Did anyone actually finish this article? It felt like it was building towards something really interesting but could have used just a bit more editorial discipline.
This one has a ton information of information, but still fail to satisfy because it has a low point/information ratio. It just rambles on with data points and examples.
AFAICT, the points made are:
* Apple switched from vans to subarus for data gathering. (IOW, they changed their data acquisition equipment.)
* Their new equipment must be better, because Apple seem to have thrown away all data they acquired with vans.
* Yet, they still lack tons of labels and mis-label / mis-place many buildings / store etc.
* Apple seems to be processing data faster than they used to.
Take-away: you're better off with google street view.
On his front page, this article appear in this section:
> Research + Updates
> Material for future essays + updates to earlier essays
It honestly reads more like notes than an article.
On the contrary, that was in the traditional map.
The author’s actual point came after that: that Look Around didn’t have the same data quality issues, proving so free of such errors the author speculated whether they’re using manual labeling.
I also felt it was building towards something really interesting.
Perhaps it could have used less examples.