Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people under estimate the investment Google has made in their maps product. That we've got two companies doing that (Apple and Google) is a bit mind boggling.

View on HN

It is funny how much effort google is putting into their maps and yet their interface to the maps (maps.google.com) could still use basic improvements like how 99 out of 100 times I want directions it is to or from my house and yet I have to type in almost my entire address before it appears in the drop down. Considering I am logged into google, have confirmed my address and type in the same address over and over you would think their would be a Home button or at least have recent destinations appear in the drop down initially or whatnot.

You can do that by clicking on "My Places".

If I am looking at an address and want directions to it clicking on 'My places' only shows me "my places", it does not give me any obvious way to get directions from the current address to one of "my places". Clicking on any of "my places" will change the map to view that place, causing the user to lose the address of the place they want to go to/from.

Edit: I see that "my places" now has a "Home address" which isn't pre-populated with my google account confirmed home address for some reason.... But if I set it and then try to get directions and type in the first letter of my address my home address pops up in the auto complete. This is a big improvement, but of course auto setting the home address from your google account and remembering the last five in the auto complete would make a lot more users happy as that would work by default v.s. forcing the user to do something, most of which will not. The number of people that will set their home address is probably only a bit larger than the number that were using my grease monkey script to add a home button.

I absolutely agree that it needs a rethinking in terms of UI. Now that they are trying to consolidate google products, maps should be more aggressive in identifying useful destinations. I'm guessing they want to err on the side of not creeping people out, but I expect a popup introducing these features soon.

I just do it by entering the name of my town rather than my full address, on the basis that I already know how to get out of my own town, and only really need detailed directions once I get to the other end of the journey.

The trouble with that is if like me you live on the edge of a city, the route you end up taking out of the city is very, very different than if you start in the centre where google will place you, and the time estimate etc. can vary by as much as 30 minutes.

That's when I break out the postal code. If your city has that much of a span, then tell Google to start at your postal code instead - the idea being that you can usually drive from one end of a postal code to the other in <5 minutes. I know there are postal codes that span long distances, but they tend not to be in cities that span long distances.

I guess I'm lucky - I'd never looked before, but I checked, and I live in a very small town, about 50 feet from where Google Maps places my town name.

I get your point - if you live in North London, then getting directions from "London" is probably not the way to go. Postcodes seem to be the quickest way, for me.

Indeed, being in the UK postcodes are great. A short unambiguous way of identifying a fairly specific location (usually down to part of one street). From my limited knowledge of postal/zip codes in the rest of the world though, they aren't always that precise, sometimes refering just to a whole town (or greater area).

Now that they can do more cross product interactions, I wish it would complete from my address book (like android does).

It's not Apple doing it, it's http://www.openstreetmap.org/.

Do they really use Open Street Map? I thought they licences data from TomTom.

Both (and more, too).

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078987/apple-tomtom-opens...

Actually Apple does have a big part in it. They bring together all the data from Tom Tom, Waze, OSM etc as well as the two teams they purchased: C3 and Placebase into one coherent product.

It's amazing that Apple has nearly matched Google in some parts (maps, directions) and far exceeded them in others (3D).

Apple has not "nearly matched" google, not at all. Maybe in the US they have, but in New Zealand, where google is as good as any of the local street maps/directories, if not better normally, the new ios maps is atrocious. The places are now even worse too, because they're relying on Yelp, who don't have a presence here at all.

Maybe he works for Apple, they're his main client or owns lots of stock or something.

The Apple worship is truly mind-boggling.

OpenStreetMap is where the crucial data comes from. And if I'm not mistaken it's submitted by volunteers.

Yep. You don't like my opinion so clearly I must be working for Apple or own stock. In fact it is neither.

And at no point did I say that OSM wasn't responsible for the map data. Only that Apple added other pieces from other companies.

No, no, no. No problem with your opinion. You can love Apple if you want. I just struggle to understand how you and others can see Apple in the light that you do, and be blinded to all else. I mean, the value to me is the data and the fact it's online. The database itself. I have my own systems for manipulating the data the way I want it (I would think most HN nerds would have similar skills, but maybe not). That's just me. Others seem to love things because they are produced by some popular company. And for no other reason. I just can't really understand it. These are computers produced in Chinese factories. Getting cheaper everyday. Data can be visualised in myriad ways.

Call it like you see it. Minds may differ.

You won't be able to understand many things if your preferred method is to ignore facts that would make them understandable.

So much condescension...

Actually Google should be the same as local street directories since that is where they get there data from. I live in Australia (hi, neighbour) and it is Sensis (Yellow/White Pages) who supply data to Google.

As for quality of maps it is about 80% as good as Google and has been getting noticeably better over time.

I was under the impression that Google has their own places product, so I suspect they combine several sources.

AFAIK they maintain that by buying a lot of commercial place data.

Haven't the street view cars been down under yet?

I'll take transit navigation and street view before slightly improved 3D any day.

> far exceeded them in others (3D).

Actually Google and Apple have pretty similar systems for 3d maps. Apple are in beta with their new version for ios6, which will have slightly better resolution than (the current, been there for a while) Google Earth, but not hugely so. See for comparison http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-news/3d-maps-comparison-...

