Slashdot Mirror


Self-Driving Cars Aren't Going To Be So Great Until We Make Our Maps Better (theverge.com)

Uber is debuting its self-driving cars in Pittsburgh this month, a move that has many taxi drivers upset. The Verge's Nilay Patel argues that this move should change the way we think about maps and addresses. He adds that Uber is currently unable to pinpoint his home, and often ends up at the door of a "widely different address." Citing the CEO of a "large ridesharing company", Patel writes that this issue is known as the "egress problem" -- "the way we locate buildings on a map doesn't really describe how people move in and out of those buildings." Though there are workarounds and inventive ways to pinpoint your exact address, Patel argues that when we grow reliant on self-driving cars, things will get far more complicated and futile if we don't make our maps and navigation services better. He writes: Driverless cars are one of the ultimate signifiers of the future -- the real Jetsons stuff. And we're so close to making them happen: tons of cars have sophisticated adaptive cruise control that can basically keep you going on the highway, prototypes of true self-driving cars from Google and others are already on the road, and the momentum is only increasing. But maybe we shouldn't hand control of how we get somewhere to the machines until we're entirely sure the robots know where we're going.

95 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Crowd source the egress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This should be something that is only an issue once, or if it is an issue simply have you go to the pick up spot and press a button so they can find it

    1. Re:Crowd source the egress by maliqua · · Score: 1

      we have a food delivery service in my city that when you go to order shows your location on the map, if its wrong you correct it. done and done

    2. Re:Crowd source the egress by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its not that hard to give out your coordinates if needed. That's a small issue for self driving cars, they have much harder challenges.

    3. Re: Crowd source the egress by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Just tell them there's a rare Pokemon 100m away.

    4. Re:Crowd source the egress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Its not that hard to give out your coordinates if needed.

      NAD27, NAD83, WGS-84, NAVD88, UTM, or state plane? Or any of a thousand other datums in use all over the world?

      That's a small issue for self driving cars, they have much harder challenges.

      It is a small part of the very large problem of knowing where it needs to be and where it cannot go.

    5. Re:Crowd source the egress by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Maybe the problem is that we've designed cities that have a rate of errors which is fine for humans but doesn't work very well for machines. Maybe the solution is to just fix the addresses. If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Crowd source the egress by knightghost · · Score: 1

      There is no problem so there is no fix. Machines don't work well in a human world with lots of variables. Heck, the fastest computer can barely beat people at chess - a game with pieces that only move here and there, not 456543233435! different ways.

    7. Re:Crowd source the egress by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Heck, the fastest computer can barely beat people at chess

      Not anymore, there are programs written for smart phones that compete at grandmaster level. Algorithms that can search 20,000 moves per second can win tournaments, let alone the supercomputers searching 200 million moves per second. And that was 7 years ago.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:Crowd source the egress by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      A computer recently beat the top champion at go, which is a great deal more computationally deep than chess; but I agree with your point. All of this is really just a simple calculation done over and over on a very grand scale. Experiencing the real world is opposite, there is an almost infinite number of rules that need to be understood and utilized in order to understand it even on a fundamental level.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Crowd source the egress by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that most software engineers seem to assume that coordinates only exist in the most naive latitude/longitude implementation, while remaining completely oblivious to everything you just mentioned above.

    10. Re:Crowd source the egress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?

      Wildly different than what?

      I live on a corner. My "address" is on one street, but if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says. And I've seen buildings that are ells, having faces on two streets with addresses that wouldn't logically be contiguous.

      How do you fix that? Isn't this a situation where "address" is NOT the same as "location", and AV need to know "location" instead of "address"? Coordinates, right?

      How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place? I'm looking at a GPS app on my phone (where I might get coordinates to tell someone where I am) and I see half a dozen applicable datums. Which one does my phone use when I call 911? I think WGS-84 but don't know for sure. Will people know which one they should use? Were you aware that there is a separate datum for Cape Canaveral?

      I know about this problem because I deal with search and rescue, and I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place. I've had people tell me that there is a "target" at certain coordinates and there isn't anything there -- but there is when I change the datum on my GPS to what they are using.

      It's easy to say "just fix it", but actually fixing it isn't that simple, and it may break other things. (Here's one I really love. I order something online and the vendor tells me that my address doesn't exist. I've lived here for 20 years, I get mail and packages here all the time. Unfortunately, the shipping program he's using has "fixed" my address and it doesn't appear in his database, so my address doesn't exist.)

    11. Re:Crowd source the egress by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Heck, the fastest computer can barely beat people at chess

      No. Even a relatively slow computer, such as a typical laptop, has more power than Deep Blue had in 1996, and can easily beat a grandmaster.

    12. Re:Crowd source the egress by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place.

      That is not really the most difficult problem, if Uber supplies the app to communicate to them. Because as your likely aware that issue does not apply to the GPS/phone firmware level, only at the application level. For example, The road I live on was incorrect in the county survey. I have used waze to add the road to my house, now my road is in their system. Google had a survey vehicle drive my road and theirs is now correct. Uber can either support a few specific applications like waze to communicate to them. Or you have to install their app to do this. I agree, for the reasons you spell out, they shouldn't allow a verbal or manually entered GPS data to be used for navigation until vetted with a approved verification process.

    13. Re:Crowd source the egress by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Please forward some suggestions to Google Maps engineers and Google Auto guys. I'm sure that they have not considered this.

    14. Re:Crowd source the egress by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      A slow off-the-shelf chess computer from the '80s can beat well over 90% of the population at chess. In the chess club when I was at school, I think that there was only one person who could beat it on its hardest difficulty setting, and he was the under-13s UK chess champion. The fact that it took Deep Blue to beat the best human player in the world is irrelevant: self-driving cars don't have to be better than the best possible human driver, they just have to be better than most human drivers to be a big improvement.

      Chess is also an irrelevant comparison, because the problem is very different. In chess, you have 16 pieces at the start. Once you've made a few moves and they're all free to move, each one has multiple possible moves. Let's simplify and assume that each one has only one possible move. At the end of my turn, there are 16 possible board positions. At the end of your turn there are 16 possible combinations for every one of mine, so that's only 256, but after another round we're up to 65,536 different positions. 16,777,216 after three rounds and so on. Almost all of the difficulty in chess is working out which part of this space is worth exploring. Your goal is to reach an end state dozens or hundreds of moves into the future that meets some conditions.

