Google Maps updates 'dangerous' Ben Nevis route
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
All that being said, changing the directions so it ends up at the visitor center is probably a good choice, regardless of how few people actually were or would be confused.
I'd consider a shaded-in area with wiggly outlines, big enough to be path shaped, that just says "walk". That conveys "you need to get yourself to this pin, and we don't know how to help you".
Obviously, mapping a destination on an island with wiggly lines through the water which say "walk" would not be useful, but wasn't the situation I was envisioning.
It's de-emphasised, doesn't show up in directions, is a perfectly smooth curve rather than conforming to paths/roads, and doesn't have the label saying to walk it.
I think the vast majority of people would correctly interpret it as just showing the distance between the end-point and the destination set and I don't think it's necessarily bad UI. But still, with the popularity of Google maps and potential danger in misinterpreting it, it's probably worth considering ways to make it even clearer.
If this thread is anything to go by, slim majority at best.
> But still, with the popularity of Google maps and potential danger in misinterpreting it, it's probably worth considering ways to make it even clearer.
This is the really important point, and thank you for making it. Google Maps is used by 100 of millions (if not billions) of people. If these issues only impact 1% of users, that's still millions of people negatively impacted.
At scale, even "niche" issues matter.
Also, I'm a nove hiker at best, but even I know that there's essentially zero hikes where the shape of the trail is a nice arc across the map like the one in the story. I'm legitimately baffled that anyone would have thought that was a suggested path to the peak.
A ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? B
A - ? - ? - ? - ? - B
A - - ? -- ? -- ? -- B
If you have configured it for walking it definitely uses real trails from topographical maps. It wouldn't be outrageous to assume that Google will automatically switch from driving to walking mode at the best location to exit your vehicle.
I would personally be double checking if I was confused but Google does do both things so it's easy to imagine Google being smart enough to combine the two now that it obscures so much of the interface.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.3518109,-71.7913173/43.38...
A dotted blue path indicates a path to walk on. This shows up in public transit or walking directions where part of the trip actually involves walking.
A dashed grey arc appears when Google Maps can't actually get you all the way to the destination but can get you close. This arc indicates distance, but not a particular route. This is what the screenshot in the article shows (except the screenshot shows light blue instead of grey for some reason).
In particular note how the arc in the screenshot is perfectly smooth instead of following a path, a lighter color than the rest of the route, and dashed instead of dotted.
On the other hand, it also wouldn't be outrageous to assume that if an app is giving you "walking directions" that the route would be walkable for an average user rather than "highly dangerous, even for experienced climbers".
Honestly I stopped using USGS maps for moderate hiking and just started using google topo maps because they show trails, I'm not going to assume anything about a trail though just because google says it'll get me from point A to point B. I also actually know how to read a topo map so I know the kinds of things to look out for.
My point is that Google maps pitches itself as amazingly clever about giving directions. Expecting it to suggest when to change modes of transportation is totally within the realms of what Google certainly is capable of doing; they used to do that for that meme where they say to drive to some location in New Jersey and then swim the Atlantic to get to France. It still said where to start swimming from and where to dry off. And that was like 15 years ago.
Calling out warnings for dangerous trails like they do for traffic jams seems like an obvious thing to do for both situations, just do the same for when it's not actually suggesting a path at all. That'd be great!
If I use google map to navigate to a lake for example, I wouldn’t expect swimming instructions to the middle of the lake. In the photo in the article it looks similar. It’s just navigating to the rough vicinity, instead of an exact location.
Even that is problematic if they don’t know enough about the route to gauge whether it is viably navigable or hazardous.
i.e. their concern is that GMaps users are being directed to that car park, (the highest one, hence closest to 'Ben Nevis' marker) not what the dotted line does or doesn't show from there on. So the solution is to direct them to the (lower-down/further away from destination) visitors' centre car park instead.
> "And the trust said that a dotted line leading from the car park to the summit could lead walkers into danger."
> Mountaineering groups said the dotted line crossed "potentially fatal" steep, rocky and pathless terrain, while a suggested walking route for a different mountain, An Teallach, would lead people over a cliff.
i.e. you can wiggle it all you want, it's what it crosses that's the problem, you'd have to walk around and go up a different face?