Nokia are producing similar 3d maps, although again slightly lower resolution than Google.

I think more importantly than resolution will be coverage. 3d maps of the centre of major cities are one thing, but the whole world is a very different challenge, and one we have no clear idea of a winner on.

This might be the 3D map that Nokia will use in their phone if you want to compare: http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html

I wonder if the iPhone 5 will have a bigger screen. The iPhone 4 screen seems very tiny compared to my Galaxy Nexus. What is the use of fancy 3d if the screen is tiny?

Actually we do. Apple supports 26 cities. Google supports 13.

Where did you get those numbers? As far as I can tell, more that one hundred cities have textured buildings in Google Earth (they were created by building maker https://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/earth/learn/3dbuildings.ht...) as well as in mobile maps (http://www.google.co.uk/mobile/maps/3d/ my city has 3d outlines and it's not even in the map). Apple maps too should have at least 40 cities in 3D.

All things equal, Apple doesn't support any cities yet since their mapping program hasn't been released.

I thought OSM was copyleft similar to the GPL. Can you combine OSM with proprietary data and without the licence forcing you to open up everything?

Their license used to be horrible for commercial use, but mostly because it was an extremely bad fit for a data collection, leading to lots of confusion over what was ok and not.

A better comparison for their current license would be the LGPL - as long as you keep your proprietary data separate from the OSM data, you don't need to release it but you still need to release any changes to the OSM data itself.

To be clear, the license has not changed yet. We're in the process of changing the license (and they recently announced [0]) that the next full-planet data dump will be under the new license, but it hasn't been switched yet.

[0] http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/09/06/your-first-odbl-pla...

The old OSM licence was CC-BY-SA, but it is being changed to a new 'database licence'

Google maps is possibly my favorite app that currently ships with iOS. I think I might give up email and texting on the device before I'd give up maps. I'm disappointed that Google maps isn't shipping with iOS 6.

I though Google was committed to producing a Map app for iOS 6, no?

I've heard this too. However there's a huge difference between having a nice, working maps app on my phone and a promise from Google to make an iOS app. To be fair I'll have to try out the maps from Apple.

I freaking hate the Google maps app on iPhone - I don't have any need for a map app on a mobile device unless it has turn-by-turn voice navigation along with re-routing capabilities. It's only good for looking up locations/directions when I am stuck somewhere for traveling. If I'm home, my macbook's google map is good enough to serve that purpose. So I have no clue why on earth Apple created such a neutered mapping app for a mobile device. Waze saved me.

> So I have no clue why on earth Apple created such a neutered mapping app for a mobile device.

The terms of the license agreement with Google for maps data likely didn't include the ability to perform turn-by-turn navigation. Another reason why they moved to their own maps backend for iOS 6.

What I read was that Google would allow Apple to do turn-by-turn in exchange for ads. Apple don't want to sully iOS with ads so they refused those terms, and Google wouldn't agree to anything else.

Does that mean by the time Google had decided to work on the iPhone-like Android interface, they had been planning to work on a turn-by-turn navigation system using Google Maps for Android as well?

Android has had turn-by-turn navigation at least since 2010. Having a GPS is irrelevant if you've got an Android.

Actually it depends on how you use GPSs. Its certainly possible to write a mapping/GPS app for a smart phone that is competitive with the more advanced features of handheld or dashmount GPSs, but I simply haven't seen one yet. None of the features I need are big ones, but rather a bunch features that add up to a much better user experience for a GPS geek. A couple of those hard to find features are: multi point routing (or some way to allow me to tell the GPS the route instead of the other way around), ability to build routes on PC/Mac and upload to the GPS, off-road routing, track to route conversion, etc..

> I freaking hate the Google maps app on iPhone - I don't have any need for a map app on a mobile device unless it has turn-by-turn voice navigation along with re-routing capabilities

Really now? As another anecdotal point, I freaking love it, and I'm saying this as a an almost-Apple-fanboy. I'm a pedestrian living in an Eastern European city of 2-million people, and I've used the maps app countless times.

Not that I wouldn't know my city (I've actually implemented 2 or 3 or map-related projects focused on the city I live in, just as a hobby), but because it is impossible to remember how exactly to locate the street bearing the name of an obscure 19-century music composer that just happens to be the address of a restaurant you're interested in. Or how when I got lost in the center of Athens, as a tourist, around Omonia Square ("I don't need a paper map, I can manage" I was saying to myself as I was leaving my hotel room), I heavily relied on the said map and on the kindness on strangers who had shared their home wifi networks to make my way around to Exarcheia.

I don't live in a big city and my main mode of transportation is driving and especially the one where directions matter. Walking around inside the mall/plaza or my university campus don't require me to look up directions. It has been handy a few times when I visited cities but those add up to at max a week in a year. So yeah, it is pretty useless for me and thank goodness something like Waze exists on iPhone.

I forgot about the lack of turn-by-turn driving instructions. It's strange but I've actually never had any desire to use that feature on any product. When I use maps I just look once, memorize the major pieces of the trip (freeways, exits etc) and then just go and try to find my way.