      In contrast, when driving there the other cars have few options (speed up, slow down, turn) as do other obstacles. Your model only has to run tactically, not strategically. You don't have to worry about every step in the game, only that in the next round you become closer to your destination and you don't crash. You only have to model a few seconds into the future. As long as you are heading in the right direction and you can safely stop if one of the obstacles that you're tracking has a comes into your projected path then you win that round and you continue to the next.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Crowd source the egress by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?

      To add to the other reply:

      I used to live in a house in a row of terraced houses. My address was a the number of my house along that street and the street name. There's only one problem: there were two ways to get to my house and neither of them was from that street. The houses were all a bit above the street, with their front gardens raised above the street and the only way to the front door of the first 9 was to go around the corner at the end of the street then walk along the footpath that ran along the front, parallel with and above the street that gave us our address. My neighbour had a flat at the back of one of these houses and also had an address on that street, yet the only access to her flat was via the back door, which opened onto a street with no name. People would periodically ring my doorbell and ask where her flat was.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Crowd source the egress by PybusJ · · Score: 1

      NAD27, NAD83, WGS-84, NAVD88, UTM, or state plane? Or any of a thousand other datums in use all over the world?

      There are attempts to make easier, and less ambiguous, ways to quote locations such as:

      https://map.what3words.com/

      My browser's location thinks I'm at "simply.pitch.punchy" (entirely wrongly as it happens, but that's just the location services on my laptop). Each 3m grid square gets a unique three-word pronounceable name.

      It is quite a neat system, though it does suffer from using a proprietary algorithm and word list to create/lookup the names. It is aiming at exactly this market of being able to identify places to the granularity of the right entrance for a delivery/pick-up rather than just the right address.

    17. Re:Crowd source the egress by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I live on a corner. My "address" is on one street, but if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says.

      This is resolved with standards. A building can only have one address, so in the case of a building on a corner, you have to pick one. This probably varies by country or state, but I think in many places in the US, residential houses' addresses are determined by which road the driveway enters from. I lived in a house like that years ago: the front door faced street A, but the driveway was on street B, so that was the house's address. I don't really see the problem here; it's not like the two are very far apart.

      If you're coming out of a larger buildings with faces on two non-contiguous streets, and want a roboUber to pick you up, you should be able to just give it your GPS coordinates. (Also, I wouldn't be surprised if in large cities, buildings like that don't frequently have multiple street addresses that are resolvable by GPS, but I don't really know. Again, this probably varies a lot from place to place, since addressing is controlled by local government.)

      How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place?

      Um, the default? Almost everything is WGS-84 AFAIK. My car GPS lets me enter GPS coordinates, and it doesn't ask me for a datum. According to the Wikipedia article for WGS-84, it is the datum used by the GPS system itself, so logically that's the one you should use. Again according to the article, it's consistent worldwide to an accuracy of +- 1m. For building addresses, that's far more than sufficient resolution, esp. if you're just worried about where some robocar is going to pick you up. If you can't walk an extra 6 feet to deal with an inaccurate address, you're not going to be taking a roboUber anywhere.

      (Here's one I really love. I order something online and the vendor tells me that my address doesn't exist. I've lived here for 20 years, I get mail and packages here all the time. Unfortunately, the shipping program he's using has "fixed" my address and it doesn't appear in his database, so my address doesn't exist.)

      Does your address exist according to the USPS? That's the real authority there. I've seen that before, where people claim their address is such-and-such, but the USPS does not recognize that as an address and so will not deliver to it. Just because Google Maps thinks it's a real place doesn't mean the USPS does. To check, you need to go to usps.com and use their address verification tool there. If it doesn't come up there (along with a 9-digit ZIP code), then you need to contact your local postmaster and have the issue fixed. However you say you get mail there all the time (I'm assuming USPS when you say "mail"), so likely it is in there, and the vendor is using some other 3rd-party address database which is incomplete. I'm not sure what the real problem here is without more information but it sounds like your vendor has some shitty 3rd-party software. My recommendation is to go here:
      https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipL...
      and check your address. It'll correct your address if you're entering it weirdly, and will put it into the USPS's preferred standardized format (no punctuation, correct city name, etc.). Use that for your orders always. If the vendor has a problem with that, then it's the vendor's fault. Point them to the USPS's verifier if they disagree. How many vendors have a problem with this anyway? One or a lot?

    18. Re:Crowd source the egress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Ahh, this same stupid, arrogant, insulting response when problems are mentioned.

      So, pray tell, what exactly is the solution to the problem of someone giving a Google AV a coordinate in NAD27 when Google expects WGS-84? How does Google differentiate? Do these over-smart all-knowing Google engineers think they'll teach everyone about datums and to always always use WGS-84?

    19. Re:Crowd source the egress by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Experiencing the real world is opposite, there is an almost infinite number of rules that need to be understood and utilized in order to understand it even on a fundamental level.

      And this most of this "understanding" is irrelevant to self-driving cars.

      Humans and animals aren't doing anything particularly special when they navigate terrain.

      Classic games like chess and go were once considered "special" tasks that computers could not perform. And that remained true only until we developed the processing power and the algorithms necessary to perform the tasks well.

      Today, a human cannot beat a standard desktop computer at chess. All of the games like Chessmaster have to deliberately reduce their performance in order for human players to have a chance.

      Automated driving is more difficult, but not by much. We just haven't poured a lot of money and effort into it yet.

      We can launch missiles from halfway across the country and drop them on your car in the parking lot, so I'm sure we'll get self-driving cars relatively soon. I expect to see them before I'm old enough to retire, and almost certainly before I die.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    20. Re:Crowd source the egress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I've seen this system mentioned before. It is yet another example of "we'll teach everyone in the world a new system so that we can make programming AVs easier." A side-effect is that you make use of a computer mandatory to encode and decode locations into something usable, like lat/lon.

      Your computer doesn't tell you the right answer, but this will solve the location identification issue for everyone else?

