Apple, Google: Battle of the Cloud Maps

Nerval's Lobster writes "Google has sent invitations for a June 6 event in which it will apparently unveil 'The Next Dimension of Google Maps.' Meanwhile, rumor suggests Apple is preparing its own mapping service for iOS devices. The escalating battle over maps demonstrates the importance of cloud apps to tech companies' larger strategies." I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.

Comments

What are you talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

they already did http://maps.google.com/?t=8

Re:What are you talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

And why we suddenly call every web service as cloud?

Re:What are you talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

And why we suddenly call every file server as web service?

Re:What are you talking about

[MaskedSlacker]

And why we suddenly accidentally some verbs from our sentences?

Re:What are you talking about

[Coren22]

Verb? Call is not a verb? Did you mean possibly that he forgot "a" in front of web?

Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

I just wish that Google would learn some lessons about 2D cartography. Like how to mark toll roads and stuff.

It's kind of frustrating because Google maps is really good at local stuff (zoom in to see individual business names and stuff, and of course street view) but other services are a lot better once you're looking at a range beyond a few blocks.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[afidel]

Err, what? The turn by turn directions will tell you what section are tolls and even allows you to avoid toll roads. This even works with google maps mobile. The two features I wish GMM had are cache along route (caching the tileset around a specific point is a start but it needs to be able to do it along an entire route). and route override (ie drag and drop route placement, sometimes I know a certain part of a route won't work and the only way to do this with GMM is to pre-plan the route on the PC and save it).

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

What is GMM? Google maps has a route override, i.e. drag and drop route placement.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

I'm not talking about the turn-by-turn directions, I'm talking about the maps. Quick, where are the toll roads? How 'bout now? Or now?

I guess if you just enter in a start and end into Google maps and blindly follow whatever comes out it works fine, but if you want to scan around for alternate routes (hint: Google doesn't pick the best route for going through Chicago from east-to-west or vice versa) or just want to look around at maps, that's not good enough.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Excelsior]

Caching the route does work. At least it does on every Android phone I've owned. When you drive through parts of the southwest United States, you often travel for hundreds of miles with no cell coverage at all. Google Maps keeps chugging along, as long as I don't end navigation on my current route.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[arose]

Lacking a legend I can honestly say that it's not clear in any of the cases what is what.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, but Google Map is useless in Europe where we pay hillarious roaming charges whenever we leave our own country. It will be a toy gps only until I can download all of Europe on my phone and then travel offline on my holiday.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Hognoxious]

Google Maps keeps chugging along, as long as I don't end navigation on my current route.

That's still retarded. It's like when you turn off the stereo it burns all your CDs.

Is there no way to permanently (at least until you make a positive decision to remove it) store the data locally?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

OK, fair point, and looking around the fact that both Bing and Mapquest seem to lack official legends anywhere from what I can tell is a significant strike against (though not more than Google, which also apparently lacks one).

However, I can tell you with high confidence that in those two maps the green roads are toll roads. They correspond both in Chicago and in other areas I'm somewhat familiar with to what I know to be true regarding what's a toll road, Furthermore, green for "toll road" is a pretty standard notation for road atlases. It never even occurred to me to look for a legend.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[gstrickler]

And identify toll bridges and tunnels, which it apparently doesn't even recognize as toll routes currently.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[C_amiga_fan]

So you route around tolls?
Interesting. I don't worry about it. One solitary trip down a tollroad isn't going to bankrupt me, and if I do it repeatedly (like a daily commute) then I learn to avoid that road. Of course oftentimes the tollroad is the cheapest route..... I recall a friend of mine was trying to avoid the Baltimore Tunnel Toll drove *all the way around* the city on 695 beltway.

He probably spent more on gas then if he'd just paid the $1 toll. --- As I became more familiar with the city, I later learned you can avoid the toll by following the Baltimore-Washington Parkway straight through the city (but then you also add half an hour to your cross-city travel time, so again: Not worth it. I'd rather just pay the toll.)

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EdIII]

That's still retarded. It's like when you turn off the stereo it burns all your CDs.

I think Sony has something like that in the works right now....

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[retchdog]

you mean google maps isn't even good for driving? i'm in nyc, and only the major streets are labeled unless you zoom in to near-uselessness. even if the gps can't figure out that i'm moving at 2mph, you'd think they'd have and default to a pedestrian-mode in manhattan.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones around here make up for the inconvenience of the toll by having a higher speed limit. Some are all the way up to 80 mph with the nearby interstate highways that are not tolled having speed limits of 65. Of course, there is not much benefit to that because people regularly do 70-75 on the regular road and 90 on the toll road. I'll stick to the saner speed limit, thank you very much.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

I do look, though I'll admit that it usually doesn't pan out in terms of being worth it.

For instance, taking the Chicago case, if you're traveling west-to-east from Rockford (or, as is probably clear from the urls I linked, Madison) to points East, if I-88 wasn't a toll road it'd probably be worth it to use that route. It's a bit longer, but you'd save several dollars on tolls and it's a bit better driving than I-90 is.

Or once I asked for advice on how late it's reasonable to hit Chicago before afternoon rush hour, and someone suggested avoiding it completely if your destination is in the right place. From my experimentation the "right place" isn't a very big area, but there are places where mapping software will send you through Chicago and across on the IL, IN, OH, and PA turnpikes when you can take an entirely different route and avoid all of those. Richmond is an example: Rockford to Richmond is 13:02 by Bing's estimate (just what I happened to have left up from before) via the route I just mentioned, or 13:47 if you take 39 all the way south to Bloomington then 74 to Indianapolis etc., taking a far more southery route. For that extra 45 minutes (or really, probably less), you avoid something like $25 or $30 in tolls.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[StuartHankins]

I wish. Haven't seen that option since the days of Street Atlas with the DeLorme GPS package connected to a laptop...

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

I can't speak to how it is when being used as a car GPS replacement; I'm too cheap for a data plan and so I plan my routes in advance and then execute them. I also keep an actual atlas in my car and can (and like to, obviously :-)) read maps.

When used like that, it's competent. The directions it comes up with are usually reasonable, though I think it should do a better job at routing around city centers. (Like my continual Chicago example: from Rockford to South Bend it will send you on I-90 all the way, but in my experience it's far better to go around via 290 and 294.)

It's just not as good as some of the other sites for just looking around the map at a large scale. Some of that is missing features, some of that is personal preference in terms of aesthetics, and some of that is a mixture of both. Printed atlases tend to be even better except for the total lack of zoomability.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, you can do it with Ovi maps on Nokias. I have maps for a few states loaded.

It's not perfect, at least with the version of Ovi maps I have on my phone -- it still tries to connect to a network so you have to keep telling it no, and it doesn't seem like you can search for locations or ask for directions offline. But you [i]can[/i] look around the map, and it can follow your current location using GPS.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

>> But you [i]can[/i] look around the map

Hah, too much time at other forums I guess.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[fredprado]

Google Maps Mobile. It lacks the route override option of the PC application and waypoints.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[swillden]

Google Maps keeps chugging along, as long as I don't end navigation on my current route.

That's still retarded. It's like when you turn off the stereo it burns all your CDs.

Is there no way to permanently (at least until you make a positive decision to remove it) store the data locally?

Not along a route, but you can cache any number of 10 mile-side squares (up to storage limits -- and most phones have a lot of storage). Go into Settings, then Labs, then enable the pre-cache feature. Then long-tap on the centerpoint of the area you want to pre-cache. Tap the bubble that pops up, and then tap "pre-cache" at the bottom of the dialog. It'll take a minute to download that square, but then you'll have cached map data (map only; no satellite, etc.)

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Austerity Empowers]

In some cities the toll for tunnels is >$10, people do all sorts of weird things to avoid it.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Hognoxious]

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, you can do it with Ovi maps on Nokias

Sure.

But what's that got to do with Google making a retarded design decision? It's certainly not very relevant to those who don't have Nokia phones.

As it happens I have a Nokia E71 with Ovi maps. I don't find it particularly brilliant, though I suppose I can't complain given that it was free.