I've climbed An Teallach, just over 20 years ago, with a group of student friends. To use the British English vernacular, it really is the "arse end of nowhere".
With hindsight, despite our best efforts, we weren't particularly well prepared, and had we got into any kind of trouble - broken ankle or worse - it would have been a _very_ long walk for one of us to walk out to civilization and fetch help.
Four days in the wilderness. Amazing.
Well, probably first equal in terms of safety investments, alongside a tent when travelling with others, and a bivvy bag when travelling solo - after falling, the next biggest cause of fatalities in my country (excluding hunters shooting their mates during the roar) is people drowning crossing rivers[1] - and the mental pressure to reach that hut you're relying on for shelter, especially if people are exhausted or hypothermic in your party, is often why people attempt to cross dangerous waterways.
So being able to set up shelter, and stay warm while waiting it out, or waiting for rescue, is well worth the extra weight of a tent, even if you intend to only stay in huts.
...and I'm a chronic snorer, so being able to sleep away from the hut means no-one hates me in the morning.
[1]: https://www.mountainsafety.org.nz/explore/there-and-back/
The main path at the base is well trodden and easy to follow, leading people into a false sense of security, but towards the top it becomes difficult, particularly as the summit is snow covered much of the year. For the last segment to the summit you have to walk a dog leg to the south to avoid several steep gullies to the north. These gullies are often filled in with snow and otherwise invisible. Walkers trying to walk in a straight line for the summit can easily stray too close and come to grief. Particularly if they are following a poorly designed sat-nav route and have no actual map and compass navigation experience.
A bit about the navigation at the summit: http://www.ben-nevis.com/navigation/navigation.php
My experience of mobile phone signal is rather different to what others report/assume.
It seems that the only way to get google to listen nowadays is to create a giant media buzz.
(_may_ be looked at by Google)
> and users via the "Report a problem" tool
(probably never looked at by Google)
However there’s no guarentee a give OSM render will show contours, footpaths, and different rights of way, in the same way as OS, or have a legend.
“But this is not the correct route and we often come across groups of inexperienced walkers heading towards Steall Falls or up the south slopes of Ben Nevis believing it is the route to the summit.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/16/google-ma...
I was fortunate to get some help getting my car out from locals who were driving around the area, and when I stopped in the nearest town for lunch everyone knew the pass was closed. But I had to reroute my whole trip to freeways to get GM to stop trying to send me back over that pass.
There were no dotted lines. There was no way to tell the app that route was impossible.
Some GIS maps do have rich information and keys, but not these digital navigation maps. Without those keys people have to make more assumptions.
If you subtract one of those conditions, however, then just having a map isn’t enough. You’ll also need the practiced ability to navigate without visibility. Scottish weather is either perfect, or (much more commonly) capable of drastic changes in 10 minutes.
It should be a holistic UX review to solve the problem at its core - how to get people to stay alert and be critical of navigation directions.
How? I don't know, but surely Google has/can hire literal PhDs to solve this.
---
I've had google directions send me to someplace close to a city park, but not the actual city park several times, and I'm not sure why.
So in order to be safe you need the right equipment and either a guide or a lot of experience. But even if you have a lot of experience it is still better to bring a guide most of the time in dangerous mountain areas. Talk with the locals and the tourist office and read guide books to know which routes are safe or not and how much experience and strength is expected.
On the one hand, duh, how stupid can people be to only trust a mobile phone for directions in the mountains.
But then I guess there is a whole generation of adults now who grew up with phone apps or websites being the authoritative answer in so many areas of life. It may not be just stupidity keeping them from looking at a paper map. How many of them were ever shown one?
I’m assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by Google Maps, but even if not, the broader point stands.
But, yes, I am older although probably more to the point I lead group hikes so I'm a bit anal about prep and safety. And hike in winter when electronics are especially suspect.
I would never consider heading up Ben Nevis based on Google Maps.
I don't worry about it in casual situations especially when there are other people around. Shoot a photo of the map at the parking area for a casual hike? Sure. But I like having backups when I can.
I hike and climb in the UK and I would never head into serious mountain country without a physical paper map.
