a cell phone in the car. To a slashdotter this may seem impossible, but believe it or not, normal people have friends(!).

Re:I don't like this

[celotil]

"developers have the responsibility of creating tools that don't facilitate potentially damaging uses"

So hammer developers need to come up with hammers that can't be used to whack the crap out of my thumbnail?

No, no they don't.

Nail gun, fun for all the family.

Ah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally an evil beta product!

Windows mobile?

[a_nonamiss]

I'm running Windows Mobile 5.0, and I get "Google Maps may not work on on your cell phone. If you'd still like to try, download Google Maps for a high end phone or a mainstream phone."(US/Canada)

If this thing's not going to work on Windows Mobile 5.0, I'm not sure for whom it's intended.

Re:Windows mobile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash - the majority of phones/devices out there don't run Windows Mobile. Works fine on my BlackBerry.

Re:Windows mobile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really sure what Windows Mobile has to with it. This app is J2ME. Can Windows Mobile handle J2ME? Anyway, it will run on any phone that can run J2ME which seems to be most GSM phones (expect, apparently, those that run Windows Mobile).

Re:Windows mobile?

[Valthan]

http://google.com/gmm/devices.html>Here is a listing of the supported phone's make and model. Check it out.

Re:Windows mobile?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry, Google Maps does not work on your Palm Treo-650."

That rules out Palm too.

On which platform does this actually run?

Re:Windows mobile?

[Stavr0]

Can Windows Mobile handle J2ME?
Not out of the box, but you can get a J2ME engine from IBM that supports several combinations of OS/Hardware: IBM WEME

There's a few other JVMs for WM out there, i.e Mysaifu.

Re:Windows mobile?

[jandrese]

Pretty much any phone with J2ME.

Re:Windows mobile?

[jaysones]

It works great on my Sony K750. I don't think Windows Mobile is so common that everything must comply with it.

Re:Windows mobile?

[3waygeek]

I'm trying it right now on my Qtek 9100 (HTC Wizard) -- I clicked on the "high-end phone" link. It downloads the Google Maps Java applet, which appears to work on my phone.

Re:Windows mobile?

[BigCheese]

Except my N-Gage QD :-(

Re:Windows mobile?

[Anonymous Coward]

It works on my HP 6915 w/ WM5. The touch screen doesn't work, but the full functionality is available when you make your selections from the keypad

Re:Windows mobile?

[SkidWilly]

Here's the list of supported devices.

Re:Windows mobile?

[DDLKermit007]

Heh...someone who admits to owning one of those. I used to own an original NGage, but that was when they were paying me to have one. Checks stopped comin and the NGage went to Ebay.

Re:Windows mobile?

[llin]

WM5 devices have an incredibly small marketshare... That being said, the high end GMM works great on my PPC6700 w/ the IBM J2ME runtime installed (J9VM 2.3; MIDP 2.0).

Great, just great

[smooth wombat]

First we have evidence that cell users are as bad as drunk drivers yet now we want these same people to use their 2"X2" cell phone screen to look at a map of their location to see if there is a traffic jam ahead.

Wonderful.

Re:Great, just great

[andytrevino]

That's a good point -- it seems like this would make a lot of sense integrated into the normal browser-based Google Maps app so that you can have a look at traffic and perhaps decide to change your route before leaving the house or office.

Re:Great, just great

[truthsearch]

In NYC there are at least 2 AM stations that broadcast traffic reports every 10 minutes (880, 1010). My father's been listening to them since before I was born. This is far safer and probaby even easier than trying to bring it up on your cell. Plus they tell you what's going to be happening in the near future, like typical rush-hour traffic jams and construction.

There are other options, so stay off the cell.

Re:Great, just great

[Kingfox]

I count three (1010 on the ones, 1130 on the fives, 880 on the eights). I had all three set up to quickly cycle through 'em just as one ended and the other started up until I got Sirius.

Re:Great, just great

[Billosaur]

And there you have it. You can already get this information via the radio in most metropolitan markets, so what's the point? Unless you're Speed Racer, real-time traffic updates aren't going to be of much use. And here's a little point to consider: where are they getting the traffic information from? Answer: the same sources that provide it to the radio and TV stations. Unless Google is going to build its own traffic sensing network (and don't put it past them), their data is only going to be as good as the last update you would get from the traffic reporting agencies anyway. Let's face it, when an accident happens, even with all the people who own mobile phones, how long does it take before it's reported to the traffic monitors? ANd even then, how many times have you heard reports of an accident that have long been over and traffic is flowing again, despite the traffic report saying that things are still backed up? Nope, this is just Google pushing the limits of what they should be doing to try and establish themselves in another niche market.

Re:Great, just great

[farker haiku]

In NYC

And there you have it. You can already get this information via the radio in most metropolitan markets, so what's the point?

Just a quick FYI. NYC != most metropolitan markets. I live in a city with 2 million people and don't have this option. I for one welcome our new google traffic on cell phone overlords.

Also, when am I going to get this to interact with dodgeball, so I don't have to worry about losing my friends who are following me in the thick of battle^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htraffic

Re:Great, just great

[QuantumFTL]

Alright, I'm really tired of this "cell phones as bad as being drunk." Does being on a cell phone distract you sometimes? Absolutely. Does it also help you stay awake on long drives? You bet. But what impact is it actually having on accidents?