Still, I don't know why it took them a year to port it from the E72 which is basically the same phone. Trying to push people to upgrade?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[geekoid]

I've been using it since its release, and I never realized that.
I wonder is it's on the tablet?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[NerdmastaX]

im a pizza driver, so i use copilot, when copilot cant find it i hope i have a data connection, but google nav is very accurate to the house compared to copilot. kinda messed up that you can fully navigate somewhere and then have no signal to navigate back. oh and pray you dont miss 1 turn while you have no data... it will reroute forever...

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[geekoid]

so the avoid toll roads option doesn't work for you?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[geekoid]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it retarded.

It's always updated, you're download is in small pieces. Some GPS updates will take a GIg of downloads, and the auto ones can hit at anytime.

" I don't know why it took them a year to port it from the E72 "
because there developers also have other things to do?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[geekoid]

Avoid toll roads option.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[geekoid]

Yeah, I wonder how the GPS reception is in downtown NYC.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[retchdog]

wish i could tell you, but i have nothing to compare it to. in my experience, it's between one and six blocks off, with the median at two.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[shellbeach]

You can already precache a 10km square area around any point (saved permanently) plus cache 150 Mb of rolling data. That's been good enough for me to travel everywhere I've wanted so far (including a five month backpacking trip last year).

Yes, it would be great to have continent maps available for download, but the current options are a lot better than nothing.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Cimexus]

While Google Maps can't do this, there are apps out there that DO allow you to do this (at least for iOS, I'm sure there would be on Android too). Two off the top of my head I can think of:

Expensive: The TomTom app (basically turns your phone into something almost identical to the actual stand-alone TomTom units, including the fact that the maps are stored locally)

Cheap: MotionXGPS: allows you to download and store locally mapping/sat data for any arbitrary area you want, sourced from either Bing, OpenStreetMap and various other sources (e.g. terrain maps for hiking, marine maps for sailing etc.)

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Cimexus]

Yyeah, GPS 'reception' is awful in any high-rise city. (I say 'reception', because the reception itself in terms of signal strength is usually fine - the issue is rather that the signal is getting bounced off buildings and thus longer to get to you, which obviously means your position calculated from those signals will be off).

Phone or stand-alone GPS doesn't seem to matter that much ... I get the same problems on my iPhone as I do with my regular car Garmin GPS when I drive into central Sydney. You basically have to ignore it because its telling you things like "in 100 metres, turn left on Blah Street" when you already passed Blah Street a block or two ago.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[adolf]

Yes, sort of.

Last time I was in Chicago, my Droid (which did do an excellent job of triangulating my location, and was accurate within a couple dozen feet even inside of a hotel as long as there was sufficient visible WiFi) failed miserably at getting me back to Ohio.

But it kept insisting I turn right from Lakeshore Drive where turning right was impossible due to physical barriers, while pretending to know where I was: It thought I was on a parallel road just to the south, and I wasn't.

Meanwhile, my cheap Garmin Nuvi was all too eager to get completely lost in the downtown areas, but at least would inform me of the fact that it had no clue where I was. And it was able to bring me to a road that actually headed east out of town, whereas the Droid completely failed.

It's plain to me that they both have their own strengths and weaknesses. As an out-of-towner, sans both atlas and navigator, it took a combination of both of these devices to get me anywhere.

And that, I shudder to say, was a win. (And if you've ever tried to find a place to simply stop a car en-route to read a map in downtown $bigcity, you'll likely agree.)

That said: The worst GPS-related navigation fault I've ever experienced occured while I was in the flat part of Ohio, in the late evening, with a clear view of the sky. I was in a parking lot and asked my OG Droid for directions. Both amusingly and uselessly, it insisted that I had a northwest heading over Canada at close to Mach 1.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[TheRaven64]

I've been using OSMAnd since I got my current phone, and it's so much more useful than Google Maps that comparing them is a joke. The map data (from OSM) has been better in every city I've visited. For example, visiting a friend in Paris, OSM had his building numbered and marked the bank and bakery nearby so it was trivial to find even without GPS. Google Maps just about had the roads labelled. In Brussels, the roads have three names: the one in French, the one in Dutch, and the one on Google Maps. The OSM data had all three. Oh, and the hotel I was staying in was labelled on OSM, while Google Maps thought it was about 100m away from where it really was. Looking for a tango class in Swansea, the building was labelled in OSM, but Google Maps didn't even show the road that it was on. In Cambridge, all of the college and university buildings and cycle paths are labelled on OSM, Google Maps just about manages to label the big university sites and the roads.

OSMand lets you download vector data, so it works fine with no network connection. I've got about 1GB of map data on my phone currently, covering England, Wales, Belgium and the north of France. It can do route finding either online or on the phone. The latter uses quite a lot of memory for longer routes (it's still marked as an experimental feature), but aside from that works very well. Getting to know my way around Cambridge was made very easy by having a navigation aid that understood all of the cycle routes.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal with toll roads? Seriously, the google maps interface philosophy is simplicity and clarity. Not dozens of road types, hundreds of various symbols etc that you see in some road maps. When you do actually want to see a route, you are told which roads are toll roads, and you can have option to adjust and avoid them.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[tepples]

Apparently some clients lack that option.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[gstrickler]

It doesn't recognize (most?) toll bridges/tunnels as toll roads. It will happily take you across toll bridges/tunnels without telling you there are tolls involved, even if you use the "avoid toll roads" option.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[drinkypoo]

Not along a route, but you can cache any number of 10 mile-side squares (up to storage limits -- and most phones have a lot of storage).

and for a maximum of 30 days, at which point anything you've cached silently expires and deletes itself (well, maps deletes it.)

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[drinkypoo]

I think the difference here is national. Google is all up in your streetz mapping your wifiz and knows what is where to a high level of detail... in the USA. In various European countries which value public privacy more than we do, the data is going to be inferior.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[penguinchris]

That must be a localized issue, it's known about every toll bridge/tunnel I've been across, on the east and west coasts and lots of different states and cities in between. It can even get you from mainland New York to Long Island and back without paying the ridiculous NYC bridge tolls (the least-convenient bridges don't have a toll but even if you look it up ahead of time it can be difficult to figure out where to go).

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[penguinchris]

It's always seemed to work fine for me in NYC, either driving or as a pedestrian, with my Nexus One. But you do need to have more situational awareness there than you do in more spread-out places, though of course that applies no matter how you're navigating there. You can't rely on following voice instructions like you (usually) can elsewhere because sometimes the signals bouncing off the buildings will confuse it - but you can glance at what street it wants you to turn on next and look for it yourself, and it will give you a rough idea at least of how close you are to the turn.

I suspect that smartphones mostly uses wi-fi triangulation in places like NYC, actually, and standalone GPS units are probably much worse.

The only parts of town where these things are an issue (anywhere in Manhattan) are relatively easy to navigate anyway because of the way the streets are gridded and numbered - and unlike that episode of Top Gear you won't have a problem with one-way streets because in NYC anyway they're all known to Google (and presumably GPS companies).

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[gstrickler]

Well, specifically, it took me across the GW Bridge when I told it to avoid tolls, and I was not happy to find out it's a $12 toll. It also tried to take me across the Tappan Zee bridge without indicating it's a toll.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[swillden]

Not along a route, but you can cache any number of 10 mile-side squares (up to storage limits -- and most phones have a lot of storage).

and for a maximum of 30 days, at which point anything you've cached silently expires and deletes itself (well, maps deletes it.)

Interesting. I discovered this feature less than 30 days ago, so I haven't seen that yet.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[voidptr]

Map data is exceedingly expensive to license, particularly if it contains everything needed to do street routing as well. Map tiles themselves you could generate from TIGER/Line data for free if a company wanted to, but it's still a lot of processing, and TIGER isn't sufficiently detailed to use for routing, and the data is still somewhat out of date compared to the commercial vendors.

Buying the rights to serve it piecemeal like Google Maps does is far cheaper than buying the rights to redistribute the entire dataset to every customer for offline use, and it works for the large majority of customers who just need small portions of the map at any time and don't want to hassle with reloading it from time to time, or chewing up GBs of space on a limited phone.

