131–140 of 293 posts
Seems to me that these are the easiest places to navigate indoors, because of the plentiful signage. Malls probably the hardest of the three, but still pretty easy IMO. I've never had any issue finding a gate or baggage claim at an airport, since there are signs every 10 feet or so.
I've been complaining to google for years about it aggressively recommending and rerouting onto a 20+ mile long detour around the east bay to save a minute by its own estimation (but probably lose several minutes much of the time, in reality).
I also filed complaints with CARB and the state legislature because google was unresponsive.
FTA but not the main point of this thread: we’re now able to bring Live View to some of the trickiest-to-navigate places indoors: airports, transit stations and malls. Seems to me that these are the easiest places to navigate indoors, because of the plentiful signage. Malls probably the hardest of the three, but still pretty easy IMO. I've never had any issue finding a gate or baggage claim at an airport, since there…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least for cars, it makes little sense because the dominant factor is going to be the time on the road, which they in theory have been trying to minimize already. Any additional micro-optimizations are going to be fractional.
Unless of course they optimize for me not driving under a train bridge with my camper. That would be a big help. I wish they took into account the vehicle you are driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This looks like a governmental issue in my eyes: it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the roads are reasonable safe and the traffic reasonable regulated, not Google's. If a route is dangerous, something should be done with the route itself (not the suggestion). But if Maps' suggestions breaks regulations and propose an illegal route, I agree!
The roads are mostly reasonable and safe. There are always going to be turns and intersections that are more difficult than the others. Google (and every other consumer map provider for that matter) has a habit of picking unnecessarily complex routes to shave a few seconds. Unnecessarily routing through difficult intersections and using a dozen side streets to cut the corner off a route are just specific examples of…
No whereas with Waze it is a lot more aggressive and it will take faster routes and shortcuts even if it means taking a gravel road to save 30 seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product No they aren't. They're being completely transparent about this and giving you the option to keep the old behavior with a one-time settings change. So what's the problem exactly?
Google also explicitly says that it only does it when the ETAs are very close, so realistically, it will still be doing what you want. It feels pretty extreme to write such an angry comment about maybe getting a route than 1-2% slower.
The important paragraph that most people probably care about: Soon, Google Maps will default to the route with the lowest carbon footprint when it has approximately the same ETA as the fastest route. In cases where the eco-friendly route could significantly increase your ETA, we’ll let you compare the relative CO2 impact between routes so you can choose. Always want the fastest route? That’s OK too — simply adjust yo…
I'd be curious to know if that maps onto the lowest energy use in an electric car. Because I've been wanting that feature for long-distance EV trips for a while now.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-019-10117-y