I think most people would agree (and yes, I'm making presumptions based on my own experiences and those I know) that they are able to identify more individuals who are obviously driving while on a cell phone (via visual inspection) than individuals who are obviously impared by alcohol (from swerving or some such). I would make the educated guess that this means that there are more cell phone drivers out there than drunks. Now, considering how many accidents are alcohol related (I've heard around 50% but even 10% is enough to make my point), one would expect a very, very sharp rise in the number of accidents as cell phones became popular in the last few years.

Of course, nothing like this has happenned. If you do not believe me (and also as a good Karma whoring measure) check out US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Report. I cannot extract any sudden rise from those numbers, or any significant average rise whatsoever (apart from the obvious increase corresponding to population increase in the last 15 years).

I'm pretty sure if cell phones were as bad as drunk driving, hundreds of thousands more people would be dead now, and they would be banned.

Re:Great, just great

[Deviant Q]

My friend's dad had a great theory on this. See, (at least where I live) the kind of stations that broadcast traffic reports broadcast such truly crappy radio that the amount of time you spend listening to crappy radio of your life will be much more than the amount of time you save the once-in-a-blue-moon that the traffic report actually helps.

My next statement must be taken with a grain of salt, since I'm a lame 18-year-old-without-a-license. That said, I can't see too much harm in checking traffic reports on one's cell phone while stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Looking down for 5 seconds at a time seems unlikely to cause accidents, no? Or you could just have a passenger do it, if you have that luxury.

Re:Great, just great

[Kumba]

In the DC/Baltimore region, there's WTOP on 103.5FM and 820AM for news traffic and weather (traffic is every 10mins on the 8's). Alternatively, if one must use a phone to check traffic status, several states have implemented the 511 phone number for checking traffic (in Virginia, this is useful for checking screw ups on the western side of the DC beltway; Maryland has yet to implement this, although their CHART system has an [autodetected] text-only mode for cell phone browsing).

What this feature would really be good for is on their main mapping service that could be checked before leaving to jump into some random traffic mess. Yahoo's maps beta system, while attempting to poorly mimic Google maps, has such a feature (and thus makes it somewhat of a useful service for the time being).

Re:Great, just great

[Kadin2048]

Good point.

The other problem I have with the "cellphones as bad as being drunk" claim is that if you look at the past 10 or 15 years, the number of cellphones has exploded; there ought to be a huge and obvious increase in the total number of auto accidents per year, roughly proportional to the adoption of cellphones. I've never seen anything that suggests this. In fact, the driving fatalities per million miles travelled has gone down over the past 10 years, as cellphone use has increased. While cars have gotten safer, I don't think the developments of safety technologies can be said to outweigh something as dangerous as a large percentage of drivers being "practically drunk," if that were the case.

While I'm sure that using a cellphone while driving can be distracting, and they're definitely a cause of accidents, I think their risk is being somewhat exaggerated: if they were as dangerous as people claim, then our roads would have to be far more dangerous than they are right now. While the number of fatal traffic accidents has gone up slightly since 1994, it's nowhere near the increase you'd expect if cellphones were as dangerous as some people are making them out to be. Either very few people are using them when driving (not likely -- anyone who's been outside recently can verify that a lot of people are), people are using them in place of some other already dangerous activity (using their cellphone instead of being drunk? Also not likely), or cellphones are not universally as dangerous as they're being made out to be.

I think there is a perception that cellphones are dangerous, because a lot of crappy drivers use their phones when they're driving. There is a correlation then between shitty driving and cellphone use, but it isn't necessarily causative as often as it might appear: the person who's dumb enough to run into you because they were dialing their phone might still have run into you, in the absence of a phone, because they would have found something else to do. The problem isn't the phone, it's the bad driver. The ultimate solution isn't to ban phones, it's to have tougher licensing requirements for drivers, and make it easier to take someone's license away if they're not up to the task. (My proposal is to require anyone who gets a moving violation to retake a drivers test. I think there are quite a few people on the road who probably couldn't pass if their lives depended on it; sadly, other people's lives do.)

See the statistics for yourself here:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Re:Great, just great

[mooingyak]

And they all suck. I've stopped trying to get useful traffic info from radio stations for a long time. It's either information that's about everywhere in the area except where you need to know about, or worse, information that's 1/2 hour or more out of date.

This service is something badly needed.

Re:Great, just great

[Politburo]

Those stations are bullshit. The NYC metro area is gigantic and there is traffic in every corner. It is not possible for those stations to report on every traffic incident in the 30 seconds that they get. Therefore, they tend to focus on bridges/tunnels, then the routes in/out of the city center, and then only the seriously major delays are mentioned for everything else.

Re:Great, just great

[Mr. No Skills]

In the DC/Baltimore region, there's WTOP [wtopnews.com] on 103.5FM and 820AM for news traffic and weather (traffic is every 10mins on the 8's).