At least for iOS there are plenty of map programs that do support downloading the dataset ahead of time if you need that sort of thing, but at that point it's a paid app to cover the cost of licensing the map data to you for offline use.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, specifically, it took me across the GW Bridge when I told it to avoid tolls, and I was not happy to find out it's a $12 toll. It also tried to take me across the Tappan Zee bridge without indicating it's a toll.

That is because there were no options. Find an optional way to avoid the toll without driving a few hundred miles before you complain.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

Not dozens of road types, hundreds of various symbols etc that you see in some road maps

And this is my problem with it; you say "the philosophy is simplicity and clarity", I say "the philosophy is have far less information" and then dispute the "clarity" part.

Here's another example; I'll just compare to Bing maps because I like them the best (in no small part because they seem to be the closest to printed maps). Compare this to this. (Durrr, I can link the maps directly, I don't need to take a screenshot and upload them.)

On Bing's map, the distinction between the main routes through the area (US 65 and US 412) and others is very clear. It's there in Google's, but it's far far less pronounced. Furthermore, Bing makes a distinction between AR-7 (going south from Harrison) and US-62 (upper-left corner, where US-412 turns south), versus the other roads that are shown on the map, like AR-43 and AR-397. That distinction isn't visible on Google's at all.

Without a legend you don't know what kind of roads those are, but from the information there you can at least get a good sense of what are likely to be major routes.

And that also provides a good illustration of my counter argument to your "clarity" statement. To me, the distinctions made on the Bing map actually make it much easier to read... the Google version comparatively just looks like a big jumble of roads.

When you do actually want to see a route, you are told which roads are toll roads, and you can have option to adjust and avoid them.

But... it's not just that! If you want to say "are there decent toll-free routes" you have to try a bunch of things. With an actually good road map, you just look. Furthermore, it's not just a matter of "toll roads are A-OK!" and "avoid toll roads"; one part may have an easily-avoidable toll while another may not.

Sure, you can adjust each segment individually, but then you run into the first problem. Now you have to figure out what part of the map corresponds to the turn-by-turn direction that is a toll road (even just hovering over the turn-by-turn directions is an active action you have to take)*, try a different route, see if it's still marked as a toll, try a different route, see if it's still marked as a toll, etc.

* Actually counting this against Google's approach isn't quite fair; in both Bing and Mapquest, the route line they draw on the map covers over the toll indications. So if you want to try other routes to avoid tolls, you have to do the same thing.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

So what if one part of the route has a reasonable way to avoid tolls and another one doesn't?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[srjo]

I work on maps at Google and we do show toll road designations on freeway routes where we know of the restriction:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.635784,-122.250881&spn=0.082012,0.17458&t=m&z=13
https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.765917,-74.006052&spn=0.04609,0.08729&t=m&z=14

We start labeling toll roads at zoom 13, I think it would look too cluttered to label them in the more regional-view screenshot you posted. As for styling them differently, using a new color seems confusing without also adding a legend. A different road color could mean the highway is more/less prominent or (in some areas) a seasonal route. Directions has an option to avoid toll roads, which to me seems sufficient for regional driving. For tolls on bridges or narrow corridors where one may have many alternate route options available the roads are usually only visible at z >= 13 anyway.

Does this change your mind at all? :) Maybe we could address some of your other gripes?

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

As for styling them differently, using a new color seems confusing without also adding a legend.

I guess what I really want you guys to do is add a legend. :-)

A different road color could mean the highway is more/less prominent or (in some areas) a seasonal route.

Well, I also think these should be better indicated. For instance, read the first part of my post here, comparing the view of Google Maps to Bing.

Let's see if I can explain my main gripes with Google Maps. This is long, so if you actually read it I thank you (and it's pretty cool that you responded in the first place, BTW... maybe you can convince people to add an "informative map" view :-)). And don't take it too personally; I whine about software a lot, and Google Maps is kinda software. :-)

Viewed on my 1080p 22" monitor, the scale of this map appears at roughly the same real size as it does in my Rand McNally road atlas. Google's is actually about 60% bigger, which just adds strength to my arguments. (The distance from Platteville to the Madison Capitol building is 11.3mm on screen and 7.2mm on paper.) On the Google map, I can discern two kinds of roads: limited access highways and other highways. In the atlas, that cross section has limited access highways, other multilane highways, principle highways, other through highways, and other roads (reading off their key). In other areas of the country toll roads would also be visible, and presumably in others there would also be unpaved roads. (It's in the legend but I don't know where it ever appears.) On Google's map, there are 12 unique route markers visible. On Rand McNally's, I picked a somewhat random 1 inch by 1 inch square; it had 8. (The square was around House on the Rock and Talesin, two things that aren't on Google's map.)

If we zoom in one notch, a bunch of additional roads appear. (In fairness, there are now far more roads than appear on the Rand McNally atlas.) But there's no distinction between them. On that map, County Road H ("other road (conditions vary -- local inquiry suggested)" in the atlas legend) appears to me exactly the same as US-18 east of Dodgeville ("principle highway"), except that the latter has a route designator at that zoom level. You have to zoom in again before the route designators for the county highways (or WI-23 going north from Dodgeville ("other through highway")) appear -- two levels in from "60% larger than printed atlas".

Now let's compare to Bing. (I don't actually know how this'll go; we'll see.) At nearly the same zoom level as the first Google map we looked at (11.5mm from Platteville to central Madison, probably within my measurement error from Google's 11.3), Bing is missing several roads that appear on Google's. On the other hand, it has many more town names (like Monticello and New Glarus). If we zoom in once, they seem to have about the same roads on them, though the're a little hard to see on Bing's map and I actually had to zoom in again to actually establish that they are, in fact, roads. But we do see that WI-23 north of Dodgeville is decidedly indicated as a more major road than a lot of the county roads (the whisker-thin lines) and yet less than US-18 and US-151. Interestingly, US-18 west of Dodgeville is marked as a noticably more major road than it appears in either Google Map

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

The TL;DR version of this: "I can read a legend." :-)

And I'm not saying you have to go quite as dense as what you would get with a physical map -- being interactive does buy you a lot. I just thing Google Maps swings way way too far the other direction. For instance, in my mind Bing Maps strikes a significantly better balance between being not to cluttered and still having increased information density -- and I'd like to see even that pushed a little more.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[EvanED]

Oh, and while you're at it... if you want an awesome feature request: be able to get directions by clicking on the map instead of typing a location.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[gstrickler]

There were several other options with lower tolls or no tolls between my start and destination. But that didn't come into play because Google Maps DOESN'T recognize the GW or T-Zee are toll bridges. Plot a route for yourself and check it out.

NYC wasn't one of my destinations, it was just "on the way" between Northwestern CT and NJ. I had to find them myself on an atlas that actually shows toll roads and bridges because Google kept trying to route me across GW Bridge, which is nearly the most expensive route you can take. Tappan Zee is significantly cheaper without driving any farther.

By going a bit farther north you can find routes with even lower tolls, or no tolls, but they're about 30mi longer so you spend some of that on fuel and it costs time, making any savings questionable.

In fact, the problem seems to be with the NavTec map data because my GPS also uses data from NavTec and has the same issue.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds as if you're not from the NY/NJ area. I'm sorry to tell you, there is no way to drive from NJ to NY without paying a toll, short of traveling nearly 80 miles out of the way. Each of the three major Hudson River crossings costs $12 for NJ -> NY travel and no charge NY -> NJ. The Tappan Zee is cheaper, but IIRC, it's toll both ways. I would agree that it should label them as Toll if it didn't, but there's just no appropriate way to avoid them.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already precache a 10km square area around any point (saved permanently) plus cache 150 Mb of rolling data. That's been good enough for me to travel everywhere I've wanted so far (including a five month backpacking trip last year).