      Your "location services" almost certainly works in lat/lon from GPS (when it actually works), or some other standard GIS coordinate system, so you still have the issue of different datums leading to different three word phrases.

    21. Re:Crowd source the egress by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Heck, the fastest computer can barely beat people at chess

      (1) That was 20 years ago. Computers and algorithms have improved tremendously since then.

      (2) It wasn't playing random people; it beat the world champion.

      (3) In 2006---ten years ago---a desktop computer beat the world champion. It was a 2P Core 2 Duo system, so it would be difficult to buy something slower off the shelf today.

      a game with pieces that only move here and there, not 456543233435! different ways

      The technical term you're looking for is "degrees of freedom", and while cars have more than chess pieces, the problem is not as intractable as you seem to believe. The number is not infinite, and the problem is solvable even if it were.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    22. Re:Crowd source the egress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This probably varies by country or state, but I think in many places in the US, residential houses' addresses are determined by which road the driveway enters from. I lived in a house like that

      I think you are creating generalities from your specific situation. There are many places where the "driveway" enters from an alleyway in the back.

      Um, the default? Almost everything is WGS-84 AFAIK.

      AFAYK. But it's not that way in real life. There is no "default". You have to know. For example, I'm looking at the USGS topo map for a nearby area and it is NAD27. The map lists an almost 100m difference between it and NAD83 for east/west measurements.

      According to the Wikipedia article for WGS-84, it is the datum used by the GPS system itself,

      That's funny, because I can get my location in any number of datums using GPS. Wikipedia isn't always right.

    23. Re:Crowd source the egress by internerdj · · Score: 1

      There are two conflicting use cases for addresses given a physically large urban location: consumer and delivery. I've found several cases where I've been dumped at an inaccessible delivery address by GPS while looking for the public entrance of something.

    24. Re:Crowd source the egress by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Wildly different than what?

      I'm quoting the article. He said that the address of his building and the location where the actual door are are "wildly different" addresses. I assume he means a different number and different street.

      if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says.

      That's what TFA describes. I'm suggesting that he should be able to give an address for the particular door. And yes, I'm using address and location more or less interchangeably.

      How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place?

      You use the correct one. If you take a sphere and stick a pin in it, there's only one correct way to refer to where that pin is (assuming every system is using the same units, anyway, like degrees, and that they agree on the origin). The fact that we have multiple competing systems is a symptom of the problem. As a planet we've more or less decided on the origin, off West Africa. If we're all using the same origin and we're all measuring in degrees then each point on the planet is only referenced by a single set of coordinates. If there are 8 sets of coordinates all trying to refer to a single point then at least 7 of those sets are wrong. Maybe all 8 are.

      Were you aware that there is a separate datum for Cape Canaveral?

      You're still only describing symptoms of the problem. I understand there's a problem. I'm suggesting that we stop using the system that has so many symptoms of a problem and switch to one that makes logical sense.

      I know about this problem because I deal with search and rescue, and I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place. I've had people tell me that there is a "target" at certain coordinates and there isn't anything there -- but there is when I change the datum on my GPS to what they are using.

      And, according to your argument in the other thread, the solution is to change how the devices deal with coordinates to use "the human way" of doing things instead of coming up with a single coordinate system which makes sense.

      It's easy to say "just fix it", but actually fixing it isn't that simple, and it may break other things.

      I'm well aware of that. The question then becomes whether it is worth waiting until we have more things relying on these flawed systems before we try to change them, or if we rip the bandaid off now.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    25. Re:Crowd source the egress by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's actually incorrect, you just don't realize the things that humans are doing because you take it for granted. The example I always use is that I as a human know to be extra careful pulling out of the driveway if there are garage doors open down the street, because I know the neighbors and their habits and if garage doors are open there are probably kids running around the neighborhood playing. An automated car would not detect things in this way, by comparison any sensor that it has is a relatively narrow way of seeing the world and as we have seen from Tesla it may not even see all it needs to see for normal driving.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    26. Re:Crowd source the egress by rhyous · · Score: 1

      Ahh, this same stupid arrogant, insulting response when problems are blown out of proportion by an engineer who can't see the forest through the trees or think simple.

      So, pray tell, what exactly is the solution to the problem of someone giving a Google AV a coordinate in NAD27 when Google expects WGS-84? How does Google differentiate? Do these over-smart all-knowing Google engineers think they'll teach everyone about datums and to always always use WGS-84?

      No. They will probably instead teach everyone to push a button on their phone. Or teach everyone to drag an icon on an online map. The map may even be 3d someday.

      I agree that sl149q's response could come across as sarcastic, but take the sarcasm out and he is right. Let the engineers know your use cases. Let them figure out how to deliver them in a simple way for the average user. If the engineers already know your use case, then you just added fuel to prove that there is demand for the use case. If they don't already know, then they will.

    27. Re:Crowd source the egress by rhyous · · Score: 1

      Great example of something that is a valid use case.

      Issue:
      Don't hit kids

      You are assuming a car has to solve the problem the way you are solving it. You don't see the kids, but you guess they might be there by the open garage. So you drive slower. Why would a computer do that?

      A self-driving care could be equipped with an infrared sensor and doesn't have to wonder if kids are nearby. It doesn't have to guess that their might be kids by open garages. The 360 degree sensor detects all warm life in the vicinity, tracks those heat signals movement at submillisecond speed, and makes sure not to hit any of the heat signatures without even having to slow down. So not only is the problem solved better, it doesn't require slow driving so things have improved.

    28. Re:Crowd source the egress by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well I just searched on 'vehicles with infrared sensors' and came up with nothing.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:Crowd source the egress by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I think you are creating generalities from your specific situation.

      No, I specifically said it varies; did you miss that? You even quoted it. I also said that addressing is controlled by local governments, so places with alleyways are obviously going to be handled differently.

      AFAYK. But it's not that way in real life. There is no "default". You have to know.

      No, you'd don't "have to know". Enter some lat/lon coordinates into Google Maps, and it'll show you a location on the map. It doesn't ask you for your datum. That's because there IS a default.