The problem with radio traffic reports in the DC area is that they spend their 30 seconds telling you about the same main roads (beltway, I-66, I-270, and I-95), which are always in the same state of congestion and the people that use them all know this. They spend no time telling you about the arteries where there are alternate routes that have random activity that blocks them and that you would take an alternate route if possible. The CHART system is also only deployed on the same roads.

I'd love to use Google Maps/Traffic if I could tell it my start and end point and it would inform me of problems at least 15 minutes before I got there. It might. I wouldn't know since they don't support Palm OS...

Re:Great, just great

[Kumba]

Agreed mostly; A lot of the radio stations spend all of 10 seconds running down a list of known tie-ups that anyone can track using online map services and incident trackers (and people who know a specific route very well). My experience has shown WTOP tends to elaborate more on some areas, however. While they'll stick to the usual re-iteration of known traffic issues, if it's a particularly nasty mishap, they will recommend Alt. Routes. Admittedly, however, certain areas have no alternate/escape routes -- the WW bridge corridor for starters.

One thing is for certain, they need many more traffic cameras around the WW bridge corridor. The camera coverage on the VA side is decent, but VDOT needs to fix a few (and add a few around Rt. 1), and MDSHA's coverage on their side is absolutely pitiful. Equally, dDOT should stick a few down 295 for good measure. I'd love to know ahead of time if the 295 backup begins at the split for 95/495 North/South, or if it's gonna be a 4-mile haul from Bolling AFB to beltway.

Re:Great, just great

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are a out of town travler. Ever try to figure out the traffic report for a city you never been in? Why don't they use Interstate/Hwy numbers and milemarkers?

Re:Great, just great

[bughunter]

You can already get this information via the radio in most metropolitan markets, so what's the point?

The point is that when you can poll the traffic sensors via Google, rather than wait for "Traffic On The Ones" there's no race condition.

It seems to happen far too frequently that just as the traffic report comes on, I enter a tunnel or some other AM interference zone and miss the 5 second mention of my particular route.

Or, another all too common situation: I'm three minutes from a highway junction for an alternate route that I could take to avoid congestion on my main route. However, the next traffic report is in five minutes.

Traffic data on demand is one way to eliminate these frustrations. That's the point.

Good Idea?

[wawannem]

I think I may have recently read somewhere that cellphones may be responsible for more accidents than Drunk Driving. So, why would would we add an interactive app to cell phones, when that app may only be useful when you are driving?

Re:Good Idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think I may have recently read somewhere ..." Yeah whatever dude, thanks for the authoritative info...

Palm no go

[bucketoftruth]

Note: Maps does not currently work with Nextel, T-Mobile USA or BREW-enabled phones (e.g. Verizon, Alltel, U.S. Cellular), or Palm devices.

Doesn't work on my Treo 650. This is made for small cell phone people, who are different than us big cell phone people. I hope they choke on their tiny lozenge sized phones.

Re:Palm no go

[Anonymous Coward]

Small phones??? It works fine on Nokia 7700 according to the supported devices list, and Nokia 7700 is definitely not small.

The problem seems to be that Palm Treo doesn't support J2ME out of the box?

Re:Palm no go

[TopShelf]

It works on my big 'ole Blackberry. As they say in technical circles, "nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah..."

Re:Palm no go

[znaps]

Works with T-Mobile for me on my W810i.

Re:Palm no go

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work on my tiny lozenge sized phone.

Re:Palm no go

[Erwos]

My wife is in the same position - she's got the excellent Treo 650, yet Google Maps only runs on my (slow and exceedingly small-screened) LG PM-325.

It looks like one possible solution is Mobile GMaps, which has the added advantage of also being able to use the Yahoo and Microsoft mapping services as well. Additionally, and this is very nice, it can use Bluetooth GPS or your phone's internal GPS system (if it has permissions and the right APIs - aka, if you're lucky).

-Erwos

Re:Palm no go

[Kazoo the Clown]

Doesn't work on my Motorola e815 either, which isn't a "big" cell phone... In fact, it looks like it doesn't work with any Verizon phone as Verizon is insistent on using Brew so they can charge for the apps. Can't have any free apps going around on their phone now, can we? Verizon's approach is to go after coverage, features be damned-- as what good are features if coverage sucks? Consequently, they have the best coverage and the worst feature set...

Re:Palm no go

[gumbo]

In fact, it looks like it doesn't work with any Verizon phone as Verizon is insistent on using Brew so they can charge for the apps.

Works fine on my Verizon Blackberry, but I guess Blackberries might be an exception to that, since Verizon probably can't lock them down as much as they'd like.

Treo 650

[fdiskne1]

Here's what I see:

Google Maps

Sorry, Google Maps does not work on your Palm Treo-650.

I figured I'd use it before heading out on the road to find the best way to get somewhere, NOT while driving. That'd just be foolish.

Re:Treo 650

[tgeller]

I just got that, too.

If it doesn't work on my device, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. *shrug*

(Not to mention that the Treo 650 is UNBELIEVABLY COMMON these days....)

No Treo support?

[Anonymous Coward]

No Treo 650 support? What gives?

Why aren't smart phones supported since I imagine those with smart phones with data plans would make the most out of the service opposed to standard flip phones with generally no data plan as they're far too expensive when you're limited to a keypad for typing and a small res screen.

