because when I am driving I want to know which house has a law or not?
Most subtle changes I noticed on the examples on street names (e.g. "W 9th st" to "ninth street", sans "w") are actually a downgrade.
Apple's New Map
51–60 of 377 posts
Re: Apple's New Map
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's written multiple articles about maps, even before that one: https://www.justinobeirne.com . He's very good at spotting details in maps–IIRC he worked on Apple's maps team before, so this isn't particularly surprising.
He wrote many more excellent articles before he worked at Apple, all posted to https://www.41latitude.com/ Sadly he took them down, disappeared into the memory hole the way so many Apple employee's work has a way of doing. I'm glad he's out and writing in public again.
Well, they are CC 3.0, so I guess I can't feel guilty about sharing these 3 archives that I found:
https://archive.is/Fnw4W https://archive.is/AHmEF https://archive.is/WpOCJ
Re: Apple's New Map
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The arbitrary transition from green to brown on the old maps, when in reality, there is no such transition, is the real problem. When navigating by foot those shapes SHOULD be accurate; I care less about the legal boundaries of the exact park and more about what i'm seeing as I walk around.
Why do you care that the map represents the green parts accurately? How does that enhance your walking experience?
IMO 99% of the time people use maps to get to destinations, so maps should be focused on destinations, not shapes (insofar as the shapes don't prevent you from getting to your destination).
Re: Apple's New Map
#54There's something really awesome about reading an in-depth report like this, especially when you can feel the enthusiasm of the author. Dope work as always.
Re: Apple's New Map
#55You know what I really never use the map on my phone for? Figuring out how many trees there are. Do the directions work?
That's your use case. I've used maps a lot to try to find hidden or secluded parks -- often with great success.
I'm talking postcard-perfect views around the Sydney harbor, small beaches around various bays, isolated parks near beautiful rivers and a whole lot of other places that are really beautiful and probably only known to the locals. Lots of these places were a brisk walk away from high-traffic areas too.
This is not to dismiss your question on the directions, though, which is certainly an important part of using maps on a phone.
Re: Apple's New Map
#56Now if only Apple Maps would stop sending me to Old Priest Grade when I visit Yosemite, I'd be happy...
Re: Apple's New Map
#57You know what I really never use the map on my phone for? Figuring out how many trees there are. Do the directions work?
That's your use case. I've used maps a lot to try to find hidden or secluded parks -- often with great success. I'm talking postcard-perfect views around the Sydney harbor, small beaches around various bays, isolated parks near beautiful rivers and a whole lot of other places that are really beautiful and probably only known to the locals. Lots of these places were a brisk walk away from high-traffic areas too. This…
I am being overly crabby. I do appreciate the author's enthusiasm for maps. But still, I stick to Google Maps because Apple Maps has a reputation for giving terrible directions. That's where the Google Maps moat is. The directions are generally good and will route you around traffic, which is crucial.
Re: Apple's New Map
#58Why does he treat the presence of fans and HVAC units on building roofs as an advantage for Google Maps? Isn't that just meaningless visual clutter? Unless I'm looking to land a helicopter on the roof, it's just distracting.
If I were working on maps at Google I'd be looking into ways to remove that sort of content, not emphasize it. Maybe that's Apple's thinking as well.
Re: Apple's New Map
#59You know what I really never use the map on my phone for? Figuring out how many trees there are. Do the directions work?
That's your use case. I've used maps a lot to try to find hidden or secluded parks -- often with great success. I'm talking postcard-perfect views around the Sydney harbor, small beaches around various bays, isolated parks near beautiful rivers and a whole lot of other places that are really beautiful and probably only known to the locals. Lots of these places were a brisk walk away from high-traffic areas too. This…
> That's your use case.
But also likely the most common one. It's not fair to lump it in with the dozens of other map use cases.
Re: Apple's New Map
#60This is really neat but I don't really care about greenery when I'm using Apple Maps. Can they take a break from figuring out how to convert satellite images into green blobs and devise an algorithm to put street names on the screen?
Apple and Google maps are both worthless as maps without typing in an actual address and using navigation because they can't just show the main cross street names on the screen. It absolutely blows my mind that map products ship without street names clearly visible at all times.
The before/after map of downtown SF actually shows less useful data about the city. It no longer shows the names of Mission or Market streets. The fancy 3D representations of buildings don't help me negotiate on the ground.