      That's funny, because I can get my location in any number of datums using GPS. Wikipedia isn't always right..

      And I'm supposed to believe you over a cited article? If you think it's wrong, then go correct it. From a little bit of Googling, what I've read supports Wikipedia:
      http://www.gpsinformation.org/...
      http://gis.stackexchange.com/q...

      The only reason anyone uses other datums is because they have old maps that are based on them, not because they're better in any way (they're not).

    30. Re:Crowd source the egress by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, self driving cars like the Google ones use Radar and Lidar to do navigation. They sometimes however consider a plastic bag blowing in the wind as a person, so it isn't perfect, but it has been able to stop just fine for people stepping out into traffic.

      Check out answer 2 here:

      http://ai.stackexchange.com/qu...

      It has a video of what the car sees as a combination of all the sensors. You can clearly see the people in the video. The second video is even more impressive, the car is responding to a police officer (or crossing guard) giving hand signals.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:Crowd source the egress by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But the bag in the wind example is exactly one of the wide breadth of reasons why automated driving is a completely different problem. In a game of chess, the system has no need to consider the environment of the room the chess board is in. When you are diving, you need to consider everything in the environment and determine whether it is important or not. Google needs to figure out how to determine that bag in the wind in the air isn't important while not driving into something else heavy that that may be dangling from a string. Also none of this bears any importance unless it is affordable and marketable. I have heard that LIDAR is very expensive, therefore it will never find its way into consumer vehicles. Also, Google can't release a car that stops at every bag in the wind.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  2. I always use my home as an example by dugancent · · Score: 1

    I live on a fairly busy highway and for some reason Google Maps has the street numbers swapped. I should be odd numbers on the west side and even on east, but they have it swapped. I sent them a message a couple years ago and they replied "You're right, it's incorrect. We'll send an email when it's corrected". It's never been corrected. I've sent messages since, but no reply and no action.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:I always use my home as an example by kgrholloway · · Score: 1

      This is not the worst problem. I can cite two examples within 10 miles of my residence where electronic maps show roads that aren't really there. One is a grade level crossing of the local railroad yards. It was abandoned in the 1930's. The other is a cow path (really) that is mapped as a road running North to South between two major roads running East to West. Both of these cause problems with the Turn-by-Turn navigation program (Co-pilot) that I use. I've sent several notices to the software authors but they are still showing up years later.

    2. Re:I always use my home as an example by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I've come across a "road" shown as a back route up to the top of a local mountain. The main road was closed one time so I tried it. It took me through many one lane roads and ended at a locked gate onto forest company land.

      At the top level, most people have good addresses. The problem is that people confuse "address" with "location". And changing how we do things to make life easier for Uber is just nonsense. Also for autonomous vehicles in general. These uber-smart cars need to understand how humans do things, not force all of humanity to change to make programming them simpler. The latter is an epic fail mode.

    3. Re:I always use my home as an example by ohieaux · · Score: 1

      My best GPS has no clue was in rural Ohio. Headed to a semi-major town, the maps guided me to smaller and smaller roads until I ended up in a driveway to a barn of an Amish family. I guess they never called to get that changed.

      --
      Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    4. Re:I always use my home as an example by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      These uber-smart cars need to understand how humans do things

      There's a problem with that. Often the way that humans do things is completely arbitrary and prone to errors. That doesn't translate well to a machine. The more logical choice is in fact to reduce errors and make the things we do less arbitrary. It will make sense for more than just the machines that we build to help us.

      Let's face it, a major reason why people want autonomous cars is because the way that humans do things doesn't always work that well. It would be kind of pointless to try to program the machines to act just like us. They should be better or there's no point. It's not nonsense to change the way that we do things in order to make it easier for the machines, and us, to perform better.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:I always use my home as an example by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it runs through my yard on the way to your location, then there's going to be a problem, a BIG problem.

      You see, all maps have errors - printed maps, Garmin maps, Google maps, ALL maps. Garmin shows streets that aren't there and misses streets that are there. Google maps shows my house two doors down from my house. I've been using maps on my job for the past forty years. I've seen it all.

      Also, street names/numbers are not permanent, they change, and so do addresses. New streets and neighborhoods are built all the time. Hell, I've been on streets where odd and even are on the same side, and where houses right across the street from each other have the same number. I've seen houses on streets where the house numbers run like - 402 next door to 1607 next door to 723. I've seen street signs with four different names for the two streets that intersect. BTW, it's not the houses that are numbered, it's the lots. Even vacant lots have numbers.

      Mapmakers insert some errors on purpose. They can tell by the errors if somebody else is using their data. But even traditional paper maps have errors. I bought a map years ago (Rand McNally) that switched the names of two cities. How can you trust a map for tiny details when they can't even get the names of major cities right?

      Humans can adapt to changes quicker than machines. Maybe one day AI will be good enough to totally trust. We're just not there yet despite all the wishful thinking.

    6. Re:I always use my home as an example by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      The difference is that it costs them nothing to leave it unfixed. If however you couldn't give Google $80 a month to come pick you up they would fix it really quick. Amazon and FedEx and others keep a database attached to addresses which allow for manual corrections and they implement them instantly because it costs them money to go to the wrong place or fail to find your address.

      Uber's mapping is horrifically aweful, but they rely on a GPS waypoint to set your pickup location so they don't care either.

    7. Re:I always use my home as an example by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Often the way that humans do things is completely arbitrary and prone to errors. That doesn't translate well to a machine.

      Yep. I understand that.

      The more logical choice is in fact to reduce errors and make the things we do less arbitrary.

      Nope. The logical choice is to remember that humans do things the human way and will continue to do so even after a perfect engineering-based solution is created. Building a system that depends on humans doing things the machine way is building a system designed to fail.

      Let's face it, a major reason why people want autonomous cars is because the way that humans do things doesn't always work that well.

      There are two major reasons. The biggest, as far as I can determine, is that "I hate to drive". Period. The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents. Lots of unicorns and pixie dust from AV proponents, but not much factual proof. "Under well-controlled circumstances ... for a limited amount of time ... with human engineers supervising" isn't proof. Changing the way the world works based on pie in the sky pipe dreams is silly.

