41–50 of 377 posts
I still use Google for nav but I have a feeling Apple might win me over on this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using streets from maps that predate TomTom’s maps defeats the purpose of a trap street. The plagiariser could just claim to have sourced the data from old, public domain, sources.
True, but that is assuming that those streets ever existed. As far as I can tell from the article that's just an assumption. Although I think it would actually be possible to use once-real-but-no-longer steets as trap streets, as long as your sources are improbable enough. For example, if you take a map from 1908, remove one street, then add in another single street from 1920, etc., your exact combination of streets…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.
Except that the new map makes it seem as though California is some lush, green, tropical land. I think the green is way over-emphasized on the new map compared to the old, which is a bit more realistic looking to my eyes.
I've always found Google vs Apple maps discussions to be interesting, as I've always vastly preferred Apple Maps data for walking around places; Google Maps too often had poor building shapes that looked nothing like the real thing, or hid business names at the scale I was trying to use. Perhaps that's because I live in the Bay Area. When I'm overseas, in particular, I don't hesitate to go to Google Maps first.
My partner briefly worked for a human-powered 3d mapping firm; they would get satellite and plane/drone photography of a large swath of land, split it up into block-sized chunks, and then each worker would take a block and use an in-house program to model the buildings at a pretty impressive level of detail. Workers got paid per-block and blocks were priced based on their complexity. They've been doing this for over 10 years by this point, so it's not an entirely unknown or uncommon thing to handle this kind of work manually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.
Except that the new map makes it seem as though California is some lush, green, tropical land. I think the green is way over-emphasized on the new map compared to the old, which is a bit more realistic looking to my eyes.
Figuring out how many trees there are.
Do the directions work?
"It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
I could't figure out if the author was being sarcastic by stressing the vegetation detail so much. Certainly seemed like an interesting focus.
I think the author has a genuine passion for maps, and finds the vegetation to be a great feature.
> Regardless of how Apple is creating all of its buildings and other shapes, Apple is filling its map with so many of them that Google now looks empty in comparison:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff63f0e4b0bafce6932...
Yeah, the google view has a lot less green, but it's really a different kind of green -- it shows me where there's a public park I might visit.
Apple's green is showing vegetation, but finding that regional park gets lost in the noise.
If I wanted to find a place to visit, Google is the superior layout. If I want to get a sense of vegetation, I would just turn on satellite view!
I could't figure out if the author was being sarcastic by stressing the vegetation detail so much. Certainly seemed like an interesting focus.
It's niche, but I could see this feature being useful to me. This is relevant when using maps to scout outdoor locations for whatever activity it is. I use maps to find public bodies of water to go fishing along the lake shore. Getting an idea of the vegetation around a lake before zooming in and looking at the satellite data (which is mentally tiring to me) is very nice. I find myself preferring Apple's Maps app to…
In the apple layout, it gets lost in the noise of private-land vegetation.