I agree with that

[millisa]

I agree with you. I would use it on my consoles before going anywhere. The fact it is available on a phone is convenient and if most people were like you and checked before they drove and not while they drove, I'd be ra-ra-ing this as a great innovation.

It's just unfortunate that there's a big enough percentage of people who aren't you that we all know this won't be when it's used.

Re:I agree with that

[TopShelf]

Are you kidding? Just wait for the story to appear on Slashdot regarding the update frequency of this service:

"I was driving along checking traffic on my cell phone, rear-ended someone in front of me, and my accident showed up on Google in just X minutes!"

Re:I agree with that

[rtb61]

What is worse of course is the mobile traffic jam, as everybody keeps googling to the low traffic areas and within minutes those low traffic areas choke up traffic. A new patentable advertising scheme, pay enough money and google and co will direct all the traffic down your street.

Wahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like a wah-burger and french-cries with that?

Not real-time in nature

[digitaldc]

I'm concerned about my privacy. Are your satellite images real-time?
We understand your privacy concerns and can assure you that the satellite images are taken from a variety of commercial and public resources and are not real-time in nature. The images that Google Maps displays are no different from what can be seen by anyone who flies over or drives by a specific geographic location.

Whew! For a minute there I thought I saw black helicopters in my rear-view mirror soon after I searched Google traffic to go get a loaf of bread.

Which US Providers?

[v783650]

Note: Maps does not currently work with Nextel, T-Mobile USA or BREW-enabled phones (e.g. Verizon, Alltel, U.S. Cellular), or Palm devices.

So what providers do work? The only ones I can think of are Cingular and Sprint.

Re:Which US Providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This works great for me. I have cingular with a nokia 6230. I think this is one of the best designed J2ME apps i have every seen.

Re:Which US Providers?

[jaysones]

It seems to work flawlessly on T-Mobile. I just tried it on my K750i.

Re:Which US Providers?

[mbsatgt]

It seems everyone is wondering why this doesn't support high-end phones. From the FAQ ( http://google.com/gmm/faq.html#5 ):
"Which phones does Google Maps support?
Google Maps works with most Java-enabled (J2ME) mobile phones offered by Cingular and Sprint, and all color BlackBerry devices regardless of carrier. At this time, Google Maps doesn't work with Nextel, T-Mobile USA or BREW-enabled phones (e.g. Verizon, Alltel, U.S. Cellular), or Palm devices. To see whether the application will work on your phone, simply visit http://www.google.com/gmm/devices.html."

Re:Which US Providers?

[alaederach]

I tried it on T-mobile, and as advertised, it does not work. Does anyone know if this is the fault of Google or the fault of the carrier. My understanding is that carriers are trying to maintain control over their networks so they can serve you the information they want, is that correct?

Re:Which US Providers?

[Bandman]

I've got a Verizon Blackberry, and it works tremendously.

Re:Which US Providers?

[swthomas55]

Works with my Verizon Blackberry. And, of course, with a BBerry I'm already paying for data services, so that's not a problem. I had downloaded the earlier "Google Local" on my Cingular/Motorola cell, and it worked there, but the data charges were killing me.

Re:Which US Providers?

[jfuredy]

I am on T-Mobile service with a Blackberry and the Google Maps with Traffic works just fine on my phone.

And I do agree that this is not the best thing to use IN the car, but could be very useful prior to trips.

Re:Which US Providers?

[jamshid]

Yup, I've been using the previous version, Google Local, for a while now. It sure is a beautiful (simple, useful, usable) J2ME app, really shows how powerful that little networked computer in your pocket is.

It's too bad phones lag so far behind in supporting new J2ME features/APIs (eg, file storage, bluetooth, contacts). Imagine the possibilities if this, and other J2ME apps, could take full advantage of modern mobile phones. I think J2ME (renamed yet again recently to "Java ME") is at fault here. It's a mess of JSR's and confusing acronyms, no test suites, no easy certification of phones. It's ironic that the "write once run everywhere" language is such a compatibility mess on mobile phones. But until Flash Lite gets on more mobiles, or Windows Mobile / Palm / Blackberry take over the mobile market, J2ME is the only game in town.

I sure wish Google would open-source this thing. It'd be even cooler if they made their AJAX toolkit (http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/), where you write your app in Java and it generates Javascript, have the option of spitting out a J2ME app. I wonder if that's where they're heading, they could be "the" mobile platform/API.

Re:Which US Providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the problem with T-Mobile depends on what data plan you have. There are 2 data plans, I forget the names, and one allows access to Google Maps and Opera Mini and apps like that, the cheaper plan doesn't.

For more info go look around howardforums.com. It's the best forum and place for info on all things cellular. hope that helps...

Re:Which US Providers?

[davidbrit2]

Seems to work okay on my Nextel i275. It's rather sluggish, and the UI gets a bit mangled in places because of the really small screen size, and some of the button mappings are weird (Call button becomes the selection/OK button), but it works. :) Mind you, the usual means of getting it onto a Nextel fall kind of in the area of "don't ask don't tell"...

Re:Which US Providers?