      It would be kind of pointless to try to program the machines to act just like us.

      I didn't say we should do that. I said they need to understand how humans do things. In the context of addresses, for example, they need to understand that "123 Main Street" won't always be right across the street from "124 Main Street", nor will "125 Main Street" always be the building right next to "123" -- but "129" might be.

      It's not nonsense to change the way that we do things in order to make it easier for the machines, and us, to perform better.

      It is not nonsense to want to do that, but it is nonsense to expect that it will actually happen. Remember, these changes aren't like learning how to use a smart phone in the way the smart phone designers want you to because it was easier to program them that way -- that's a voluntary activity. To change the entire world to work the way AVs need them to work to make that system safe and functional requires a huge number of involuntary participants changing how they do things.

      Let's face it. Many, if not most, of those involuntary participants will see no benefit to changing. For example, I see no benefit to using my ZIP+4 when telling people my address. You see, I understand that the mail I get is delivered to the local post office based on the five digit ZIP, and then is sorted by a human who looks at the street address. Those extra four digits? Useless. Nice idea but not worth the effort because it wasn't implemented fully. The "last mile" doesn't make use of those digits, and the "last mile" is what they represent.

      You can't just change the way people who "drive" an AV do things, you need to change how everyone else does things, too. That's what makes changing the world to make AV easier to program a nonsensical thing.

    8. Re:I always use my home as an example by morkk · · Score: 1

      >Maybe one day AI will be good enough to totally trust. We're just not there yet despite all the wishful thinking.

      You're so right about this - autonomous cars are still decades away. In the next 5-10 years we might get cars that can drive on a freeway on a sunny day, and even then you'll still have to be awake behind the wheel.

    9. Re:I always use my home as an example by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      A few months ago, on a whim, I followed my GPS's directions to the next town instead of just driving down the road I knew I should take. I wound up on a dirt road a couple of km back in the hills looking at the (closed) doors of someones' barn.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    10. Re:I always use my home as an example by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents."

      Not eliminate. Reduce.

      It's a reasonable expectation I think. Long term, anyway. Autonomous cars probably aren't going to speed, run red lights, try to beat trains to level crossings, etc, etc, etc. Yes, there will be a large number of accidents -- some serious, some fatal -- while the cars learn to recognize open manhole covers, moose, hand lettered signs that say "BRIDGE OUT". But learn they will.

      It'll be interesting to see how "Silicon Valley" folks handle a domain where they are successfully sued for the damages caused by their screw-ups. Because they ARE going to be sued. And they are going to lose a lot of those suits. My guess is that they are not going to like it.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    11. Re:I always use my home as an example by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "last year" -- Tesla's maligned "autopilot" already does it.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    12. Re:I always use my home as an example by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      As long as there are no white trucks around.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    13. Re:I always use my home as an example by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Some places don't even have street names. See Japan ..."

      Japan does have a building address system. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... But like a lot of things Japanese it's different than what we Westerners are used to. It works. Mail gets delivered. It's computer comprehensible ... probably

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    14. Re:I always use my home as an example by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It's not at all difficult for automated cars to detect when they've gone off the road, or onto an unexpected dirt road, or when they encounter a locked gate. They'll probably pull over and ask their human to pick an alternate route, which is exactly what the humans navigating by GPS already do.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:I always use my home as an example by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Building a system that depends on humans doing things the machine way is building a system designed to fail.

      I'm not suggesting that we do things "the machine way", I'm suggesting that we do things "the logical way". What does it say about us that "the human way" and "the logical way" are 2 different things? Why can't they be the same thing? That's not something worth trying to correct? In 20,000 years from now are we still going to be converting between pounds and kilograms, and miles and kilometers, when we're calculating how much thrust we need to escape gravity? Are we still going to have to give turn-by-turn directions to get to a specific location on the planet or in a city? If not, then when exactly is the point that we should seek to change the systems that we're using? Why should we rely on a system that worked fine for people walking and riding horses when our needs are now completely different? Just because some of us are lazy and don't want to have to change anything? Is there any other valid reason?

      The biggest, as far as I can determine, is that "I hate to drive". Period.

      You think that Americans are a people known for their hatred of driving cars, huh? That's an interesting observation. It's wrong, but interesting. The major force against AVs is that people like to drive.

      The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents.

      I haven't seen anyone use an absolute like that. I've seen claims that roads will be safer, and that traffic deaths and accidents will decline, but I don't think I've seen anyone claim that they will simply become eliminated.

      Lots of unicorns and pixie dust from AV proponents, but not much factual proof.

      I suppose unicorns and pixie dust would be required to eliminate traffic deaths and accidents, but thankfully I haven't seen that claim being made by anyone not trying to set up a strawman.

      Let's face it. Many, if not most, of those involuntary participants will see no benefit to changing.

      Sure they will. We can even make the addresses 2 different formats so that you can tell just by looking at it whether it's a "new" or "old" address. The first time someone gives an AV their old address and the vehicle responds by dropping them off where they don't want to be, or by telling them that it can't find a route there, they'll see the benefit of the new address. When someone tries to place a delivery order online and it won't accept an old address format at all, they'll see the benefit. When someone uses the new address to tell them where to go, and they immediately know how to get to that point without turn-by-turn directions, they'll see the benefit.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. This is somewhat misleading. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

    There are two ways to solve this problem.
    A) Map every single building including ingress and egress.
    B) Rely on the user being able to pick a route from the road to the building entrance.

    B) doesn't even require the user to actually drive from the road to the entrance. They can simply pick an entrance on a map, or high resolution ariel imagery.

    Plus, entrances remembered from other users may be usable.

    1. Re:This is somewhat misleading. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      B) Rely on the user being able to pick a route from the road to the building entrance.

      This is the easiest solution for now.

      Bus and trains already have that problem. And that hasn't stopped those services from being useful to a segment of the population.

    2. Re:This is somewhat misleading. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      C) Let Patel walk half a damn block.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Re:More BS by maliqua · · Score: 1

    Umm this article is about AUTONOMOUS Uber cars..