Yes, it would be great to have continent maps available for download, but the current options are a lot better than nothing.

try nokia.. free maps all parts of the world.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Coren22]

Mapquest doesn't have the toll roads (95, 895, 695 where they intersect the water) for Baltimore:
http://mapq.st/M6icxv
Bing does:
http://binged.it/MseAw4

Not sure how that works with your argument though, but I thought it odd that Mapquest does elsewhere.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[Coren22]

To avoid 95/895/695 there are a couple better routes than that depending on where you are headed. 295N into the city, Pratt St, 83N will get you past the tolls pretty effectively, and may be quicker depending on where you are going.

Re:Google Maps Gripes

[srjo]

I read this last weekend and have been meaning to reply. On the specifics you described it's possible we just have incorrect data. In the general case though I agree with you. A couple of months back we scaled down our information density and modified how we pick labels because in a number of areas the map was too cluttered to read. This was particularly bad for the mid level zooms in Europe. The change probably went too far though because, as you pointed out, we're not surfacing enough information in more sparsely populated areas such as the midwest. This is on our radar of important things to fix, and I will sincerely try and find time to test out some ideas on improving it.

As for your feature request, right clicking in maps will give you a context menu with the options "From here..." and "To here...". I believe a similar feature was just recently added to the android client.

Thanks for the detailed post, I'll be sure to reference it to see how we improve.

I have a feeling

[rat7307]

...it will be a battle in name only.

apple are highly unlikely to put out an API for other to use as they wish like Google did.

While GMaps might take a back-seat on iOS, it will still be by far the most dominant system out there unless Apple allow use outside of the iOSphere.

At the end of the day if it's only available on iOS and Mac then it's essentially on a minority of devices on what is now a minority platform.

Still, it no doubt will have Google scrambling to bring us more cool stuff, so it's win-win all round.

Re:I have a feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

GMaps is different than Google Maps. You all knew that, right?

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

At the end of the day if it's only available on iOS and Mac then it's essentially on a minority of devices on what is now a minority platform.

Uh, you're kidding, right? Apple's inventory stock has been compared to restaurants, that must get rid of it because it's perishable. It's ridiculous how competitive Apple is right now against ALL of the Android phone manufacturers. I'm not sure their growth rate will last, but you're just silly to claim the iOS platform is merely a "minority platform." It's not like 2-5% marketshare, like the Mac used to be... they're neck and neck against EVERY OTHER phone manufacturer put together. Mac's marketshare is growing, too, but still under 20% I would guess. I doubt seriously anyone at Microsoft now, or even Google, would share your dismissive views of the "minority" that's ever increasingly eating their marketshare.

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

I think he was including more than just mobile. The clue is that he contrasted Google's offering against "iOS and Mac". So the total market under consideration includes not just phones and tablets but also laptops and desktops. And, clearly, a solution that is available on essentially all platforms (including iOS and OSX) has an advantage over one that's tied to iOS and OSX. Of course, that presumes that Apple won't make their mapping solution available on non-Apple platforms. I don't know if they will or won't, but it's an implicit assumption which should be called out.

Re:I have a feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's the same thing, aspie.

Re:I have a feeling

[BasilBrush]

An advantage in what way? What is it that the companies providing mapping want? Maps is not a symmetrical platform war.

Google uses mapping to advertise. The more users they have on any platform the better for them.

Apple just wants to sell more hardware. Maps is a good old fashioned feature. They will have a motivation to deny their maps to people without Apple hardware. Apple do have an advertising platform (iAd), but it's very much a sideline compared with the main business of selling hardware. And it's Apple only anyway.

Apple's doing it's own maps because they can't rely any longer on the map service being supplied by one of their biggest competitors. They have no motivation to have the most users for them, other than because those people have bought Apple devices.

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

Apple's doing it's own maps because they can't rely any longer on the map service being supplied by one of their biggest competitors. They have no motivation to have the most users for them, other than because those people have bought Apple devices.

Nicely said. This is precisely the reason. Google is intentionally dropping the ball, saving the best features for Android... and now they have competition on iOS, they're stepping up their game. Competition is a good thing.

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

Yes, I understood. But he's completely missing the larger picture. His comment is dismissive and I think either it's flamebait or astoundingly myopic ("at the end of the day... minority of devices... minority platform"). Apple may be technically still in the minority, but at the end of every week, Apple's inventory has been entirely sold out.

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

Apple may be technically still in the minority, but at the end of every week, Apple's inventory has been entirely sold out.

That's a funny statement. The one part of the sentence has nothing to do with the other.

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

Yes, I see your point. Apple's product can continue ad infinitum flying off the shelves in a fashion only known in the food industry, while continuing to be a minority, regardless of the millions upon millions of users... still an inconsequential minority that isn't worth considering, because the majority platform, which includes systems dating back to the millenium, is still a majority... and the more established platform is always the only one worth considering, even if its sales are embarrasingly slow.

/sarcasm

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

You read into my comments things that aren't there, just as you over-extrapolate the meaning of sales figures.

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

You read into my comments things that aren't there, just as you over-extrapolate the meaning of sales figures.

Not quite. You are defending rat7307's myopic and dismissive statement that: "At the end of the day if it's only available on iOS and Mac then it's essentially on a minority of devices on what is now a minority platform." It's rat7607's statement that I am reading into as myopic and dismissive, and only by association, your defense of it.

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

rat7307's comment is correct. iOS is a minority platform, and at the present sales rates it will stay that way. Apple's sales volumes are very nice for Apple, but they are not increasing at anything like the pace that would be needed for iOS to become anything more than a (large) minority platform. Even just on mobile, it's not clear that iOS is going to be anything other than a minority platform (it has already fallen behind Android in phones, and Android is making up ground in the tablet market, too).

Re:I have a feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

give it up catmistake... this guy is a troll and there's no convincing some people of anything. Just don't even bother. He'll continue to ignore the evidence and gainsay anything you attempt to prove. Forget it... Apple will never be anything but a minority platform to him even though half the people he knows have iPhones and the other have Mac laptops... it doesn't matter even if Apple is the worlds most profitable company of all time, and has the largest market cap of any company evar. Its not worth it.

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

You can spin it how you like, but iOS is the only viable competing platform against Android, and without it, Android would suck. Competition is a good thing and forces innovation. MacOS and linux are the only viable desktop platforms competing against Windows. It should make a difference that Apple is a single company (and the largest in the world now), and Android is not. Let's compare Apple's to apple's, shall we? Let's take a look at the actual market... how are iPhone4S sales doing compared to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus sales? Or the HTC One X? Or the Motorola Droid Razr Maxx? How are the Apple MacBook Pro's doing against any particular HP, Samsung, Lenovo, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell, or Toshiba laptop? I realize that you wish to compare all of Apple's competition TOGETHER against Apple's offerings... but it really isn't all that useful. Its not saying much when you say iOS is falling behind Android when there are many Android phone manufacturers and only a single iOS platform manufactuer. rat7307's statement, and your defense, may technically be correct, but anyone with an IQ over potato can see that isn't saying much, isn't really what's important or even remotely interesting.

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

I really don't see how it's useful when assessing the impact of an application, to consider whether the devices that app runs on run on a platform from a single vendor or one from multiple vendors. What matters is how many people use that platform, and therefore have access to that app. Apple is doing very well, but iOS is a minority platform, and the current trends (extrapolating current trends into the future is very risky, obviously) indicate that the iOS market share, as a percentage, has peaked and will continue declining from here. I very much doubt that concerns Apple -- they're quite happy to keep the most lucrative segment of a growing market.

But, if you really do want to consider a single vendor: Samsung by itself is significantly outselling Apple in the smartphone market, in terms of both units and revenue -- though Apple is making more money. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales-profit

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

There are two points that I keep wanting to make but I am easily distracted.

What matters is how many people use that platform, and therefore have access to that app.

First of all, this is complete hogwash, and I know you're smart enough to see that... unless your saying that popularity itself is a self-perpetuating and important driving sales bullet point. Why would it matter how many people use a platform, nowadays? Because the platform that is important, it turns out, is neither Android nor iOS, but the WWW... the Cloud, as it were (and I just puked a little in my mouth as I typed that word).

