What Happened to Google Maps? (justinobeirne.com)

Google Maps has reduced the number of cities it shows by up to 83% over the past few years, according to Justin O'Beirne. Maps, in addition, has increased the number of roads it showcases. O'Beirne, who writes about digital maps, in a blog post outlines the changes Google has made to its mapping and navigation service over the years. The side-by-side screenshots comparison on his blog post shows that Google has largely abandoned labelling towns and cities in favor of showing as many roads as it can. He has also looked into several elements of Maps from the design standpoint, and questioned Google's decision. He writes: If these roads were so important that they deserved to be upgraded in appearance, why weren't they also given shield icons? After all, an unlabeled road is only half as useful as a labeled one. [...] [Comparing Google Maps to a paper map] Even though it's from the early 1960s, the old print map has so much more information than the Google Map. So many more cities. So many more road labels. And the text size is comparable between the two. O'Beirne believes that Google has made these changes to better serve mobile users. "Unfortunately, these 'optimizations' only served to exacerbate the longstanding imbalances already in the maps," he writes. "As is often the case with cartography: less isn't more. Less is just less."

Comments

Where I live, OpenStreetMap is much better...

[ffkom]

... than Google Maps. OpenStreetMap has way more details and much more up-to-date information - the only thing it doesn't have is, of course, sattelite images - but I hardly need those to navigate. The biggest plus of OpenStreeMap of course is that I can use it completely offline, and I don't have to share my life with Alphabet, the data Kraken company.

Re:Where I live, OpenStreetMap is much better...

[Not_Wiggins]

There's a really (basic) reason why Open StreetMap has longer legs than ANY of the commercial company solutions (like Tom Tom, Nokia HERE (ex-NAVTEQ), GoogleMaps, etc).
The problem is solely one of maintenance.
How do these companies get their maps? They do so by driving over roads with equipment that collects GPS data (of varying degrees of accuracy... not important to talk about methods/accuracy for this particular point).
Think about that... when a company first launches (like Google Maps did a number of years ago), they can be "accurate" because they just drive around everywhere for the first time. That's relatively easy to track.

But then... changes happen. Roads get new construction, or there are new areas that are built up (with new roads or roads get new paths).
How does one keep track of all the changes that can happen anywhere in the world? One can't.

Well... a centralized company "can't." It is logistically improbable to keep a map up to date unless a company is planning on continuously driving every road because, frankly, it isn't notified about all the little changes that can happen anywhere; it takes a really long time to "drive every road."

It is no surprise that Google Maps has started to suffer from this. They were driving around and collecting their own data to make the maps and compete with the "other maps/navigation companies."

To that end, a concept of community supported map update (like OpenStreetMap) makes sense; I *know* when the street outside my house has changed. I can go someplace and make an update/submit information about a change when it is community based. In fact, I had to do this on several map company sites because my street was "new" for a new sub-division.

Now, with that said, there is one thing I'll say about Google Maps that might be a saving (?) grace: anyone using Google on their cell is "phoning home" a ton of information... including location (wonder how Google knows about traffic conditions when they don't have implanted sensors/cameras on the roads?). If they were to try and leverage that information, perhaps the map data can be kept up to date by (indirect) consensus based on drivers GPS intel. Of course, you won't get a lot of detail about non-popular travel points. And maybe that's the point... if they're dropping detail related to the less traveled/popular locations, that can fit with dropping their "go drive everywhere and measure it with a Google truck" plan.

I don't work for Google, so I can't speak directly for their strategy.
It just seems to fit a common problem with keeping any map up-to-date. How any company can keep an eye on relevant changes in a timely fashion?
Looks like they've given up on trying to "get it all" and are falling back on easy data from the Google hive mind. 8/

More is not better

[jgotts]

The best analogy I can give is comparing maps of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Paris, and France available from 2000-2005 (over the years, I bought a thick stack of them) when I was frequenty traveling to Western Europe with American style maps, for example, AAA maps from that era.

The European-produced maps I looked at were extremely detailed. They seemed to lose track of the forest for the trees. It seemed like they had to label everything, and that they were going for photo accuracy with road routes, etc.

On the other hand, AAA maps lack a lot of detail but they're much easier to use "at a glance." They aren't as precise, but they give you the gist much better. You were able to pull over and look at a AAA map and get your bearings within minutes. You could even carefully look at a AAA map while driving.

The European maps I looked at, on the other hand, I think were meant to be studied for 15 minutes before setting out on your journey. If you pulled out one of these maps while walking around in a sketchy area, for example in shadier parts of Amsterdam, you were liable to get mugged. On the other hand, armed with one of these European-style maps at your hotel room, you would need nothing else to get to your destination. The incredibly detailed map would give you an unambiguous route to your exact destination.

Now that they don't make many printed maps anymore, we have a similar situation for online maps. You don't want or need a super-detailed map on your phone. You want something that will get you to your destination in an expedient fashion. In fact, the map itself is less important than the route. Do you need to browse a map with every street, city, town, and park on your phone? No way. You type in the exact place you want to go and your phone takes you there. If you want to explore a detailed map at your leisure while sitting at home don't use smartphone app. Don't use Google Maps. Find something else. To most people this use case is not wanted, and added detail is unwanted distraction.

Re:They have multiple street names wrong..

[DavidRawling]

Only if your issue fits in a small number of categories and you live in the right country. Issues like "I live on a street that has been there for five years, but you still think it's non-existent" apparently don't qualify as needing correction.

Re:My Favorite

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's because all the UX experience people working on Google Maps are 20ish and can easily read small print. They have made the amazing discovery that if you make text smaller, you can fit more of it on a small screen. This is more efficient, and I'm sure whoever came up with this got highly praised.

My beef is that you can't even see some street names, no matter how you zoom in or out. They just won't appear, even if you're standing on them. This makes it quite frustrating trying to walk around in an unfamiliar city. Once again, the UX experience people I'm sure have weighed in and said you're supposed to input your destination and just follow the directions, not worry about which silly street you're on.