  5. Re:More BS by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    Sort of. That's only half of the problem. The other half is:

    * Bad data
    * Incomplete or missing data

    In California and Washington I've seen incorrect map data both with Google Maps and Apple Maps. Sure a better driver _could_ (and should) be able to work around that but are they forced to in the first place??

    The road data should both be:

    [ ] complete
    [ ] accurate

    Obviously construction will cause some of that but it shouldn't take _years_ for a non-moving road to be added to the system.

    --
    GIMP v2.8 still sucks compared to Photoshop. Where are any of the Layer Effects???

  6. Maps will never be good enough by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There will always be something not on the map. The AI on the cars will need to be good enough to figure out what to do in many cases or else allow the passenger to manually maneuver the car. That is why many of the plans from google are about driving from a known location to another known location, as it may be decades or more before they'll be able to figure out how to get into and out of a condo garage, negotiate mountain roads, deal with temporary obstacles (the dog is in the middle of the driveway so there's no way to recalculate a route), etc. But pickup from a street corner and get dropped off at a street corner, that's much more doable.

    1. Re:Maps will never be good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nilay Patel is letting his Google shill out to play too much here. (The Verge has an incredibly valuable quid pro quo with Google, their exclusive access to Google is second to none.) Google's cars simply aren't the only way to do self-driving cars. In fact, they're not even a GOOD way to do self-driving cars. They're just a really expensive marketing scam that keeps people believing Google is an innovative company.

      Google's self-driving cars are basically Google Maps clients with motors on them. They aren't able to "drive" in the sense that a human would drive them. Real self-driving technology will take the approach Tesla or comma.ai is taking: Teaching cars to use the data they have around them, that their sensors are collecting, and using them to make good decisions on how to move the vehicle. Sure, you need maps to figure out where to go, but that shouldn't be anything more than what MapQuest provides: Telling the car it's going to need to turn left here or right there. The car needs to figure out what to do beyond that, all on it's own based on the real world conditions it's in.

    2. Re:Maps will never be good enough by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The AI on the cars will need to be good enough to figure out what to do in many cases or else allow the passenger to manually maneuver the car.

      Why not? I agree AI is not close enough now, but there's not reason why all your decision making processes can't be mimicked given enough technology. All that is required is more detailed data and greater processing power. Humans do not posses some magic ability that is unable to be copied.

    3. Re:Maps will never be good enough by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Not now" may mean hundreds of years in the future too. The current state of AI is very far off to do what an average drive has to do. It's more likely that we change roads than the AI catching up (ie, sends out electronic signals that the auto can read).

    4. Re:Maps will never be good enough by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      "Not now" may mean hundreds of years in the future too. The current state of AI is very far off to do what an average drive has to do. It's more likely that we change roads than the AI catching up (ie, sends out electronic signals that the auto can read).

      Certainly - and we can even include a mechanical interlock device so that the car can cannot physically deviate from a lane even if it wanted to. Intersections could be implemented via signalling so that cars will not t-bone each other.

      In fact, to make thing efficient, the cars can even narrow the following distance to something lower than the reaction time of humans - say... a metre or so? Actually, just do away with the following distance and have the cars attached to each other. If the linked-cars leave at pre-determined times and arrive at pre-determined times at central locations, that will enable more people to use these self-driving cars.

      Gotta go now - late for my train.

      ;-)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Maps will never be good enough by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's the easy stuff, being on major roads. Now move the self driving car to dirt roads, driveways, condo complexes, parking lots, grocery stores, etc.

    6. Re:Maps will never be good enough by Gussington · · Score: 1

      A solution doesn't have to cover all use cases to become mainstream. I think robot cars are mostly hype, and 'mainstream' is decades away, not months or years. However once you reach a tipping point the change will be rapid.
      Buses and trains or broadband don't go everywhere either, but all that happened with their invention was that people moved to the places that were covered by their services. The same will happen here. Some streets/locations will be considered robot car friendly, the convenience will draw people to those locations and Real Estate values will go up. This creates a market demand and the rest takes care of itself.
      So yeah, are robot cars 5 year away? No. Will they be mainstream in 10 years? No. But will technology develop within the next 20-30 to make them viable in a lot of urban centres, I think yes. They won't even need to rely on maps, because it's not so hard to embed an RFID like device into the roads or street signs to handle navigation quirks.

  7. Re:More BS by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    No, the article is about human drivers of a cab company who can't get him to his front door. He then launches into a worthless rant about how self-driving cars need better maps.

    If a human driver, using the same map and their set of eyes, can't get the guy to his front door, what makes him think a car programmed by humans will be any better, especially by humans who have never seen the place you're going to?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. Asking questions solves this "problem".... by g0tai · · Score: 1

    Maps aren't going to solve your 'pseudo' problem. The ability for the self driving car to ask questions however, is.

    I have had plenty of taxi journeys to obscure places where the cabbie has asked wtf are we going, even in my home town. It's not unusual to ask, and being able to reply will help loads.

    Add mapping to that and it should be a bonus on knowing where to go. The article makes it that databases should be queryable for anything, and that's not practically possible. Asking questions back is, and generally gets you places (please excuse the pun). any system that can do this is basically going to earn the $$$$

    1. Re:Asking questions solves this "problem".... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Oh good. I thought this was an impossible problem of accessing a bunch of existing, disparate data and entering it into a system. Nothing as simple as a team of minimum wage drones could accomplish with a massive budget.

      Instead, I find self-driving cars are limited only by natural language processing, and the ability to cross-reference natural language with what's happening in the physical world.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  9. Re:More BS by sexconker · · Score: 1

    That's not his point at all, but if a dumb human following software maps and the real world can't do it then an automated car can't either, unless you want it driving on the side walk and through houses.

  10. New last mile problem by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    I think one of the frustrations people will have with autonomous cars is the lack of mind-reading for their specific preferences. Do you prefer to park in a particular section of the parking lot? Do you want to park in the shade today? Which entrance to the store/mall/school/etc do you want to go into today? Even with perfect maps it is not possible to fully know, or easily get at the subtle desires of the occupant.