Ask yourself what kind of car you drive, and how popular it is, and whether it matters or not how many drive the exact same car, and if that was a factor you took into consideration when you made your purchase. It doesn't matter, unless you're driving something that runs on a fuel that just isn't available conveniently, because regardless, if its a car, no matter if its one of a kind, it still drives on... you guess it, the road.Once upon a time I suppose it did matter that Windows outsold Mac's 20 to 1, and that the platforms were entirely incompatible, on one hand due to incompatible file systems, yet mostly due to the efforts of Microsoft to keep them that way (using tactics similar to the ones they continue use to thwart linux adopters even today), and in spite of Apple's efforts to conform to commercial standards to keep the competing platforms transparent to what actually mattered, the transportability of documents. The platforms we are discussing are not application centric... they are data centric... and the data no longer cares which platform is parsing it.

The second point, which is really my originally intended point, is that to refer to platforms using terms like "minority" and "majority" is tremendously prejudicial... and frankly, bizarre. No one speaks of technology like this. The OP flamebaited me successfully, and you have been trolling me... rather impressively, I might add.

To go further, the OP's statement is also suspect, and we can now turn this around a bit. What is the Android music player that is more popular than and that is outselling the iPod? Which Android tablet is more popular than and is outselling the iPad? Which Windows laptop is more popular than and outselling the MacBook line? (Have you been on a college campus lately?)

I might be willing to concede that Apple has probably peaked in innovation... I don't see where they can go from here... but it is so far ahead of the competition in innovation that the competition is, embarrassingly, over-reaching in an attempt to stay relevant, regardless of marketshare or popularity that includes aging machines over ten years old. No one cares, when making a new computer purchase, how many aging Win2K or XP desktops are still gathering dust under who knows how many cubicles. In the same regard, no one cares how many System 7 Macintoshes are still running. This isn't a factor and shouldn't be a factor when deciding which smartphone platform they're going to purchase because they prefer one maps application better than the other. Furthermore, Android smartphones interface with MacOS X just as easily as iPhones interface with Windows. The platform, unlike the OP, is unbiased with regards to the data. Therefore, it is a falacious notion that the popularity of one platform in regards to another is an important consideration when making a purchase.

Re:I have a feeling

[swillden]

We've apparently been talking about different things. I've been talking about the impact of the app, you've been talking about sales volumes and purchase considerations. :-)

Re:I have a feeling

[catmistake]

We've apparently been talking about different things. I've been talking.... you've been talking about .... :-)

And vernacular, specifically rat7307's unfortunate choice of words. But at the end of the day, rat7307 is an insignifcant commenter on an insignificant technology news outlet. Your own comments are far less prejudicial, less insensitive, and our trolling is far more popular than any dismissive statements made by the above. Nice smiley. =^..^=

Nokia

[Fnord666]

I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.

You mean like any number of Nokia phones that support the free OVI Maps application?

Re:Nokia

[JaredOfEuropa]

Or any of the non-free but still relatively cheap navigation apps for Android or iPhone, like TomTom or Navigon, to name a few?

Re:Nokia

[sed quid in infernos]

There's a TomTom app for Android now?

Re:Nokia

[JeffElkins]

Sygic http://goo.gl/zu0UJ

I just finished using it on a trip. Very nice and only $20. All maps are stored locally and it didn't falter once. I used it on a Galaxy Tab 7.

Re:Nokia

[black3d]

Navfree is a decent free offline GPS for the iphone. It's another which uses OpenStreetMap so it's not flawless, but personally I've had it find every address I've tried, every time. Avoids toll roads, etc.

Re:Nokia

[DNS-and-BIND]

I've tried those. They're great as long as you're in the West, I suppose. But my third-tier city in China barely has anything. Unusable, and I say this as someone who desperately wants to ditch Google Maps.

Re:Nokia

[drinkypoo]

Navigon is really not very cheap (considering the price of the alternatives, $0) and they don't offer lifetime maps. For the price of Navigon and a couple of years of maps you could buy a refurb'd Garmin GPS device. Indeed, I did.

Re:Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I think he meant a smartphone.

Re:Nokia

[Pausanias]

At least in TomTom there's no easy way to actually use the map the way you'd use Google maps (enter point of interest, I.e stadium, find it; enter parking, find parking near stadium). That is mostly how I use the phone maps and TomTom requires dozens more steps to get something similar done and the point of interests list is also frequently out of date.

Not all functionality has to be built-in

[perpenso]

I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.

There is an app for that, seriously there are multiple apps for that. Decent maps built-in. More detailed ones, including topo, available via free download.

Not all functionality has to come from Apple, or whoever is doing the OS and built-in apps, some things can be left to third parties.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[Artifex]

There is an app for that, seriously there are multiple apps for that.

Heck, even Google Maps on Android will cache map data (no pictures or traffic). Enable the option in Labs, go back to the area you want to cache and long-press in the middle, then click the option to cache it, and you'll get a 10 mile square around that spot. Yes, you can do multiple squares, too: I did 6 somewhat overlapping squares tonight, and it says they take up 21MB.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[swillden]

I live in an island which is 5km wide and 40km long. Cities and everything else is organized across the 40*1 km range. So the whole cache thing is useless for me.

Why is that? You cache two 10-mile (24 km) squares and you have your whole island cached. Plus a great deal of water, but ignore that.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[fredprado]

No it is not. You need to cache 2 regions around 2 points and you will have the whole island cached.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[TubeSteak]

60 square miles = 21 MB
1 GB / 21 MB = 48.76
2,925.6 square miles = 1 GB on Android

I hope the other Apps the GP referred to aren't as wasteful with storage space.
For references: 3,794,083 square miles (the USA w/water) ~= 1GB on my GPS

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[xded]

Except that your smartphone with an always-on GPS-tracking app, recording a data point every 5 feet, will last at most 2 hours on a full battery.

My Garmin handheld doing just that, with a better precision, will last 15 hours on a couple of AA batteries. And when they're over, I can just swap another pair in. And I can use it under the rain. With the gloves on.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[stephanruby]

I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.

What's wrong with his phone? Does he have an iPhone?

My Android phone allows me to cache as much google maps tiles as I want for off-line navigation. It's just one of the google labs option that needs to be enabled from the google maps application, that's all. As to the data points themselves, I save every address I run across into my address book, that way it comes up automatically as an auto-complete item when I enter a destination.

But even then, I am glad I'm no longer using my standalone gps unit for its data, its data points were several years out of date. And it was frustrating going to a gas station that no longer existed, or seeing new neighborhoods that were not even listed in its database yet.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[maglor_83]

It's a 10mile 'radius' square. So each square is 20x20 = 400 square miles. 6 of them makes 2,400sqm. Now he said that they overlapped a bit, but then the 21MB includes other cached maps as well, not just the permanent ones, so lets call it even.

3,794,083/2,400 = 1,581, so 33GB.

Then take into account, that GP most likely saved map data in a city (higher density), which the vast majority of the USA is not, and it's likely comparable.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[drinkypoo]

I have a couple old Garmin GPS 12 devices for when I need a GPS for hiking etc. But any typical Garmin GPS device that the typical person will own today is a PDA running an app and getting 2-3 hours of battery life. (I have one of those too, since it serves a different need.)

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[perpenso]

I hope the other Apps the GP referred to aren't as wasteful with storage space.

The one I use allows you to choose the detail level on the downloaded maps.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[deesine]

Are you sure you can cache as many tiles as you want? I just tried and reached a limit of 10.

Re:Not all functionality has to be built-in

[Artifex]

It's a 10mile 'radius' square. So each square is 20x20 = 400 square miles. 6 of them makes 2,400sqm. Now he said that they overlapped a bit, but then the 21MB includes other cached maps as well, not just the permanent ones, so lets call it even.

3,794,083/2,400 = 1,581, so 33GB.

Then take into account, that GP most likely saved map data in a city (higher density), which the vast majority of the USA is not, and it's likely comparable.

You pretty much hit all of it. Not to mention, I never said it was the best, just saying that even the app that was complained about for not having a feature actually has that feature :)

Offine maps are Open Street Map

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to have the cloud centric bottleneck check out the mobile versions of Open Street Map, downloading a whole country of vector maps is reasonable. I use OSMand, it was handy on my trip to Japan.

