Live data from Hacker News

What Happened to Google Maps?

justinobeirne.com

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#181
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For driving Google Maps getting quite bad. See this screenshoot: http://imgur.com/uPO8QJh This kind of crowded display is fairly common now. I use Here Maps now which is much better + I like supporting a second option to avoid one service getting 2 monopolistic. My theory of why google maps is getting worse is there must be designers dedicated to this that need to constantly look for 'new' things to add even if its t…

Maybe they are taking notes from Waze. Waze by default is so crowded your entire map is just icons of random stuff you don't care about. Then every once in a while half your screen is filled by an add that you need to dismiss, while driving, to see where you are going.

Which platform for you use for Waze? I use Android and have never seen an ad while moving. Sometimes, the ads show if I am stopped at a stoplight, but they disappear when the car begins moving.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#182

I've noticed the disappearing detail from Google Maps as well, and I find it really annoying - especially when perusing a rural area and having to zoom in to ridiculous levels to see town names. Another thing I'd like to see is making the "avoid tolls" setting easier to get to. Northern Illinois is toll road central, and I-355 in particular is a huge ripoff when you pay cash. Since I don't need any of the tollways fo…

Yes! I hate that!!

It doesn't even remember the setting, you have to hit the three dots for menu before you search, choose "Route Options", then tick "Avoid tolls", then hit OK. EVERY TIME.

And if you forget to go through this and start navigation, there's no way to change it, you have to hit back, then do the above. Why not have a way to change route options from the navigation screen??

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#183
post #25

There's a broad trend of tech companies disrupting traditional industries and then making rookie mistakes and generally not living up to the standards of the tradition. Google, hire cartographers. Amazon, hire librarians and typesetters. Spotify, hire musicologists.

Spotify, hire musicologists

Strongly disagree with that. For one thing, Spotify already has an army of tastemakers spending all day assembling curated playlists. For another, they have the Echonest data which relies heavily on manual labeling.

But the major innovation in Discover Weekly was to use machine learning directly on mel spectrograms to figure out meaningful features for human taste. They still want to rely on their experts as much as possible (and hey, I don't blame them for not wanting to fire people), so they try to combine their expert's features with the algorithm's. But this introduces human biases again.

The problem is that when it comes to music, everyone's a missionary. Everyone wants the world to listen to the music they are excited about. Professional opinion-haver about music is the dream job for many adults, much like chocolate factory taste QA expert is for 6-year olds. And they just can't separate their own opinions from objective truths very well. It's hard to be objective about something you love.

The real great thing about AI in recommendations isn't really the intelligence part. It's the "AO" - artificial objectivity. The algorithm is probably inferior to humans in some aspects (it can't interpret the themes in lyrics very well, for instance), but the advantage is that you have full confidence about

1. What information it actually might use, and

2. What it tries to optimize.

From point one, you can be sure that it's opinion on Smashing Pumpkins isn't affected by that annoying kid in 8th grade that used to listen to them. For point two, you can be sure it's really trying to find the music you will love, not what it thinks you should love.

To get it slightly back on track: I can't wait until an AI can do music history, or etymology, or economics, or history. Or matchmaking in dating! It will be useful long before it can match humans on intelligence. How great wouldn't it be to get results in those fields which you could trust were from a disinterested party.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#184
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For driving Google Maps getting quite bad. See this screenshoot: http://imgur.com/uPO8QJh This kind of crowded display is fairly common now. I use Here Maps now which is much better + I like supporting a second option to avoid one service getting 2 monopolistic. My theory of why google maps is getting worse is there must be designers dedicated to this that need to constantly look for 'new' things to add even if its t…

The worst part about Google maps while driving is that it won't read directions until your right up on the turn.

That seems oddly bad for being by Google and their skilled engineers. It's really just about factoring in your speed and distance... We've done this sort of thing ourselves in our apps. :/ It wasn't obvious in theory as for what parameters felt "just right", but these insights came soon enough after just a few trial runs in different speeds.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#185

I'm surprised the author didn't mention the main difference between paper maps and google maps. That is, google maps is interactive. With a paper map what you see is what you get. You had to cram as much information as it would allow. But this is not the case with google maps. You can zoom in, out, and anywhere in between. You can't compare the two based on the level of information displayed at one fixed zoom level b…

Good luck trying to zoom in/out interactive map while driving motorcycle at 150 km/h.. I stopped using Google Maps for navigation years ago. I'd like to hear Google's explanation for their maps design decisions, because in my eyes (and all people I've talked to about this topic) they look spectacularly bad. I literary haven't encountered a single person that would say: "Google maps are cool" or "Google maps are getting better and better". Most of the times discussion about maps/navigation ends in sharing experience about alternatives. Lately I use Navigator on Android; it's simple, but gets the job done and as a bonus, supports offline navigation.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#186
The article has its points and it is always interesting to analyze those specific readibility and rendering analysis. It helps to understand the choice made by interactive map platforms through static image and dynamic controls.

Justin O'Beirne knows what he is talking about. He has worked for Apple Maps and he also created other interesting and really precise analysis in the past.

http://www.justinobeirne.com/essay/google-maps-and-label-rea...

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#187
post #33
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and later led the Apple Maps team I'm not sure that puts him in a position to be trusted to criticize google maps. Apple maps has been considered inferior to google maps since its launch. Just because he has ideas about how to pack an overwhelming amount of information onto a map doesn't mean it's a good idea for normal users.

Apple Maps has actually significantly improved since its launch, and I wish people would give it its due. I, for one, often prefer Apple Maps to Google Maps nowadays.

My main (remaining) issue with Apple Maps today is it does not give lane information for upcoming maneuvers. Google Maps does this and I find it invaluable.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain your use case here? Normal Google search is great for finding the name of films you can't remember by typing vague descriptions of the plot. Maps has similar functionality, like "local coffeeshops" or " in ".

How do you search for "an interesting area in Woonsocket". Like say you want to go to a park and then walk past some shops.

My technique: When I'm in an unfamiliar city, I search for restaurants and then looks for clusters. When you see a cluster of restaurants, this tends to be a downtown and is usually somewhere 'interesting'.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#189
post #25

There's a broad trend of tech companies disrupting traditional industries and then making rookie mistakes and generally not living up to the standards of the tradition. Google, hire cartographers. Amazon, hire librarians and typesetters. Spotify, hire musicologists.

Spotify, hire musicologists Strongly disagree with that. For one thing, Spotify already has an army of tastemakers spending all day assembling curated playlists. For another, they have the Echonest data which relies heavily on manual labeling. But the major innovation in Discover Weekly was to use machine learning directly on mel spectrograms to figure out meaningful features for human taste. They still want to rely…

I don't imagine the musicologists charged with personally recommending music.

A more important task would be to restructure the "information architecture," for example to improve the experience of looking for classical music or jazz. There's a lot to do that isn't just based on opinions.

The dream of AI doing music history seems kind of bizarre to me... as well as the whole idea that human knowledge is bad because it's biased...

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#190
post #169
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part about Google maps while driving is that it won't read directions until your right up on the turn.

Indeed. I'm that idiot driving in circles around the roundabout because Google Maps gives me the turn right as I'm passing it. Also, it's forking is completely fucked. If there are 2 right turns coming up it does not indicate which lane I should be in. In once case I had to drive 60kms, 30 kms there and back, because the interchange had 3 right exits and I chose wrong. Now I use Google Maps to find the location and c…

I always assumed Waze had the same maps as Google...
Post reply on HN