    The autonomous future might be rather frustrating as HAL drives past the parking spot you would have chosen, or that you have to wade through infotainment selections to pinpoint which level of the parking garage you want to go to. How about the joy of finding a way to tell a fully autonomous car to dart into a gap at the airport arrivals/departure scrum? Even having to sit in the drive way for just 1-2 minutes to key in your destination will drive a lot of folks batty. Most of us don't fire up the navigation for any routine bit of travel. Infotainment systems largely suck today, why should be expect them to get better in the future?

    Call me a skeptic, but I see this as a novelty that will mostly get shut off in-town where most of the traffic is.

    1. Re:New last mile problem by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      How about the joy of finding a way to tell a fully autonomous car to dart into a gap at the airport arrivals/departure scrum?

      There is no scrum, the traffic computer scheduled everybody's access already and instead there is a timer on the dash telling you how long the car will be stationary. The scrum is caused by two things, ignorance (of where everybody is and where they are going, etc) and indecision. Traffic computers will solve both of these.

      Even in the shorter term, where there won't be an airport traffic computer, and there will be a mix of human and computer drivers, there won't be much problem because generally you will be waiting in a line for the next available spot, and the computers can probably handle that situation fairly easily. There might be edge cases where your car wouldn't take the first spot because somebody kicked a traffic cone into it, and a human driver wouldn't car about clipping the cone, or driving near it. But those won't be major frustrations to somebody reading a book or jeejah and waiting for the car to tell them that they have arrived.

    2. Re:New last mile problem by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Maybe in 50 years, when all manual cars are banned. Until then the meatbags will be in the mix.

  11. Re:What Three Words by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Recently featured on The Last Ship, lol.

  12. Re:More BS by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    No, my point is if the Uber Cab Company wanted to get people to their front door all they had to do in the first place was use GPS. Not the generic coordinates but the actual GPS coordinates. They have to be correct.

    But instead of stating the obvious this self-important dreg tried to make himself sound like he knew what he was talking about when he explicitly states he was "talking to the CEO of a ride sharing company*" which is code for, "This is nothing but a surreptitious ad for a cab company".

    * Sharing a ride does not involve calling a company to have someone come pick you up to go to a destination of your choice and you paying that person for the ride.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  13. Is this such a hard problem? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    I was helping a startup in the next town over, who had a package that FedEx couldn't deliver, so I agreed to drive over to the local FedEx office to get the package.

    While I was there, the person at the counter pointed out that the delivery person couldn't find the address, and I explained how to go into the parking lot, down and around the building, to the front door of the startup.

    It was indeed a weird situation where you can't see the front door from the road, and you had to know beforehand where to go to make deliveries.

    The point here is, the FedEx person at the counter typed in my instructions in the "notes" section of their database and then assured me that further deliveries should go through OK.

    Will it *really* be that hard to do something similar with self-driving cars? By which I mean, report an error to the company along with the correct data, or manually direct the car to the correct destination and note the error, and similar work around.

    I'm not sure this is a terribly important issue. I mean, it sure *seems* like there's a simple solution and the problem will quickly be self-correcting.

  14. Re:More BS by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If a human driver, using the same map and their set of eyes, can't get the guy to his front door, what makes him think a car programmed by humans will be any better, especially by humans who have never seen the place you're going to?

    When I was in college, and for the first couple of years of grad school, I drove a taxicab. Not a fruity Uber car, but an honest-to-god hack. For part of that time, I drove an actual Checker Marathon, which may have been the finest automobile ever built.

    Decades later, I can still find my way around that city (Chicago), to any address and give you the best route. If you dropped me blindfolded anywhere within the Chicago city limits, I could find my way (as long as I was allowed to take the blindfold off after you dropped me). If there are Uber drivers who can't find their ass with both hands, it has nothing to do with maps. Maps? Pshaw. Learn your town and don't rely on the goddamn Google maps for everything. Learn how to navigate by the stars like we did back in my day (only partly kidding).

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Just a fad by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Let's get real.

    Driverless cars make sense if you live in a neighborhood full of drunk adults, or a retirement community, or if you're severely handicapped.

    And that's it.

    Now stop playing Pokemon GO on your smartphone and running over neighborhood kids.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Just a fad by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'd have to disagree.

      I'd LOVE to be trollin' around slashdot etc. instead of actually driving during my commute.

      And my lazy son won't get a driver's license, making me drive. I'm thinking of telling him to Uber, but the idea of riding with a creepy stranger kind of bothers me. I'd rather it be creepy robot.

      There are people too young, too old, or too ill to drive, and many that just don't want to. I'd say that's at least 1/4 the population (excluding younger than say 12). Big potential market.

  16. Humans suck also by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The system doesn't have to be perfect, only be equal to or better than typical human taxi drivers. Human drivers make mistakes and/or have bad maps also.

  17. Re:More BS by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    It means the cab company has incompetent drivers.

    That's not exactly the point of the article. Like he says in the very article:

    For the moment, it’s a pretty minor issue - the easiest solution is just for the drivers to call the rider, and it works itself out.

    And then in the very next sentences he points out that this solution isn't possible for autonomous cars.

    Technology is not the solution to human incompetence. Better humans are.

    In a sense, you're right. The solution to this problem isn't necessarily better mapping, it's better addressing that is less arbitrary and error-prone. If you want to go to a certain door then that door should have an address that makes sense based on its location on the street.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  18. New Problems Aren't Worse Problems by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    Sure, self-driving cars will frustrate us in new ways and it's always great to address potential issues prospectively.

    However, just because you are used to all the frustrations and inconveniences of the current system and you're just thinking about the annoyances of self-driving cars for the first time doesn't mean the new annoyances are worse than the old.

    Those of us who live on obscure streets or on divided streets have had to talk taxi drivers, friends and delivery people to our houses for years. GPS has made much of this easier but the whole complaint here is that google doesn't know exactly where every address is.

    Yes, self-driving cars remove the option of talking the driver in despite the GPS error. But in the long run we are better off if we are forced to learn once that "Address X" will bring any visitors to our home rather than having to give them all directions. Not only is this an easy simple fix it actually forces us to do what we should have done a long time ago.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  19. Re:There aren't going to be 'driverless cars'! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "This thing that already exists will never exist!"

    Never change, Slashdot.