[7Ghent]

It's because of the port blocking T-Mobile does on the T-Zones data plan. If you don't want to go to the $20/mo T-Mobile Internet plan, just configure your WAP to use wap.t-mobile.com as a HTTP proxy on port 8080. That'll get you past the firewall.

Re:Which US Providers?

[alaederach]

Cool thanks, I did not know that. I wonder why google does not publish that fix, but just says t-mobile is not supported. So is this an intentional security by obscurity thing, or is it a way to keep the uninformed from access?

Re:Which US Providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What $20 dollar plan? i'me on t-mobile and the lowest rate data/internet plan for me is over $40.

Re:Which US Providers?

[7Ghent]

Having worked for them, I honestly think that engineering there doesn't know how to lock down their proxy correctly.

Works for me...

[jense]

i'm on sprint, and this works like a charm. the cell-while-you-drive concern is legit, but no more dangerous than any GPS system, IMHO. personally, i'm going to use it when i pull into that gas station and purposefully DON'T ask for directions. because now i don't have to. the ultimate justifier! my wife has no leg to stand on anymore.

Re:Works for me...

[phonewebcam]

Huh? You're gonna pull into a gas station to use your mobile...!!!

Re:Works for me...

[collectivescott]

Lol, like there's a real risk of fire/explosion in that. Maybe an analog phone once caused a fire. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

You luddites need to get a grip.

"accident" not "incident"

[Anonymous Coward]

or "sigalert"

CRASH!

[stormi]

Wait... is that my car? Hey look! I can see myself crashing!

Sorry.

pizza?

[tomstdenis]

What's with google and having pizza in all their mapping services... ... I say this while eating a slice of pizza at IBM ... :-)

tom

Data Rates and the need for true Wireless internet

[TheRequiem13]

On top of the general bad-idea-to-further-distract-people thing, current cell data rates make this completely unreasonable to use.
The Tour on the site shows that every zoom/map move is a 10 to 100KB image download. My carrier, Rogers Canada, charges for data transfer on the net like this at 5 cents/KB (or, if I commit to a "plan" it would only be $7 for the first MB then 2 cents/KB after that. hooray.). This means I could end up paying over $1 every time I move or zoom on the map. While this is more my Carrier's fault than Google's, it has the same end result of preventing me from actively using the service.

Just another reason we need proper wireless internet providers.

the interactive demo...

[Groghunter]

Doesn't work, So i guess google forgot to pay their bill. Seriously, it's a fake java cell phone that says that you don't have service. It's just like real life!

Come on

[Kohath]

- Offer this on the web.
- Get the destination from my Google Calendar
- Calculate the time of travel to my destination. Factor in traffic and construction.
- Tell me when I need to leave in order to arrive on time
- Tell me alternate routes to take based on which one is fastest right now
- Message me on my phone when it's time to leave.

You have all the information. Put it together into something helpful.

Re:Come on

[The Cisco Kid]

Yes, why limit anything to cell-phones only? Any web-like service that might make sense on phones surely could be made available on a normal browser (and not incur per-minute cell-data fees either, even if you just want to try it out).

In fact, if they made it available to try out on normal browsers first, that might get more people interested in it on their cell phones.

Anyway, in the meantime, anyone aware of a cell-phone-browser-emulator for firefox?

Re:Come on

[anandsr]

Well you forgot the last step.

- profit

Re:Come on

[Kohath]

- profit

- Advertisements for restuarants to stop for lunch on the way back.

Re:Come on

[Iambic Pentametor]

And also integrate it with the Nav software on my Prius!

Re:Come on

[LunaticTippy]

One obvious point is that cellphones provide your position, and the map will show you a small area around that position. It isn't suitable for a browser, where you'd want to specify position, scroll around manually, and have a much larger screen.

I did have the same thought, though. First, I tried to load the page in my browser. Then, I looked for a cell-phone emulator.

Re:Come on

[The Cisco Kid]

I'm not interested in it knowing my position. I'd only be interested in the 'live traffic information' part.

Re:Come on

[LunaticTippy]

Yahoo maps and MS Live both have live traffic. Where I live this is what I use.

Damn phone companies

[mobby_6kl]

Too bad those damn evil phone companies won't allow this service.

Well I do.

[sublime_pie]

Bad drivers will crash regardless of the reason. I don't see how this is any more dangerous than trying to drive while looking at a paper road map or a Google maps printout thereof. This will be great for all of the times that I get lost only to find I don't have a map in my car. And sure, I could simply buy a map for my car, but where would the fun in that be? As for the traffic congestion, I don't see any danger in looking down at your cell phone and plotting out an alternative route while you're parked in gridlock rush hour traffic.

I *hate* this

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Drivers using cell phones for voice are bad enough, drivers trying to *look* at their cell phones are a truly terrifying thought.

This may be the first time I'm actually *glad* I no longer have a street bike, and it's making me wonder if it's not time to trade in the Miata for a surplus HumVee with armor plating.

Re:I *hate* this

[celotil]

Drivers using cell phones for voice are bad enough, drivers trying to *look* at their cell phones are a truly terrifying thought.

This may be the first time I'm actually *glad* I no longer have a street bike, and it's making me wonder if it's not time to trade in the Miata for a surplus HumVee with armor plating.

