Question is, will it destroy my battery like satellite view does?
No, surprisingly it's not much more expensive to render than Mercator.
Google Maps is no longer a flat map
111–120 of 173 posts
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not elevation data, it's reconstructed geometry.
My assumption had been that Google built these models using high-resolution LIDAR data, which is why I called it elevation... on a little more research though it looks like I was wrong and the models are perhaps constructed based on street view images and model data for other similar objects. Honestly, I feel like this makes the situation even more indefensible, because I get that collecting high-quality DEM is very…
It's more complicated than that. Among other things, it led to the open sourcing of Ceres: http://ceres-solver.org/users.html (a few clues on that page)
You definitely can't use Street View data alone for objects not at ground level. Actually, sometimes there is no Street View data for a place, at all. E.g. check the planes on the runways at airports like SFO, AUS and JFK. Incidentally, the varying quality at different airports is also a hint of how easy it is to fly over each of them at the ideal altitude(s) and how often one can get the necessary permits to refresh imagery.
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#113Google Maps must be one of the modern wonders of the world, it's still nothing short of breathtaking to zoom out of streetview in crowded London and then land somewhere on a country crossroads in remote Vietnam.
I tried something similar to Google Earth in the late 90's at SIGGRAPH, running on an SGI Origin or similar. Was gobsmacked as I "parachuted" from orbit into Dodger Stadium. :D
Google Earth originated from a team that spun off from SGI (twice, kind of), so you probably saw the demos by Michael Jones and co.
Nowadays, you can build or buy a Liquid Galaxy to get a better experience than the Origin's, at a fraction of the price: http://liquidgalaxy.org/
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The eyes see a 2-dimensional picture. Computer displays produce a 2-dimensional picture. There is no such thing as a “3D map” on a standard computer display. Only an orthographic (or maybe perspective) projection which animates in response to user input. In general an orthographic projection is a poor choice. The thing going for it is that it is easy to understand by analogy to a physical globe, and human spatial und…
Regardless of what the eye sees, the brain perceives three dimensions. This projection happens to be the one that the brain can automatically unpack into an accurate 3D representation. Technically, things near the edges are squished and distorted, but that gets undone in the wetware.
You really can’t get an accurate sense of angles/shapes, areas, distances, or directions with an orthographic projection except by moving the view around. Even when you do, it is very difficult to accurately compare attributes of regions which are far away on the globe, and easy to mislead yourself. (This is a problem with physical globes as well.)
For many types of mapping use cases, orthographic projections are substantially worse than other possible choices.
Sometimes physical spheres (or virtual representations of spheres as dynamic orthographic or perspective projections) are nice. That’s why I spent a whole bunch of time building myself a spherical chalkboard, for example. But they aren’t the best choice for any purpose. Personally I don’t think they make a very good choice for a general-purpose world map. They are better as a supplement to flat maps.
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The eyes see a 2-dimensional picture. Computer displays produce a 2-dimensional picture. There is no such thing as a “3D map” on a standard computer display. Only an orthographic (or maybe perspective) projection which animates in response to user input. In general an orthographic projection is a poor choice. The thing going for it is that it is easy to understand by analogy to a physical globe, and human spatial und…
You can, of course, use VR to get a stereoscopic 3D display as well, like what humans see in the real world. Except for depth of field (which some prototype VR systems can still accomplish), that's as 3D as real life. And Google Maps/Earth VR can indeed do that.
what about focus?
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#116Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#117Google Maps must be one of the modern wonders of the world, it's still nothing short of breathtaking to zoom out of streetview in crowded London and then land somewhere on a country crossroads in remote Vietnam.
You're right, even more so like 10 or more years ago when it actually became relatively known.
I used to install Google Earth on my all machines
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#118I wonder what the long term geopolitical consequences will be when we all stop looking at projected maps. That small peninsula to the west of Asia just got a little smaller. A certain island kingdom is now more clearly the size of Uganda. Maybe Google can also flip the globe "upside-down" for all users "below" the equator.
>Maybe Google can also flip the globe "upside-down" for all users "below" the equator.
I must be the only weirdo who wants the opposite: equator up. South-up in the Northern hemisphere and north-up in the Southern hemisphere.
Why? Because I want the Sun at the top of the screen (or more accurately, the sunny side of buildings/hills/anything).
Re: Google Maps is no longer a flat map
#119"On flat maps, it’s impossible to represent land mass size on a relative scale." Um, no it's not. TechCrunch needs better editors. You just need to use a non-Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection
It's much cheaper to make an incorrect statement and let people correct you for free, then edit the article! ;)