I came to iPhone from Android and have since severely missed turn-by-turn on the default map app. I depend on Waze and sometimes on Mapquest although the latter uses a stupidly outdated map.

This is just a silly sentiment. The iPhone maps app may not be perfect but having no clue why it was created makes it sound like you are dumb or just being difficult.

A mapping service with directions on a device that is supposed to be with you all the time is supposed to be mostly handy for driving purposes (at least from my perspective). That's a fundamental requirement. Lack of voice turn-by-turn makes it incomplete, not "may not be perfect".

I questioned why it was neutered the way it is now - not why it was created. I buy Apple products for wholesome user experience and the Google maps ain't one of them (neither is the mail app and so on). If you think this is a silly sentiment, then you must be pretty dumb about user experience issues in mobile situations.

Have you ever walked somewhere?

Driving is not the only mode of transport. And SatNav is not the only type of useful map.

Paper maps are useful - an equivalent to a paper map that holds data for the entire world, can put a pin in my exact global location, and can tell me where the nearest Starbucks is? Yeah, I can't see any use for that at all.

I don't know where you live but where I do, driving is the main mode of transportation and especially the only one where directions matter.

So, Nokia and Microsoft just do not exist in the mapping space?

And Nasa, Digital Globe, Astrium, CNES, Spot Image, to name a few.

Hmm, in the interest of full disclosure here I was working at Google when the Ground Truth project went from a 20% project to a more serious effort. My impressions of its impressiveness may be clouded :-).

Yes, NASA, Digital Globe, Et Alia, have built geographic information services (GIS), there are constraints, both on the data and on what you can do with the data. Google bought Keyhole [1] (the satellite imaging company) discovered that even if you had a satellite image you don't necessarily get to do what ever you want with it, and went out and funded their own satellite [2]. And of course you drive around cars and take pictures of everything, that seemed a little bit crazy at the time but folks like Trimble wouldn't let you use data about streets for doing directions, and then of course different data sets were all slightly 'off' from one another which is really illustrated in the article.

So various folks have invested in one part of the problem, but few have invested in solving the bigger problem, and assembling that solution for disjoint offerings is problematic and expensive at best, and impossible at worst.

That is what I considered the mind boggling investment. And of course the recent tit for tat maps announcements by Apple and Google just reminded me that both companies are pouring in a lot of resources. And yes, Microsoft is right up there as well.

Its quite the barrier to entry if you want to a map based startup. (or at least a huge dependency on an external parties continued pricing model)

[1] http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2004/10/google-acquires-keyh...

[2] http://www.googletutor.com/geoeye-1/

Giving people access to that data was a monumentally important step I agree. I just don't know where we go from here, and I find it hard to believe that Google has the answer given the quality of some of their data (no offence intended). They have some capability themselves, but will it be enough? There is so much more to mapping than road lines and point clouds.

And Navteq, Tele Atlas, TomTom, and a few more... They don't have the marketing skills of Apple and Google, but they don't need it because they are not consumer-focused companies.

TomTom owns Tele Atlas and Nokia owns Navteq, just FYI.

Yes, you are right. I knew that, but I listed them because they were kept as independent subsidiaries, but thanks for making it clear.

I remember when that happened, and was pretty sure that a bidding war would start involving Garmin and Google, first for Navteq, and then for Tele Atlas, when they both were acquired (Google Maps used data from them, and it seems like they still do for some countries according to their Terms of Service: [1] and [2] as as examples).

[1] Canada: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ca/help/terms_maps.html [2] Argentina: http://www.google.com/intl/es_ar/help/terms_maps.html

You might not like it but Google Maps has become synonymous with online mapping/directions the way Google is with searching, at least in the US and elsewhere (I have seen Bing maps used a lot on Europeans websites like france24.com). From that perspective, I think it is fair to put more focus on Google's efforts.

Well mentioned. Nokia has been far ahead of the curve for turn by turn navigation and Bing's aerial view has almost always surpassed Google.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft's amazing augmented reality research will end up in a mapping product some day soon as well.

Google also has aerial view/45 degree imagery for many metro areas. Just keep zooming in the Satellite view. For my neighborhood at least, the Google imagery surpasses Bing's.

And Bing? Also Nokia Maps - not sure what they use on the new Windows 8 phones? For a while Nokia Maps at least were available offline for free, but perhaps that advantage has gone now that there is map caching on Android.

Android has map caching, but not for search or turn by turn nav Also, you can't map cache entire continents/countries like on Nokia devices (OK, you can, if you do it tediously in small sections)

So Nokia (symbian/windows phone) still holds the edge when it comes to navigation. When it comes to local search/places, the Nokia offering is nowhere near as good as the (online) Google Maps

Nokia has indeed the best _free_ navigation of all. I am keeping in my car an old E72 just for it, loaded with all the maps of EU. However, even if updates are quite often, sometimes the map is outdated. But anyhow, the navigation is only for orientation and trip data, I mostly drive by signs and, of course, common sense.

Microsoft is making the same investment with Bing Maps

Reply on news.ycombinator.com