Hell no, Dude. Pimp that Miata with an in-dash tactical radar, counter-measures, and an EMP generator for when things get really tough in rush hour.

"My name is R-Us, Roadkills-R-Us."

Data plan required

[Palal]

Data plan is required - I'm not paying the rip-off fees for that. If I want to check traffic conditions and speed maps I simply go on http://www.511.org/ (In the SF Bay Area) and check the maps before I leave work. If I'm really desperate and none of the local radio stations are of any help, I just call 511 and get the same info as on the website.

Re:Data plan required

[Cheeze]

Let me be the first to say:

DUH!

Why would you think there wouldn't be a data plan required? You are going to be downloading data, from google.com.

Requires Java :(

[Utopia]

I had too many slowness problems using java on my phone that I had uninstall it.
A simple html based page would have been much better.

Will wait and see what Windows Live Local and Yahoo Maps will cookup. Maybe they will have a more workable product.

Re:Requires Java :(

[kevin_conaway]

A simple html based page would have been much better.

Is that so? And how would you expect them to accomplish this with "simple html"?

Google's Beef with The Treo 650?

[Monkelectric]

Can anyone tell me why *NONE* of the google apps work with the Palm Treo?

Re:Google's Beef with The Treo 650?

[tomzyk]

You're high (or you just don't know how to use your Treo):
http://www.google.com/palm
http://www.google.com/pda
http://www.google.com/xhtml
http://m.gmail.com/
http://news.google.com/ ...

Re:Google's Beef with The Treo 650?

[Monkelectric]

Google local, maps, etc, all display a message that the try 650 is not supported. Try to be less insulting the next time you say something dumb.

Re:Google's Beef with The Treo 650?

[Tankko]

>>Try to be less insulting the next time you say something dumb.

You did say *NONE*, next time use *MOST* or *SOME* or *A LOT* or *DAMN NEAR ALL*

Re:Google's Beef with The Treo 650?

[Monkelectric]

I said none of the google *APPS*. Submitting to a webpage isn't an app.

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

MSFT has been doing this for a while in the Seattle area. It has come out of their R&D lab. It's very useful.

Google innovates again !

[chrisranjana.com]

Would google's team ever stop ! No ..It is this innovation that keeps google growing and other companies on their toes !

Great...

[butterwise]

Just another reason for you idiots who drive and talk at the same time to whip it out. And by "it" I mean your cell phone.

to the Hammer maker, everything looks like a nail

[pinkuff]

PLUS, in many countries (and should be everywhere) using a phone while driving is just ILLEGAL.

Why, oh why, Google?

It is just that you people never leave the 'Plex and therefore have no idea what happens on the road with dorks yakking on the phone and crashing into the guy ahead of them?

Or is it plain ol' Slashdot Front Page Whoring? Suspect the latter

Which Cities ???

[altek]

Google refuses to list the areas where this is available. In their Help page, it says to find out where its available, go to that location and tell it to 'Show Traffic Info', and it will tell if you if it's not available...

How helpful! Especially since their dang fake cell phone demo that they make you go to doesn't even seem to work correctly, so I cant even tell.

Anyone have a list of cities where this is available?

Re:Which Cities ???

[jfuredy]

I thought it was odd that Google did not simply have a list of cities that are active too. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the data is not 100% reliable, so they did not want to publish that a city was available and have it not work due to a problem on the city's side.

BTW, I am in Phoenix, AZ and the traffic information is available here.

I'm loving this.

[mccdyl001]

I recently got myself a nokia N91, and have been looking for and loading a couple of useful programs I've come across. I'd seen some 3rd party app that interfaces with google maps to provide a cellphone version of it.

However, this offering from google really rocks. It's super quick (i'm testing it off my home wifi connection right now) and even though I can't get traffic congestion for my area (since I live in London), it's really useful. It took me literally a couple of seconds to add my main locations (work, home) as favourites. The functionality of this application is great - getting turn-by-turn directions is really simple, and it's very easy to step through the directions. To move to the next waypoint all you need to do is press 3. And you can switch between sat view and map view just as easily. Plus you can go to a location and then do a business search. Like if you're coming home from going out and really really need to find the closest kebab shop...

Anyway, if you've got a phone that this supports (and preferably have wifi connectivity) give this a try. Especially if you're in the states and can use the traffic congestion as well.

Completely insufficient.

[douglips]

Maybe in New York this works, but here in the SF Bay Area it fails miserably. You can listen to the station that broadcasts traffic every 10 minutes, and since the Bay Area is so freaking huge, [i]they don't always announce all problems at all traffic breaks.[/i] So, you have to listen to the radio for 30 minutes to hear the announcement that the road you are on is slow, and oops, you're already in that traffic jam.

Radio and other passive communication methods completely fail - I need to be able to say "I'm on 17 in Campbell - what's traffic like?" and get an answer, not hope that some radio guy decided to get around to me sometime in the next 30 minutes.

Here is the real solution...
http://www.511.org/

Re:Completely insufficient.

[molo]

Check out [http://www.sigalert.com/map.asp?Region=Bay+Area SigAlert]. It has free maps on the web, with average speed statistics. Also, for a fee, they can text you about traffic on your commute routes. Pretty impressive, all thanks to CalTrans data.