Paper maps (with a simple map case) are more durable than a smartphone or tablet. They don't stop working when it gets too cold or wet, or when you lose connectivity and realise you forgot to download, or when you drop them. The battery doesn't run down. You can spread a paper map out and get the context of the terrain for miles around without losing resolution. I dont need to wipe snow or rain off the screen of a paper map, or try to scroll it with gloves on. They have a physicality that matches the physicality of being in the mountains.
I have Ordnance Survey mapping for the whole of the UK on my phone, but paper maps are in a different league.
For what it's worth, I'm the other side of fifty to you.
Paper maps very often stop working when you (unknowingly) drop them, the advantage phones have is that usually everybody has a phone, less so with paper maps.
Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map, and if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper. You can forget to download a map, and you can forget to bring a map, so that's about equal. For paper the battery doesn't run down but also it doesn't work at night. Spreading paper out is great sometimes, yes. I have no idea what you mean when you say the physicality "matches".
This is why map shops have a laminator. It's always worth the extra.
> if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper
I wouldn't. Even with a fancy new waterproof iPhone, face ID won't work with all my gear on, the screen touch sensor is all over the place, and that's after I've taken off my glove.
You're not wrong that phones are often more convenient. If I wander off a poorly marked track, OSM & GPS is my plan A to get back. When it works it's incredibly efficient. But the first time you've been leaning on that GPS a bit too much, you're out on your own at 10% battery and you don't have a backup, the map and headlamp solution begins to make sense in a very visceral way. I'll carry both phone and paper even for daywalks unless it's a super clear track. It's not a matter of "forgetting to bring a map", it's a basic item like water.
That's the value of having a fallback though. You'd be just as relieved to have a backup battery or phone. (Though 10% isn't that bad if at that point you only use it for stopping and navigating.)
Of course nothing beats a paper map for reliability but I tend to refer to OSM unless it's not available somehow.
Have you tried Osmand/mapy.cz?
The main downside of a phone is is can have no signal or battery. People understand that downside well, and often prepare by bringing battery packs, solar chargers, offline maps apps, many phones in a group, etc.
The main downside of a paper map is you don't have the blue dot. People have less experience with it. Usually only 1 person in a group has purchased the expensive map.
When lost in adverse conditions, I'd give the group of inexperienced teenagers with a phone higher odds of getting home for dinner than those with a paper map.
There is a shift in attitude though. I was having an online discussion with someone who basically said they'd be terrified if they couldn't call for help and, for me, that's the default assumption if I'm away from civilization.
Every teenager who sits down, and phones mum to report that they're tired and cold and lost and instead of an awesome view they were promised it's just fog everywhere, is safer than the one with a map who is falsely confident this patch of snow is the route safely down when it might just actually conceal a cliff.
I assume the same "route" would suggest that you can just walk straight through the sea if you ask to drive to one of the islands with no roads on it, but presumably somehow "Go up this dangerous mountain" is a "route" while "Walk on water" is not.
Note that Google does not propose you could walk straight up Nevis if you say you want to walk there, this "route" was produced for car journeys.
A few of my friends tried to walk up Nevis a few years back, and during the final climb the people who were least prepared couldn't handle it any more, weather was getting worse and - sensibly - the entire group returned rather than leave them or try to drag them the rest of the way. Seems like "I bought this intermediate grade mountaineering gear and have spent a month breaking it in" was overkill, but "The boots I wear to work will be fine" was not enough.
I don't entirely blame the GPS generation for this. As a society, we've been telling ourselves "Computers are never wrong" for almost a hundred years. Yet every day on HN, we see stories where the computers, or at least the systems they run, are wrong.
It's only gotten worse since people started believing that Google is the arbiter of truth. My wife told me that she's had people banging on the doors after hours where she works because Google told them they were open. Where she works doesn't have public hours at all, so there's no reason any should be listed in Google.
Still, it reminds me of my days working in television when people would call up the TV station in a fit if what was on TV wasn't what was listed in the TV Guide. I don't know how many times I've told people, "We decide what to put on the air, not the TV Guide."
Perhaps it's all just a general abdication of the responsibility to think.
