Apple Maps Has Surpassed Google Maps in Detail in 3.1 Percent of the US (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: iOS 12 began the rollout of Apple Maps' long-awaited redesign, which will deliver maps with far more detail using data collected by Apple directly. The updated maps currently only cover around 3.1 percent of the USA, focused around Northern California, but already some interesting differences are starting to emerge between Apple's maps and those that Google uses for its own navigation software. The differences are documented in excruciatingly fine detail in a post by digital cartography blogger Justin O'Beirne. The good news for Apple is that the sheer amount of natural cartographical detail its map contains far outstrips what Google currently offers. Vegetation detail is a particular highlight, with Apple's maps even showing grass between two lanes of a highway, or around the borders of individual houses.

Comments

well then

[cascadingstylesheet]

Vegetation detail is a particular highlight, with Apple's maps even showing grass between two lanes of a highway, or around the borders of individual houses.

I guess next time I'm looking for exceptionally grassy highway medians, I'll buy an Apple device.

Re:well then

[QuietLagoon]

...I guess next time I'm looking for exceptionally grassy highway medians, I'll buy an Apple device....

Yes, go buy that device, Apple needs your help. There's probably a good reason why Apple switched to reporting revenue instead of unit device sales. The unit device sales are on a downward trend, so Apple has been raising the per-device price in order to keep revenue increasing. It's a good tactic until Apple's customer base gets wise to it.

Re:well then

[hey!]

I guess next time I'm looking for exceptionally grassy highway medians, I'll buy an Apple device.

I've always suspected Apple fanbois were sheep...

Parks?

[poptix]

Historically green areas on maps (paper & digital) have been City, State, or Federal parks, now it's just any old patch of grass?

TheVerge was right, 'more detail, less information'

Re:Parks?

[LordKronos]

Exactly. It's a neat little feature to be sure, but if I really want to see where vegetation is, I switch to satellite view, which actually distinguishes between grass, small vs large trees, dense vs sparse patches of trees, crops, etc. The only case I see in that article where the vegetation detail is sort of useful is in identifying beaches.

But yes, when you look at those maps, you can still see the distinction between regular vegetation and parks, but it's very subtle and takes much more effort to distinguish. When I'm in an unfamiliar town and have a little time to kill, I'll actually be looking for parks to take my kids to, not random vegetation in the median.

Finally, that rest of that article just shows a bunch of cases where Apple is fixing things google already had correct, and several more where Apple is still wrong (and google is correct).

So, for 96.9% of the U.S. google is better...

[QuietLagoon]

Now I know to look to Apple's maps if I want to see the grass between highway lanes in the 3.1% of the US that Apple shows it. Let me ask, does this difference really matter to most of the people who use these maps? Or is this nothing more than marketing hype?

Re:So, for 96.9% of the U.S. google is better...

[thegarbz]

It's not marketing hype. Rendering different details actually may be relevant. Unfortunately Apple seems to think that the green should be representative of trees rather than showing the boundaries of city parks or national parks as they are traditionally labelled.

It matters. It's marketing hype. It's also a stupid backwards idea that makes the map less useful.

Fuck me

[nagora]

That is exciting news!

I guess "Google maps are more detailed than Apple's in 96.9% of US" didn't really score enough Apple fanboi points, did it?

Summer or Winter?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Apple's maps even showing grass

I hope they do a full refresh at least once a month, otherwise, their pictures of my green grass or leafy trees aren't going to match seasonal reality. If accuracy is a serious goal, that is.

Even has a hard core apple guy....

[registrations_suck]

Even as a hard core Apple guy, I have to say, who cares?

My experience with Apple Maps has been so miserable that I deleted it from my phone as soon as I had the chance. I cannot imagine ever giving it another try, no matter how good it becomes. I do not think they could ever be good enough to get me off Google Maps which works, almost, every time.

Re:The other 96.9%...

[dstyle5]

It is just natural selection kicking in.

Timmy: "But my phone said to drive off the cliff, so I did of course."

Doctor: "Unfortunately you survived, Timmy."

Re:I'll just stand in the road, car yonder is tiny

[Merk42]

So, for 96.9% of the U.S. google is better...

You really can't see the upcoming future on this one, eh?

Now that Apple has got a system down why can they not scale it t quickly close the gap.

Will you be singing the same tune I wonder when within a year Apple has 60%+ better coverage.

It makes sense to me that Apple could easily surpass Google Maps in detail, as Google in recent years has really lost focus and does not spend much time improving long-standing services.

and with a competitor (Apple) increasing coverage, I'm sure Google will just idly sit by and not do any updates or anything like that.

Re:I'll just stand in the road, car yonder is tiny

[squiggleslash]

Will you be singing the same tune I wonder when within a year Apple has 60%+ better coverage.

Apple isn't going to have 60%+ "better coverage" in one year. It's taken them this long to reach 3.1%, and in the meantime there's absolutely no reason to believe Google isn't improving its processes too. Indeed, I suspect for Google they can throw a switch - do you think the images they currently serve are served at their highest resolution, or just at an optimal quality for use right now?