Re:faggot nigger dick in your mom's loose cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

What the holy hell? Did 4chan just spring a leak?

Caching

[LoudMusic]

I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.

No shit dude. I have a fucking 32GB phone of which I'm using about 3GB. The thing I use more than anything is Google Maps. If it's downloaded something, why does it ever delete it? I can cache apparently unlimited 10 mile squares (100 square miles?), but I can't say "Just fucking download the entire state of Iowa" (because, really, who would want to?).

But I suppose they're getting there. Slowly.

Re:Caching

[thaig]

You could get one of those appalling non-smartphones with that terrible OS Symbian on it and use their downloadable maps which offer both caching and the ability to pre-download maps for any country and have offered this for years.

Re:Caching

[Anonymous Coward]

You can download sections of the map using a Google Labs function in Google Maps. At least om Android. I think you still need to be online to calculate a new route.

Re:Caching

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. http://www.navigon.com/portal/int/produkte/navigationssoftware/index.html

How hard was that?

Re:Caching

[thegarbz]

Or go the cheaper option and install one of a million other apps that do the same thing?

Re:Caching

[deesine]

You really get unlimited cached tiles? Have you tried going past 10? Wonder why I have a limit of 10...

Re:Caching

[thaig]

There aren't a million apps that can put the whole world with driving instructions, restaurants etc on your phone such that you can use it all offline when you get lost in Timbuktu.

Re:Caching

[thegarbz]

Really? My phone came with one called Navigon. I did a quick google search and the first link named 3 more all on the top page. Co-pilot, Mapdroyd, and apparently TomTom either has released or is about to release Navigator for Android, which is already available on iTunes.

I wonder what would happen if I bothered to read past the top page, or bothered to click the second Google link.

Re:Caching

[LoudMusic]

Actually, no. It seems my phone purges them frequently without my interaction. I've made a dozen or more in the past two weeks and there is only one currently available.

Want offline maps?

[arose]

Get an Android phone. Get OSMand. News for posers who won't lift a finger? Stuff that has been solved for you if you just look?

Re:Want offline maps?

[silanea]

It is not that simple, I am afraid. I love Osmand, but it still has a long way to go. Searching for street names in cities that have been divided into districts - there are numerous examples in Germany (try Munich) and apparently Russia - is broken, offline routing fails more than it works. I enjoy the map display, and with an online routing service it is quite useful, but as a purely offline solution Osmand is not ready yet.

Re:Want offline maps?

[arose]

Fair enough, that is however not due to a lack of offline licensed maps.

Don't you get it?

[flatulus]

The reason they don't make it easy to download an entire map has nothing to do with storage or bandwidth. It has to do with *tracking*.

Location Based Services -- Since we know where you are, we can suggest you turn right and have a pizza at the restaurant that pays us to steer customers their way. etc... etc... etc...

Google has a talent for fooling people into thinking that they are offering all these great FREE services out of the goodness of their corporate heart. On the contrary, those services are very profitable, and the way they accomplish all that money making is by knowing a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT about YOU.

Anyway, it's up to you folks. But don't bitch about not getting the whole free map thing - now that you understand why it is not in Google's or Apple's or Microsoft's (or fill-in-the-blank-megacorp-giving-away-services) to provide them.

That's my $37.00 worth (I'm old and that's about what 2 cents used to be worth when I was a wee one)

Re:Don't you get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the answer then they only thought it half-way through. Have it cache all the data it can. Then, when someone asks for directions or the like, it asks if the cached data is still good or not. The streets will most likely not change that often, so the street grid won't change that often. All together, this makes it so it looks snappier, saves you and them data transfer costs and they still get to track you.

Re:Don't you get it?

[game kid]

That and the whole Don't Copy That Floppy(tm) thing. Someone with a big chunk of Google Maps=another website with a big chunk of Google Maps and its associated third-party imagery=(mad Google lawyers)+(higher license fees for Google to procure the imagery)=(mad Google lawyers)+(less Google shareholders thanks to lower "Profit!").

Or something like that.

Re:Don't you get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's my $37.00 worth (I'm old and that's about what 2 cents used to be worth when I was a wee one)

Or about 1 Facebook shar... Oh wait, that's not quite right is it.

Re:Don't you get it?

[Crash24]

Caching and tracking aren't mutually exclusive. If anything, better caching will reduce Google's server/bandwidth load. Which, incidentally, frees up more resources to do important stuff like tracking you.

Re:Don't you get it?

[MrHanky]

Does Google Maps actually push adverts through the turn-by-turn navigation in the U.S. now, or did you just confuse Google with some movie you saw? So far, it seems Google's success as an advertising business comes from being less obnoxious than the others. Pushing somewhat relevant ads might contribute to that.

Re:Don't you get it?

[BasilBrush]

Anyway, it's up to you folks. But don't bitch about not getting the whole free map thing - now that you understand why it is not in Google's or Apple's or Microsoft's (or fill-in-the-blank-megacorp-giving-away-services) to provide them.

Sure they've all got a commercial interest, but they're not all the same. Apple provides Maps on the iPhone purely as a feature. Up to now it's simply been supplying Google maps. But that;s going to change to their own maps because they can't be dependant on one of their biggest competitors any more.

So Apple's commercial interest is simply to sell more devices. So it doesn't matter to them whether you cache the data on your phone or stream it constantly. In fact they'll save money on bandwidth the more you do cache it.

The underlying map data is key

[darrylo]

Regardless of any really cool/geeky features, the underlying map data can make or break the app. Google doesn't have a problem because, well, they're using the google maps data, which is pretty decent.

On the other hand, Apple has a challenge: what maps data source do they use? Since Apple seems to be trying to avoid Google, I'm assuming that the google maps data is out. I really hope that Apple goes with a major commercial maps data source, and not openstreetmap. If Apple uses openstreetmap, I think Apple's map app is doomed, as I don't think any amount of lipstick is going to make openstreetmap look good.

(OK, don't get me wrong -- I like openstreetmap, and I like the idea of it. However, it's missing 10+-year-old roads in my area. For the people who just started frothing at the mouth and want to scream at me to say that I can edit the maps, you're missing the point. The point is not that I can go in and fix the map data. The point is that, statistically speaking, if some of the map data is inaccurate in my area, it's likely inaccurate in many other places, and this raises severe reliability/trustability issues with me. Like it or not, the google maps data is a lot more accurate than openstreetmap, and thus is a lot more trustable.)

Re:The underlying map data is key

[Tester]

Google didn't make their own maps, neither did Microsoft or Nokia or Garmin or Tomtom. They all buy their maps (the raw data) from a small numbers of companies like Maptech or Teleatlas who do all the hard work. Apple can buy their maps from the same place... The real challenge for Apple to make their own maps application is that they don't have Google search to find stuff on it.

Re:The underlying map data is key

[darrylo]

That certainly used to be true -- there used to be appropriate copyright notices at the bottom of the map. However, if you look at google maps now, the only copyright there is Google's. That implies that Google owns the map data that it uses.

I'd love to be wrong, though. :)

Re:The underlying map data is key

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Nokia makes and owns all their maps. They bought Navteq years ago. Microsoft and Yahoo use Nokia maps as their backend.

Re:The underlying map data is key

[Anonymous Coward]

You get map data free of charge from gov't entities, at least up here in Canada. There are roads maps that map everything, down to every freaking driveway. But it is raw data (vector map). There are other maps that have all topography and elevation, but again, raw stuff. Then you can put the A and B together and get yourself a nice looking map.

Heck, you can just download elevation maps of the world straight from NASA or USGS.

Data is there, if you can find it and compile it. Or you can just buy it from someone that already compiled it.

Re:The underlying map data is key

[Pecisk]

"Like it or not, the google maps data is a lot more accurate than openstreetmap, and thus is a lot more trustable."