But the lack of remoteness is deceptive. The flattish top of the mountain makes it hard to lose height quickly in bad weather, and poor navigation can bring you into gullies that quickly become almost vertical. The weather can change very quickly; the UK has a maritime climate and the mountain is about as far north as Moscow.
The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water (not exactly unknown conditions for Scotland) is considered essential should be a source of embarassment for the tech industry, not smugness.
But unfamiliar areas where getting lost is a real possibility? No I don't want to abdicate full responsibility for my safety to a phone.
My comment wasnt particularly that paper backups werent the best option in some circumstances, it was more against the general smugness / gatekeeping nature thats fairly common in outdoors circles, and that really unless have to worry about it being cold enough to effect your battery, really a phone should be a better option for most people and the fact it cant be considered reliable is an indictment on this industry as most of the problems (cold batteries aside) are easily solved (offline, detailed maps, battery issues), the only problem is solving them doesnt sell ads
I've walked hundreds of miles in England and I've always carried a map with me but I've almost always used the OS app and the paper was mostly for planning and getting a bigger view.
I am suspicious of electronics. This just seems like a case where, given the easy backup, why not use it when it might matter.
You do know most outdoor maps are laminated, right? The ones you'd take with you on such a journey anyway. A phone can break in a dozen different ways, or just simply run out of charge. Slightly harder with a paper map.
Also very easy to lose a map, the nice thing about phones is everyone else you are with is carrying one, less so with maps. The only real way you are going to get everyone in a groups phone breaking is if you are somewhere extremely cold.
this fact is not unique to digital maps.
(Ordnance survey maps are available for your phone)
Various functions including maps will die if your phone goes offline, your phone will chew through your battery even in situations where you really need it for one purpose, general purpose apps like google maps will work well enough until they put you to the top of a mountain without cell reception.
These are all fairly easily solvable UX problems, users with enough knowledge can solve them but that to me is still a failure of technology.
Hey Alexa isn't the problem. It's the corporations behind them and their data collection policies.
People aren't stupid, it's we - devs and designers - who have designed apps that confuse and deceit them, sometimes dangerously so. Let's stop blaming users and fix our shitty UIs.
It still doesn't tell you anything more about the route--for which a map by itself is probably not enough. It's also more prone to failure than I want to depend on in a potentially hazardous situation.
The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map, and what route to take.
Aye, there's the rub.
Maps also cost money and take weight and take time to ship or pick up, meaning in many groups at most one person will have one. Better hope you don't have to split the group. Everyone has their phone. Offline maps can be had for free, weigh nothing and you can download it on short notice.
I also object to maps having no failure modes. They definitely wear out, or rip, or get stains. Some aren't waterproof. They are also terrible at night, even with flashlights (especially since most people will have lights with shitty CRI). And they can't zoom - so of you're farsighted, hope you don't lose your glasses...
You have to know how to use them.
GPS is great but cannot be relied on. Batteries die.
Is there now a generation that assumes all knowledge is googlable? And if there is an “app for it” then it is as good as it gets?
I’m not blaming them, I was lucky enough to be taught about hiking (in this instance) by real people, no achievement of mine. More musing about how knowledge distribution is evolving.
The problem is that they are using an app that is designed preliminarily for driving and walking cities, not for mountaineering. Just as a road map is not the best choice for hiking.
Also, I keep saying "they" but who is "they"? The article mentions a dangerous route and potentially misleading directions but no account of people getting into trouble because of it. Maybe "they" are not so stupid after all. Maybe "they" can read the warning signs, realize that Google Maps is not perfect, that the path looks dangerous. Or maybe "they" are experienced, well prepared hikers who know what they are doing.
But I don't know that I'd agree that the issue is that the app is designed for driving, not hiking. I've had similar issues on supposedly drive-able routes. On a recent trip Google Maps tried to take me down many roads that were various combinations of non-existent / closed / dangerous / impassible. This was in California. We're talking barely a hundred miles from Google's corporate headquarters.
So yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain remote areas don't have accurate / sometimes have dangerous routes shown on the map. Accuracy is hard, you really need local expertise. If you're going to a park or established wilderness area, the managers should be able to provide you with up to date information before you go. That's the only kind of paper map you should be trusting.