-molo

Blackberry Support

[ffejie]

For all of you complaining, it works great on my Blackberry 7130e with EVDO. I'm a long time user of Google Local (this is just the upgrade) on the device, and this adds some much needed features like:

*Favorites -- now I don't have to type my home address in everytime I want to map from my house to somewhere else
*Details about locations - how long is that place open? (only works with some places, none of which I can find yet)
*Live traffic -- we'll see how well it actually works. Keep in mind, I know the interstate is jammed between here and there at rush hour. There's generally no way around it. Simply providing traffic info for the big interstates doesn't really help me out. But, it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully soon, we'll allow the devices to make intelligent decisions based on traffic patterns.

Screenshots on a 9500

[Penguin]

Just for the sake of curiousity (and karma whoring) I took a couple of screenshots on my Nokia 9500.

No workie

[Necron69]

"Sorry, Google Maps does not work on your LG C1300"

Feh. I need a real phone.

- Necron69

Neat, but SLOW

[SpiceWare]

I'll stick with my arrangment of the Mobile Houston Real-Time Traffic Map that I made for my RAZR because the original layout requires you to scroll up/down to view the map on the RAZR's small display.

For some reason my RAZR needed a WML page loaded before the HTML page. I also made arrangements for the close-ups of the different areas. All of which can be found
here

Re:Neat, but SLOW

[Anonymous Coward]

You just saved me 10,000 scroll downs. Thank you.

very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a little page on my server that summarizes the washington state dot maps so they are sized for my phone. I literally use it every time I get in the car to decide which freeway to take.

Not sure if I am going to use googles now instead, but anyone who balks at this is a person who hasn't used it. I get an average of 10 minutes a day time savings with a simple 20 seconds on my treo.

map scanning is the best thing about web phones... I do doppler radar, the ISS tracker, traffic. etc.

It's pretty cool to be at a barbecue and tell the host... "my weather radar says it's going to start raining" and sure enough everyone has to go inside... of course... I wonder how many people have walked into a store asking about the treo 650 weather radar and how they can get it!

Spoof from a computer?

[kwerle]

How do I spoof the system so I can get this information from my computer before I leave the office?

Re:Spoof from a computer?

[csnydermvpsoft]

How do I spoof the system so I can get this information from my computer before I leave the office?

Go to their web site. They have a live demo available that runs as an applet.

Re:Data Rates and the need for true Wireless inter

[collectivescott]

I'm all for optimization, but get a real data plan. I pay $40 a month for unlimited. It is a shame there aren't more data options. Give it time.

That would be bad

[A nonymous Coward]

I think we should ban laws which ban bad things. Who decides what is bad?

map loading is way too slow now

[devilsbrigade]

I have a blackberry 7130 from Verizon that i download the Google maps app on. I use it for tracking weird NJ locations and directions on the fly. Now my map load take too long, and its not worth waiting for the satalitte view, because its just never seems to fully load. I'll probably forget what the yellow green and red lines mean in a week, but i will remember that now my google maps loads way to slow, effectively making it useless when i am out on the road to get my maps and get them fast. Oh well.

Convert to TMC data would be nice.

[Brobock]

It would be interesting if this data can be downloaded on a mobile and converted to TMC data (Traffic Messaging Channel) and for it to be overlayed on GPS maps without needing a traffic subscription or a TMC FM module.

Re:Convert to TMC data would be nice.

[zomper514]

http://www.xmradio.com/xmnavtraffic/about.jsp

Check this out.

Nor Palm Treo650...

[BigBlueSwope]

Nor with my palm treo 650!

Re:Nor Palm Treo650...

[IgLou]

AUGH, there goes my 600... a pox on whoever answered "No" to the question "Do we have to support a phone using PalmOS?"

No support for Treo!

[Anonymous Coward]

No support for the Treo? What's up with that? I would think that a Palm-based phone would be supported first, not last, since a.) the screen is bigger b.) Treo owners are more likely to have a data plan.

Minor improvement

[LunaticTippy]

Just put an impact detector on the thing (possible with location data) and your accident will show up instantly!

Re:Windows mobile? - No, Blackberry

[k2dbk]

I was surprised that it didn't work on my WM 5 device also, but very happy to discover that it works just fine on my Blackberry 7290 device.

Non-mobile version

[AugustZephyr]

Does anyone know if this is available on the standard maps.google.com page or just for google mobile? It would be nice to check traffic conditions before leaving home or work and plan my route accordingly. No need to be playing with my cell phone while driving.

Re:to the Hammer maker, everything looks like a na

[punkr0x]

I have a question for all you people who claim cell phones are worse than driving blindfolded. Have you ever seen an accident caused by a cell phone? I've seen old people smash into things because they didn't have the reaction time to stop, I've seen kids just learning how to drive rear end someone, I've seen people with no (obvious) distraction run a red light and hit someone, I've heard of several incidents with family members and friends getting hit by a person who turned out to be drunk, but I have never ever witnessed or heard about a single accident caused because the driver was distracted by their phone. I'm not saying it's the most brilliant idea in the world to operate your cell phone and drive, but it's not something new and it's certainly no worse than operating a cd player/combing your hair/reading (yes I know people who read books while they drive, this concerns me a hell of a lot more than cell phones). So, why all the fuss?

different routing algorithms

[jsolis]

While I understad people's comcerns about using this application while driving, I personally love this. I have already used Google's Mobile Local application many times to find directions and alternative routes, but they never had traffic information. I routinely drive from Stamford, CT to Manhattan after work around rush hour times, and the problem with looking up traffic information before I leave is that by the time I get close to NYC, the information is outdated. I will definately be using this application to determine which of two main routes to take. That being said, I noticed that the same driving direction query on maps.google.com and their new application yeilded very different routes. Has anyone else noticed this?