You have any data to backup your claim? And no, it's not "if there's lack of data in our neibourhood, then it must be rest of the world". Because when I see lack of data, I just map them and they are in database in 3 minutes after I have done survey, put data into system and have verified their statuses, routing, etc. Currently it is much better than Google Maps ever was in my region.

OpenStreetMap is not solution for everyone, but it's "good enough" for general crowd definitely - and that's why will check OSM data first anytime.

Google Maps are worst in my region (and essentially that was main reason why I started to work on OpenStreetMap in general), Nokia is clearly much better, and they have done their homework (t.i. their regional office have done checks on the data they have bought), and second one is regional map company who has very detailed maps, but they are outdated in quite a few areas, and they haven't properly digitalised it yet.

Re:The underlying map data is key

[swillden]

Actually, Google does generate a lot of its own map data. Google buys whatever data they can, but in many areas have paid to create it themselves where the available data wasn't of sufficiently high quality. For city areas, where Google wants to provide complete coverage of 3D building models, Google bought Sketchup and then incented people to create models in various ways, including just paying them. Now Google is shifting to automated means of generating 3D models from other data (I'm not sure how much I can say here, so I'm being vague) and so has sold Sketchup to Trimble. I wouldn't be surprised if the same automated techniques are increasingly used to generate more 2D data as well.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, in fact in the same office as the Sketchup guys were. I've sat in on tech talks given by some of the people working on map data, and the above constitutes the information I'm sure I can share without violating confidentiality. I suspect that much of what I'm holding back is public knowledge, but I have to err on the side of caution.)

Re:The underlying map data is key

[swillden]

I'm guessing from your spelling choices that you're in the UK?

Based on your comment and various others, it appears to me that Google Maps data in the US is very good, which has led to relatively little interest in OSM, which has led to OSM data not being so great. In some other industrialized countries the reverse has been true. Since Google isn't very good, there's greater interest in OSM, which leads to OSM data being very good.

Does that agree with your experience?

Re:The underlying map data is key

[Pecisk]

It easily could be that way, yes.

Of course OSM data is not perfect, and it's even less perfect in regions when there are already some solid maps. However, this slowly, but surery changes. In my region it's easily best digital map available. It could be differently in other places.

Re:The underlying map data is key

[iluvcapra]

It depends. It's hard to look at imagery map tiles without seeing four different copyrights from private and government agencies. For map data, just looking through Los Angeles, sometimes the map data is (c) Google, sometimes it's (c) City of Pasadena, sometimes it's (c) Cybercity. Also when you route directions more people seem to be involved.

You can see in Google's licensing terms an enumeration of where they get their mapping data; a lot of this can be delivered under Google's copyright if their work, their "final map data" is a derived work or aggregation of business locations from infoUSA, park locations from the city government, subway stops from the county authority... even if each of these data sources is the copyright of their original creator.

fix the accuracy first

[slashmydots]

Google is usually psycho-perfectionist about how their products perform. They still don't quite know where my business is and it's been there for 62 years. The "correction" we submitted now resulted in us being listed 3 times, once at the correct spot, all under slightly different names. I've had it claim it found something and my GPS disagrees and brings me to the correct spot several times as well. That's pretty major as far as problems go and they just can't seem to fix it. I'd focus on that more than anything if I were them.

Re:fix the accuracy first

[Fastolfe]

Details? Have you tried http://www.google.com/mapmaker ?

End of the monopoly

[LifeIs0x2A]

Powerful competition for Google maps will give them pressure to improve their service (the same for their competitor). That's definitely a good thing for the customer. Also the more people there are developing maps services the greater is the probability that a minimalistic version as mentioned by the original post will become available.

Re:End of the monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

oh you must mean mapquest

Backwards from reality

[SuperKendall]

Apple are highly unlikely to put out an API for other to use as they wish like Google did.

That is 100% wrong.

The strongest reason I see for Apple to replace Google with their own mapping solution is in fact to give iOS developers an API they can "use as they wish".

The current Google Maps API is rife with restrictions. Have to watch the geocoding load from your app or it will be shut down. Can't overlay turn-by-turn instructions (what? You thought that restriction, meant to drive you to back to Google Maps, came from Apple?)

Apple having their own mapping system means NO restrictions on developers, or at least ones directly related to load only and not the protection of Google revenue streams...

At the end of the day if it's only available on iOS and Mac then it's essentially on a minority of devices on what is now a minority platform.

There are still more iOS devices than Android devices overall.

Especially in the U.S. Here's a conundrum for you. Sprint & AT&T and Verizon have all said the iPhone is leading smartphone sales, usually by a good margin.

So how exactly would Android have more units sold in the U.S. if that continues to be true?

Re:Backwards from reality

[fredprado]

You and the poster above you miss the point. Google Map is not only usable from Android devices. It is usable from any desktop out there, and iOS device and any other operational system of any Internet able device mobile or not that I am aware of. Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything. That is what the parent poster means.

Re:Backwards from reality

[SuperKendall]

Google Map is not only usable from Android devices. It is usable from any desktop out there

And Apple can not deliver a desktop map because....

I understand what you mean about scope of use, but in the end it doesn't matter what the scope is, if enough care is put into the mapping solution. Even if they don't deliver a desktop version of the mapping service.

Re:Backwards from reality

[fredprado]

Apple certainly can deliver a desktop map service, but it is not their policy to open things and release it to non MacOS/iOS systems. Maybe this time they will open an exception, who knows. And I beg to disagree, but scope matters a lot. I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone, being able to interchange information between them is mandatory to me, and I bet I am not alone on this.

Re:Backwards from reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed, iTunes, Safari and the iCloud Photo Stream. They do make stuff for other platforms (Windows) and it would not surprise me if they make the Geo service open via a web interface.

Re:Backwards from reality

[fredprado]

As I said above it is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Backwards from reality

[Walter White]

Apple having their own mapping system means NO restrictions on developers, ...

Don't you mean ONLY the restrictions that Apple requires?

I don't develop for IOS but I thought there were considerable restrictions governing how their other APIs are used.

Re:Backwards from reality

[rat7307]

Yep, Exactly what I meant.

Add desktop to the mix as an aggregate total and Apple universe is by far a minority platform.

I would hazard a guess that the displaying of Google maps on other websites etc on the desktop/web platform is several magnitudes more than on mobile apps.

I run a small site that serves up about 10000 map views a day, there's literally millions of sites doing the same.

If Apple decide not to chase this non-mobile stuff then they are really only playing in their own backyard and all this media talk about them 'beating GMaps' becomes irrelevant in the big picture, akin to how much traffic Bing takes from Google.

Re:Backwards from reality

[BasilBrush]

Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything.

Apple have no motivation to compete on map numbers per se. Maps for them is just a feature to sell hardware. They will of course give iOS developers an API. And they will of course not allow their maps to be used in any way on anything other than an Apple device. Overall map usage numbers are irrelevant. Only Apple hardware and App Store app sales matter to them.

Re:Backwards from reality

[BasilBrush]

And Apple can not deliver a desktop map because....

No reason at all they won't have it on Macs. It's a pretty likely feature for Mountain Lion. But they have no motivation whatsoever to let non-Apple users have access to them.

Re:Backwards from reality

[BasilBrush]

I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone

Why? That indicates to me you have a crap mobile phone navigation system. With my dedicated Garmin sat-nav I've never felt the desire to do any pre-planning on a PC. I have a sat-nav to do navigation more efficiently, not to make extra tasks before I travel.

Re:Backwards from reality

[BasilBrush]

Apple have no motivation to give their maps to anyone who's not on an Apple device. There will be no battle between Apple and Google for total user count. It's irrelevant to Apple. All thats relevant is their hardware sales. And to a much lesser extent App Store app sales.

Re:Backwards from reality

[shutdown -p now]

iTunes and Safari are pretty old examples. New ones would be FaceTime and iMessage, both of which are iOS / OS X only, with no signs that they'll ever be extended to other platforms.

Just you wait..

[LifeIs0x2A]

for Facebook Maps (only available on Facebook phones though)!!!
Because we think it's just so much better if you can look at a map together with your friends.