They are insanely accurate in most developed countries, to the point of listing individual trees and boulders at times, and that’s something OSM et all isn’t even trying to match.
The fact that this is up for debate in this thread kind of reinforces my point: this used to be something every hiker would know. Route finding is based on maps, printed (curated) guidebooks and talking to experienced hikers or guides.
We moved to a paradigm where the definition of knowledge is what is accessible by Google (either google itself or a searchable link). I can’t then really blame people for following down this route - but ultimately this is heading in a direction of lost knowledge.
We think, oh what a shame we are losing the traditional Maori navigation methods, but I guess the same is happening (at a much smaller scale!!!) to modern societies too.
When one is available and up to date, yes. That hinges on ... so many things. Your OP is strange because (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without any qualification for what kind of map you're talking about, and (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".
Incidentally, the place I was visiting in California recently had no visitor's center or easily accessible ranger's station, so there was no obvious way to acquire a paper map. It was not a small, clearly defined area like a mountain where "listing individual trees and boulders" even makes sense.
It seems dangerously presumptive to conclude that very low traffic areas traversed mainly by rangers are going to have accurate maps available at all. Gold standard or no gold standard, when you venture out in certain areas of wilderness, you have to fend for yourself. You can't always count on the accuracy of a map - survival skills and ability to use a compass are at least as important.
Well, yes, not any paper map. Also not any phone does maps right? Needs to have a screen. Not every computer has internet. And I suppose an Amiga might not even be able to render a map.
All of UK (literally all) is covered by OS maps, at topographic accuracy. A little flimsy piece of paper you can pick up at a hut is not that. US has USGS maps, or national geographic maps, apparently (haven’t hiked in the US). Most/all countries have an equivalent and that’s the go-to for any semi-serious hiking and above. This data is collected and maps maintained anyway, since military, police, and really lots of government agencies needs very, very accurate central authority on the lay of the land.
> (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".
Well there is no blame to apportion since there isn’t apparently a fault. But if someone is mislead by the google maps image, I’ll put it in the same category as driving to Gibraltar when you meant Gibraltar St.
These are
(1) Easily available online, and various apps can save offline copies of arbitrary portions of the maps to be used without Internet access.
(2) Frequently not accurate / updated, and don't contain all hiking trails.
If you had looked up the Wikipedia article on the USGS maps, you would have seen the following:
> In 2008 the USGS abandoned traditional methods of surveying, revising, and updating topographic maps based on aerial photography and field checks. Today's U.S. Topo quadrangle (1:24,000) maps are mass-produced, using automated and semiautomated processes, with cartographic content supplied from the National GIS Database. In the two years from June 2009 to May 2011, the USGS produced nearly 40,000 maps, more than 80 maps per work day. Only about two hours of interactive work are spent on each map, mostly on text placement and final inspection; there are essentially no field checks or field inspections to confirm map details.
> While much less expensive to compile and produce, the revised digital U.S. topo maps have been criticized for a lack of accuracy and detail in comparison to older generation maps based on aerial photo surveys and field checks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Geological_Surve...
Checking a proper topo map on an electronic device is just as good (+/- all the usual batter and water considerations), it’s a world of difference to Google Maps, or even OSM - which is often surprisingly good, but doesn’t hold a candle to a proper topo map, and probably isn’t trying to.
Between that, satellite imagery and offline capabilities of a modern phone and a hiking app that supports these formats you're all set.
The reason that you should have a topo map and compass, and know how to use them is that your battery cannot be expected to serve you throughout a multi-day hiking/camping trip.
A navigator relies on accurate information and determines the route for you. A proper map, in contrast, contains enough redundant information to remain useful even after some of the information is no longer valid. If you know how to read the map and the terrain, you can find the route on your own.
But at a higher level of abstraction, they provide directions: basically "outsourcing" interpretation of the map to them. Here there's definitely an onus on them to say "Sorry, no route found" and _tell_ the user they need to interpret the app themselves.
By suggesting a route, they're obviously suggesting it's a safe/viable route. If they can't guarantee that, they should err on the side of caution.
Google: “plenty more where they came from”
Hardly a surprise when you ask for car directions...