  20. The very least of the problems to solve by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Reliance on maps is never going to cut it. All maps have errors and the cost of updating to maintain all current details is high and never done. What we need are many advances in AI algorithms like the ability to ask for directions from the occupants and translate that contextually into where the vehicle needs to go, perhaps using street view information and vision algorithms.
    Thousands of little problems like this will plague autonomous vehicles and it will likely be two at least decades before they function the way popular perception depicts them.

    1. Re:The very least of the problems to solve by aberglas · · Score: 1

      How about just reading the house number written on letter boxes? Relatively trivial compared to everything else.

      Most people assume that the machines are as completely unintelligent as the programs that they are working on. But being able to see and work in the real world is the whole point of this exercise.

    2. Re:The very least of the problems to solve by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Around here this would lead to a dozen different houses being considered directly in front of my building, mine would not be one of them.

  21. Already solved, and posted on Slashdot ages ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is already a solution to this problem. Whether it's the best solution remains to be seen, but it seems like a great step in the right direction to me.

    This was posted on slashdot many months (over a year?) ago.

    http://what3words.com/

    Every 3x3m square in the world has its own unique 3 word code. So you can give people the 'address' of your garage, or your front door, or the lampost outside the park down the road, without having to provide the exact GPS co-ordinates.

  22. Re:More BS by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    While that is a start there are still numerous problems.

    1. Where is the install script? I guess someone was too lazy to include:

    mv layerfx.2.8.py.txt layerfx.2.8.py
    chmod u+x layerfx.2.8.py
    cp layerfx.2.8.py ~/Library/Application Support/GIMP/2.8/plug-ins/

    2. Why isn't this functionality a plugin and not native to GIMP like Photoshop??? Proof that the GIMP devs are out of touch with reality.

    3. Importing PSD files with Layer Effects are still broken.

  23. Re: More BS by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Why? As soon as a machine can do a task for me (presumably with superior ability) what is the point in me also knowing how to do that task?

    What's the point in learning how to orient yourself to your environment without using your short-battery life phone? You're joking, right?

    When the zombie apocalypse comes and EMP weapons have wiped out your GPS, it will be fun watching sweet summer children like you stumble around blindly.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. Start with painting fresh lines on the pavement by chiph · · Score: 1

    So that the vision systems of the cars can help them stay in their lane.

  25. A laugh and a chuckle by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    You know what is an easier solution? Be prepared to walk the last few yards.

    You do realize that these anonymous responses, which have cropped up fairly recently, give me a chuckle and charge of energy, yes?

    I must be doing something right :-)

  26. Accurate Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not the Russian ones?

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/news/a16530/these-soviet-maps-were-the-top-secret-google-maps-of-their-day/

    1. Re:Accurate Maps by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      That is a really interesting article, though here is link to entire article at http://www.wired.com/2015/07/s... and I've squandered much of my work time reading this. It seems USSR allocated a lot of people with lots of time to do this detailed field work. Google can do the same as they have tens of $billions$ of extra cash.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  27. Re:More BS by jrumney · · Score: 1

    Sort of. That's only half of the problem. The other half is:

    • * Bad data
    • * Incomplete or missing data

    And one you missed, correct data for an inappropriate purpose. For example, data that has the location corrected to take you around the back of a building to the carpark entrance isn't very appropriate for an Uber driver/self-driving-car that needs to pick you up from the front door.

  28. Stop calling them ride-sharing services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If a driver brings you from point A to B in exchange for cash, it is a taxi service.

  29. Egress Problem is easily solved by Afty0r · · Score: 1

    How hard can this be... when you request a pickup, the self-driving car begins driving to you, and a pin is placed on the map where it *thinks* it should pick you up. You review the pin, and move it to whatever door / street corner you want. The self-driving car then re-routes to pick you up where you placed the pin.

    On future visits through the same provider, it will remember where you dropped the map pin and default to picking you up there. If you choose to move the pin again (say, you're coming out of a door the other side of the building) it then obeys that, and the app prompts you to give "friendly" names to those two points. Next time you choose to be picked up from the same vicinity, you are presented with a simple dropdown that offers you three options:
    "The Green Door"
    "The Other Side With The Cafe"
    "Choose Another Location"


    Am I missing something that makes this problem unsolvable with today's tech?

    1. Re:Egress Problem is easily solved by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That was my thought as well. Hell, you could even allow the user to input some pathing for the last little bit, in the case of the map being inaccurate or to access a slightly different area than the exact address.
       
      One place where I lived the house was on a steep hill, with no real access between the front door and the road. Yet the street address was directly in front of the house. To get picked up at my doorstep, I'd need to set the path so the car would drive past the house, around the building next door, and up the driveway behind it.
       
      Google maps already lets you do this. I don't see a reason you couldn't port that technology to the self-drving car app.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  30. No, we're DECADES away from self driving by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    "And we're so close to making them happen". No, we're not. Stop believing the hype, we're literally still in the infancy of self driving, the problems that still need to be addressed are numerous and not easy.

    "What NASA could teach Tesla about the limits of autopilot" is a great read. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/time-seem-fly-faster-age/

  31. Re:More BS by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Good point!

    Yes, context is important.

  32. Buildings Facing Pedestrian Walkways by Artagel · · Score: 1

    I work in a building where the entrance faces a pedestrian walkway. It is a half-block walk to either of two streets. The problem is generic to the whole multi-block walkway.

    With Uber I can position the cursor on the map to identify the pickup location. This is not that hard, and there is no reason for the ride-sharing company to not learn from it, and sell information to or trade information with a mapping company.

  33. Cart and Horse in spatial misalignment by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Patel argues that when we grow reliant on self-driving cars, things will get far more complicated and futile if we don't make our maps and navigation services better.

    No, Mr Patel, a significant number of your potential market/ audience will not become reliant on your product until after map and navigation services are better.

    And incidentally, some of us are used to spending time where you don't have electrical power or any mobile phone/ data signal (Iridium excepted, all 9600 bps of it) , and the magnetic field is sufficiently variable that your compass is decidedly dodgy. We carry multiple different location-determining technologies that won't be disabled by simply running out of battery life. Because, that like kills people, you know?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"