Cheers,
Mark

some times GPS send trucks down tail of dragon or

[Anonymous Coward]

some times GPS send trucks down the tail of dragon (looks like a quick route but is very or other times on to non truck roads.

you can look at a map see the shortest route. Of course the curves don't show-up on highway maps so here they come.

Map pricing

[lewko]

In Australia, a set of new maps for most consumer GPS units is more than the cost of a (cheap) new unit. If you have a dash-mounted system, forget it.

I don't know if that's a global issue or the 'Australia tax', but I'll support any system which is up to date and doesn't cost me a stupid amount of money to remain current.

Re:Map pricing

[Cimexus]

Huh? This varies by brand/model. Most TomTom units have free map updates. Garmin ones are $99, though you can buy a lifetime map updates package for not much more than this. Etc.

Also, at least for Garmin (which I am most familiar with), map updates are managed through their website and appear to cost the same for users worldwide, so no issue of 'Australia tax' there.

I do't see Google and Apple being the only players

[Taco Cowboy]

Maybe Google and Apple being the most visible players in the cloud competition, but I do not think they will be the only major players

Other firm that have already enter the fray, or will enter in a big way are firms that already have an online presence, such as Amazon or Facebook, or firms that have traditionally offer corporate services, such as IBM, or firms such as Microsoft; Major ISPs and Telcos may also want to branch out in this field

Even major datacenter operators may see cloud computing as an extension to their existing businesses

In fact, Digitimes reported that NTT, a Japanese Telco, has placed an order of 100,000 cloud computing servers to Quanta Computer of Taiwan

URL is at http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120529PB200.html [paywall, sorry]

Agree ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the part about Google being psycho-perfectionist. If anything, they are the release even if it is crap kind of company.

Everything Google release is pre-beta quality. To this day, they haven't release a product that is not buggy as hell. It usually takes between 5 to 10 updates to actually get the product in a usable state.

Offline - Use Sygic

[ami.one]

I have found sygic is much better for offline use. Just download around 1-2 GB per country and you don't need any data connection. and it renders much faster and with 3D view its easier to make out things

Re:faggot nigger dick in your mom's loose cunt

[NerdmastaX]

i was wondering the same thing...

What expensive data use?

[thegarbz]

As someone who almost daily uses Google Navigation on my phone and who has a 200MB data plan ... what expensive data use are we talking about?

Also is it really necessary for someone to publish their opinion in the Slashdot summary after quoting and linking to a Slashdot opinion piece?

Re:What expensive data use?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who almost daily uses Google Navigation on my phone and who has a 200MB data plan ... what expensive data use are we talking about?

In Europe, data plans are ridiculously expensive when crossing borders. You can be forced to pay in the range of $20 per MB data.
Roaming across borders is a common scenario when on holiday and it's also when you're away from home you have the greatest need for a GPS.

IN short, off-line caching of maps is critical for Europe.

ps. I love waze but can't use it when Roaming.

Google Mapping

[andy_spoo]

The amount of money these companies must spend on giving free mapping apps amazes me. If Microsoft had been the only player, we'd be paying mega-bucks for it. But I'm frustrated with the navigation app on my Android phone. The round-about icon always shows the same icon, i.e. turning right, unlike a Tomtom where the icon shows the direction of exit. And the arrows on the motorways are only a few shades of blue different from the motorway it's self, sometimes making it really difficult to see. Plus having a GPS connection and Data connection at the same time really sucks the battery dry really fast (the phones get really HOT when running these apps).

Offline POI

[peterburkimsher]

As a contract job for Galileo (the main offline map for iOS, http://galileo-app.com/ I wrote a parser for the OpenStreetMap data. Those "X-million data points" fill 800 MB in txt.bz2 format, or 8 GB in plain text. That's why they're not provided by default. Anybody interested in parsing the 25 GB OSM planet database can contact me; I'd be happy to help. There are a few awk scripts I wrote that made it quite straightforward, and fast. You can then use BashServer (Cydia) and lighttpd on the phone, with bookmarks added to your home screen, to make an "app". The icon loads a local webpage (127.0.0.1/Scripts/poi.html), which runs Javascript to give a dialog "Enter search terms". Clicking OK triggers BashServer to run the associated shell script to generate a KML with the search results. The script then opens tells iFile to open the KML, which gives a popup asking which application to open it with. Choosing Galileo launches the "Import KML" feature, and your search results are in your offline map! Simple as that ;-).

Re:I do't see Google and Apple being the only play

[Kergan]

[http://www.digitimes.com] [paywall, sorry]

Wait... People actually pay to read the BS Apple rumors that digitimes is constantly reporting?

Politicians are like babies' diapers

[SvenLee2012]

Politicians are like babies' diapers; they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Apple's first version

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes one think that the first version of Maps from Apple would be any good? I guess they would show they location of the nearest apple store (using the Google maps API in the backend) and then call that app - "New Apple Maps".

"Cloud" apps again?

[aaaaaaargh!]

"The escalating battle over maps demonstrates the importance of cloud apps to tech companies' larger strategies."

Stupid me, for a moment I thought the battle demonstrates the importance of location-sensitive map applications and not of "cloud" apps in general. There is a technical reason for map applications to be client/server-based, since world-wide high-resolution map data is many terrabytes in size. There is no sound technical reason for server-side data storage in the vast majority of other "cloud" apps, except for the purpose of collecting user-date, of course.

I accidentally a Coke bottle, the economy, etc.

[tepples]

Because we all secretly want to know what was in those 93 megabytes of RAR archives.

On Mac years before it was on Windows

[tepples]

iTunes was on Mac years before it was on Windows. In the early days of the iTunes Store, some Slashdot users even joked about buying a $1000 Mac just so that they could take advantage of cheaper prices for singles on iTunes compared to albums on CD. Likewise, Safari was on Mac years before it was on Windows. In order to see whether or not Safari would break a particular web site implementation, a web developer would have had to buy a Mac just to try it in Safari.

stop fucking saying cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a goddamn technical site, use real words. There is no cloud. There is the internet. There are remote data centers. There is no fucking cloud.

Have some analog skills, don't rely on batteries

[perpenso]

Except that your smartphone with an always-on GPS-tracking app, recording a data point every 5 feet, will last at most 2 hours on a full battery.

Actually I've experimented with my iPhone and it lasted about 5 hours while hiking. The app is targeting outdoor activities and may not sample as frequently as you suggest. Perhaps you are referring to an app that is oriented towards those driving around in a car.

My Garmin handheld doing just that, with a better precision, will last 15 hours on a couple of AA batteries. And when they're over, I can just swap another pair in. And I can use it under the rain. With the gloves on.

I've considered getting a Garmin on many occasions, especially when on sale at REI. However I generally navigate with paper (waterproof) topo map and mechanical compass. The iPhone is generally powered off and only turned on to take photos. And as a contingency I mark campsites, where I parked, etc in the GPS app. Photos are GPS tagged so if there is something/someplace of interest I may want to return to I can just take a picture. I suppose I could mark the paper map with a pencil but I don't bother. I suppose you could characterize my behavior as using electronics for entertainment and casual purposes in wilderness areas, but only using them as backups for more serious things. Given such usage I haven't bothered with the Garmin. I've used the iPhone on 4 day trips and returned with plenty of photos and battery life.

Two words: Scenic Map

[RogueWarrior65]

Check out Scenic Map from GrangerFX. Totally offline 2D/3D maps. http://scenicmap.blogspot.com/
I use it for search & rescue where we're in the middle of stinking nowhere with no cellphone coverage.

10 miles is not 24km

[DragonWriter]

I live in an island which is 5km wide and 40km long. Cities and everything else is organized across the 40*1 km range. So the whole cache thing is useless for me.

Why is that? You cache two 10-mile (24 km) squares and you have your whole island cached.

If 10 miles was actually 24km, that plan would work. 10 miles is only a hair over 16km, though, so you'd really need three 10 mile squares cached to cover an area 40km in one dimension and 5km (or anything up to 16km, for that matter) in the other.

Re:10 miles is not 24km

[swillden]

Oops. Conversion error :-)

But three squares isn't significantly different from two.