Unlimited GPRS

[jaredmauch]

Awesome! I have started really using the unlimited GPRS plan from my provider, if you're paying for 5M or similar, it's about $5USD/mo more to go unlimited and you get free text/picture msgs (not that i use the pictures) with my provider.

T-mobile works for me...

[weave]

Interesting that their faq page says "Google Maps doesn't work with Nextel, T-Mobile USA or BREW-enabled phones"

I installed it on my Nokia N90 that I have through t-mobile with their unlimited GPRS/EDGE plan and it works just fine.

Re:T-mobile works for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also have it working on T-Mobile USA on my RAZR with the $5.99/mo T-Zones plan, but it involved unbranding the phone with a ROM reflash and manually putting in the correct proxy servers, ports, etc. So yeah for mere mortals with T-Mobile branded phones (the other 99.9% of T-Mobile customers) it won't work, and if they said it did then everyone would want to know why it's not working for them...

Live reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

And add some mechanism to report it back to Google! Wow! Live reporting from the front by the victims themselves.

This is the event horizon - where cause and effect merge! Google is God.

Been doing this for years

[Xenna]

I've been doing this for years on my Nokia 9300. In Holland real-time traffic maps are provided by the road club (ANWB). The pages are huge and overfilled with ads and stuff. I scrape the maps off the site with a PHP script, crop exactly the part I need (I have some standard routes) so the map and text information fits on the screen nicely.

The 9300 is in a cradle (not a lame one against the windshield) and the php page auto refreshes every five minutes so it's all quite safe. Saves me a lot of hassle because I know when things are bad enough to take an alternative route and when not.

Interesting thing is that no-one I've ever shown it to was really impressed or interested. Guess I should've shown it to Google ;)

X.

Don't work on Verizon service.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried it on my cell phone that has Verizon service and it says it doesn't support my cell phone browser. Most of the time I check before I drive but if I'm stuck in a backup I would like to find where and what is the problems so either I can go around it or something. Having the traffice information is nice to have as long it is concise and current. Stop and go driving (for most places you do stopping more often) you can quickly view something on the web on the phone so you know what is happening on the road.

Re:to the Hammer maker, everything looks like a na

[pinkuff]

It's not a question of "heard" - there is plenty stats for this.

For example, according to this article based on USDOT data, fully 25% of all car accidents in the US are due to the cell phone distraction.

So, while you ar efree to feel concerned about anything you want (like a meteor from outer space hitting you right on the head), the fact are something else.

Google Maps on phone rules! But 1.3.0 is buggy...

[Money for Nothin']

The greatest app to enter my life in the last 5 years is Google Maps on my recently-acquired T-Mobile SDA phone.

For the $30/mo I pay for T-Mo's unlimited GPRS/EDGE + T-Mo Hotspot access, I have found my way to too many locations using Google Maps to count.

Now that they've added traffic-density functionality, my drive can only get better... ...If only the "Show traffic" function (the "#" key) didn't peg the CPU and lock up the app. :(

Other than that, the app is great and I love Google.

Re:Data Rates and the need for true Wireless inter

[Money for Nothin']

I don't know if T-Mobile is in Canada yet, but here in the States, they offer all-you-can-eat data for $30, over GPRS/EDGE and at their Hotspot locations (Starbucks, Borders, etc.. I hardly ever use their Hotspots though; EDGE is good enough for me). I've been pretty happy with them.

Re:to the Hammer maker, everything looks like a na

[punkr0x]

Okay, so like, what percentage of those involved flaming wreckage, and what percentage of accidents involving cellphones were of the "Oh shit I tapped your bumper" variety? I mean, you would think if people were being hospitalized because of other people using their cell phones while driving, I would know someone who it happened to. I've known a few people in the past few years who have been hospitalized or killed because of drunk drivers. You see my point?

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

GPS Functions, etc

[EmagGeek]

Combine this with an auto-routing GPS and you'll be all set. Your phone/pda can automatically route you around heavy traffic. This has environmental consequences, too. If we could all be directed in such a way that minimizes traffic bottlenecks, we'll use a lot less fuel.

Re:to the Hammer maker, everything looks like a na

[pinkuff]

I do not intend to turn this into a mystic discussion: cell phone using while driving - like any other distraction - is dangerous. The law says so, common sense says so. You are obviously free to think otherwise.

Nobody is saying here that it is more dangerous than driving under the effect of alcohol or speed or other mind-altering substance, of course.

True, stats can prove everything until proved wrong by a better stat.
Frankly your own experience does not qualify as a better stat