Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Tricycles To Map Footpaths For Street View

Posted by kdawson on from the hope-they-are-well-insured dept.

CNETNate writes "To advance its Street View service this summer, Google is poised to unleash the unstoppable power of human legs. Google will deploy pedal-powered tricycles — the company calls them 'Google Trikes' — mounted with 360 degree Street View cameras to map areas inaccessible by its fleet of Street View cars." The article indicates that the trikes will first see use in the UK, to map out public walking paths, but one anonymous commenter said: "This must be bogus — you are not allowed to cycle on public footpaths in the UK, I can't believe Google would have overlooked such a fundamental fact. Not to mention that the vehicle pictured wouldn't fit down most paths." PC World features the trikes in Rome.

14 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. I can just imagine by KingPin27 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With as much animosity as google street views has already been met with
    http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/02/1731231
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/13/0055234
    I can just imagine what these guys riding around on bikes will meet up with - Can anyone say moving target?

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
  2. Forget street view, how about decent maps by randomchicagomac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a bicyclist, I'd love it if google had decent maps of off-street bike paths, such that I could use google maps' normal direction-finding feature with these. I've lived in lots of cities with numerous such paths, and they're usually out of the way and hard to find if you don't already know that they're there. It would be great to have a feature that a) lets me find them, and b) tells me exactly how far out of my way I'd need to go for the added safety/pleasantness of using them.

    1. Re:Forget street view, how about decent maps by julian67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately the Google trike is far to wide to access many UK cycle paths. Many have a small barrier which allows bicycles (though forces rider to dismount) but prevents small vehicles and tricycles and any but the smallest motorcycles from passing. Also many cycle paths are in any case so ridiculously narrow that a substantial trike has no chance. Urban paths often share traffic light controlled crossings with footpaths and these again are often too narrow for a trike. Then there are the cycle paths which repeatedly alternate the rider from the road to the sidewalk, what to speak of the paths hosting street signs, trees, litter bins etc etc. Even on a normally loaded touring cycle, or a bike with a small trailer or child carrier some UK cycle paths are a problem. A trike is going to be hopeless. Whatever the purpose of the Google trike in the UK it clearly isn't going to work well for footpaths (illegal) or cycle paths. And most white roads, green lanes, unmetalled roads etc are essentially muddy, rocky or overgrown trails requiring an unencumbered mountain bike with a fit, skilled rider, or a vehicle. My guess is that it will give Google access to the many urban streets which only allow taxis, public buses, emergency vehicles, and bicycles during the day. This is extremely common.

  3. Re:Rights Do Not Scale Up by Drakin020 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bigger you are, the less rights you should be entitled to.

    I'm sorry...What!?

    That has to be the most retarded comment I've ever heard. No one should be limited to rights just because of how "Big" they are.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  4. Re:Segway by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why they didn't buy a bunch of Segways for it, is beyond me.

    Trikes are cheaper to buy than Segways which start at $2,400.

    Trikes are cheaper to maintain than Segways.

    Trikes are easier to maintain than Segways since all you need is a regular bike mechanic that can be found in any good bike store.

    Segways require electrical power just to stand up, that kind of power costs money. Trikes don't use any power when standing up because they've got three wheels.

    Segways require electrical power to operate, trikes don't and hence have a lower carbon footprint.

    Segways have to be charged up, trikes don't.

    Trikes are more efficient.

    Trikes do pretty much the same job for a lot less money.

    There's no enough room on a Segway to hold the equipment, there is enough room on a trike.

    Riding a trike is a lot healthier than driving a Segway because it uses human power.

    Want any more?

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  5. Google - OK! Gov't = Big Brother by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it ok in the public eye for google to do this, but when the gov't does this it's BigBrother and 1984 all over again?

    1. Re:Google - OK! Gov't = Big Brother by Murpster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not OK in my opinion. Google is turning pretty Big Brothery with shit like this and the cell phone location thing and other stupidness. If I ever see one of these or their cars, I'll make sure they don't get any images they can use haha. Screw Google. Time for them to go the way of Enron.

    2. Re:Google - OK! Gov't = Big Brother by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably coz Google doesn't have tens of thousands of armed employees legally empowered to kill.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  6. Re:Rights Do Not Scale Up by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think rights should scale up. I really don't see a problem with that.

    Oh, I see, you seem to have drunk the kool-aid and accepted that corporations are people who have rights. That's where the fault lies in all your examples, not with any inductive scaling.

    All that said... in this particular example, I do want my house on Google. Or, to be specific, I want other people's houses on Google -- many times I've made use of the Street View pictures to see what my destination will look like. And I can see other people wanting the same when I give them directions to my house. And I don't mind the pictures being up, and I certainly don't intend to take up a hypocritical position on the matter.

  7. Re:Good job kdawson! by queenb**ch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Put cameras on everyone's cats.... You'll get a lot more than a "street view".....

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  8. Re:Segway by Nerdposeur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Segways are always tilting forward and back. Bicycles are always tilting side to side. Trikes stay pretty level. That probably makes it easier to stitch together all the photos.

  9. Re:Rights Do Not Scale Up by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That has to be the most retarded comment I've ever heard. No one should be limited to rights just because of how "Big" they are.

    So what you are saying is that a monopoly shouldn't be regulated?
    Maybe you should rethink your position.

    The poster is asserting that what should be in-alienable rights for an individual at the individual level do not implicitly work at massive scales. The meaning of those rights transform as they scale up.

    I should be allowed to exhale carbon dioxide; nobody would ever dispute this. But it doesn't scale up. It doesn't implicitly give me blanket protection of a right to pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as I can manufacture.

    Similiarly, with respect to google, we absolutely should be allowed to take pictures of something we see while out and about. That shouldn't scale up to a right to deploy a world wide surveillance network.

    I fully agree with him.

  10. Re:Hmmm . . . . by TinFoilMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why troll? I thought it was a good question.

    --
    In my other life, I eat cats.
  11. Re:Hmmm . . . . by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know. If the natives are going to come after me with their pitchforks, I'd rather be in a vehicle with better get away speed.