I'm reminded of a certain episode from The Office...
People should be responsible for the machines they operate. North Carolina should be responsible for their roadways. Google _should_ update their maps but that's aspirational. It's clearly a hard problem to solve when no data exists.
I'm one of what Google calls a "Local Guide". All that means is that I'm active in Maps, frequently submitting fixes, closures, additions, pictures, and whatnot.
I think it's really cool that Maps has these community features (and they're often more up to date than even OpenStreetMap).
But the process is totally opaque. Sometimes you submit a random edit[1] and it shows up a minute later. Other times you can submit the same highly important edit (this road will be closed for months), multiple times, and it won't show up for months if ever. But beyond the initial confirmation that says thanks, they'll review it, nothing. No status updates unless it actually goes through. No request for additional evidence or denial with or without reason. Just silence a lot of times.
I wish they'd provide followups and really allow the local guide community -- their volunteer boots on the ground "ground truth" team -- more transparency and proper change tracking. We want to help. We live in these places and use Maps multiple times a day.
Maps's errors range from inconvenient to outright dangerous (my area has a bunch of fake stop signs that don't actually exist, and real stop signs that aren't on Maps, and I've nearly slammed on the brakes when it told me there's a stop sign when there isn't). And it's gotten a lot worse recently. Not sure if they're using more AI or whatever, but there's just wrong information everywhere, often for months if not years. I fix them every time I can, but the process is aggravatingly slow and seemingly random. It would be better to use peer local moderators instead of whatever invisible process they have now.
They don't lack data. Even the article says they received reports. They lack a functional pipeline to vet and approve that data in a reasonably timely fashion.
-------
[1] Side anecdote: One time, deep in my discontent during an election cycle, I marked a local political headquarter of one of the two major parties as a "Garbage Dump". It went through immediately and stayed for months, even making the local news. Every time you were in that area, the icon would prominently show up. Yep, political party X, still ever the dumpster fire. Got a kick outta that, heh. Sweet, petty digital vengeance.
It really reads like you wish Google Maps were OSM.
Why not contribute to an actually open database that benefits to everyone and takes your contributions seriously?
(I personally don't think that Google, of all organizations, needs to be helped by unpaid volunteers - and they can import OSM themselves anyway if they choose to)
I think OSM is a great project and I do contribute from time to time. At a previous job where I was doing some GIS and web mapping, I went out of my way to get permission to open source my work and publish it to OSM. We did.
But in my day to day life, frankly, Maps is just a lot easier. It has traffic and Wyze real time reports built in, shows crashes and construction and parades and whatnot. It has the world's best POI database with contact information, reviews, pictures, menus, etc. It has good offline support with vector tiles. It integrates with my contacts so I can easily say "navigate to friend X's home". It's very useful... when it's accurate.
I guess I'm just practical like that, being generally supportive of OSM and open source in general, but not a purist by any stretch. If there are any other map apps, proprietary or not, that nears feature parity to Google's (especially real time traffic and reports), I'd consider switching and contributing there instead. Is anything close yet?
When I signed up for OSM about 8 years ago I checked the box "I consider my contribution public domain". I then saw what looks like my edits show up in google maps a few months later. (I have no idea if google maps imported OSM, or if they did an independent edit) I don't see such a box in my account settings now, so I'm guessing they removed it, but at one time at least it was legally possible.
Open street map's license allows anyone to use their data, but if you "build upon" their data then you must release your version with the same license. Google maps would not be able to incorporate OSM's licensed data to their own data without releasing their own proprietary data freely as well, which they aren't willing to do.
What you describe are not community features, but rather "user-sourced one-way value creation," ie. you can't benefit from the content you contribute unless Google takes unilateral action to allow you.
Why don't you contribute to OpenStreetMap instead? That way it will be more up to date than Google Maps in your corner of Earth too (like it does in many areas). Organic Maps is a very good replacement for the Google Maps app, I am told.
> What you describe are not community features, but rather "user-sourced one-way value creation," ie. you can't benefit from the content you contribute unless Google takes unilateral action to allow you.
It's not very different from, say, Metacritic or Steam or Amazon reviews or Goodreads. Or this HN forum, for the matter. These things unfortunately have a network effect, and it takes a critical mass of editors to make them worthwhile. Maps has that first mover advantage, coming out the same time at OSM but seeing massively more adoption, especially when it comes to POIs like restaurants and such.
I find that OSM has better and better geography, but its POI layers are still lacking modern conveniences like contact information, reviews, and photos. Its UI is still pretty primitive and opts for miscellaneous tags instead of useful primary business attributes. Generally I just find it harder to use, and harder to share with others. I feel like it's juuuust near critical mass, but not quite there...
>Maps's errors range from inconvenient to outright dangerous (my area has a bunch of fake stop signs that don't actually exist, and real stop signs that aren't on Maps, and I've nearly slammed on the brakes when it told me there's a stop sign when there isn't)
so you've almost caused accidents looking at your phone instead of outside the car at the actual road?
That stop sign feature is relatively new. I had to glance at the phone (mounted to the dash) to know where to turn, and saw the new stop sign and was like "wtf". It's a steep hill that probably COULD use one, but in the moment I was afraid that I'd missed it. It didn't actually exist.
After that experience I learned to just ignore them all in Maps.
To be clear, I think the stop signs and stoplights in Google Maps are a total anti-feature, a distraction that should be disabled. As soon as I saw them I wanted to turn them off (you can't), especially after this experience. It's been months now and they are still wrong, and there's no way to submit feedback about a stop sign, and I'm sure Google doesn't care. Sigh.
Ironically, if anything gets me to switch to OSM, it'll be because Google self-sabotaged their service yet again. Maps peaked a few years ago and has been steadily getting more ads and clutter. And last week or so they rolled out a new color palette that makes it impossible to distinguish between the current navigation route and other alternative routes. It's really a safety hazard, sigh. Maybe time to seriously look at alternatives...
Yes, absolutely. When that feature first came out (showing stop signs), it caught me by surprise. I was going downhill in an area with poor visibility and I was alarmed that I missed a stop sign and braked. No accident, thankfully, but I never trusted Maps's stoplights and stop signs after that.
You can notice a stop sign being displayed on a screen attached near or on the windshield at the corner of your sight when you are looking at the road.
I would imagine anyway. I don't drive much. I bike and take the train.
I'm also a guide and have submitted multiple road closed reports. One specific route takes people down a single lane dirt road to a creek that had a bridge over it a decade or more ago, but that is long gone. The people that live on that road average one or 2 people backing back out of the spot every single day. And no matter how many reports they get, they refuse to update their maps. Even with pictures showing the lack of a bridge.
The problem is that Google has a review process with a human in the loop for most of the submitted changes (unlike OSM). This makes it easier for them to negotiate relationships with data providers, but it also means a lot of things aren't enacted quickly enough to be useful.
I think having a human in the loop is essential, if only for catching things like my petty vandalism or honest mistakes.
Wikipedia has humans in the loop too but doesn't take forever.
It's more a matter of transparency and tracking, I think, never knowing what happens to an edit once it's submitted. In most similar user submission systems you at least get status updates if not outright version control and ticket tracking.
Lol it's true, and why I'm glad there's human moderators. Still, at more than 500 contributions and 7 million views (it tracks them) and one act of sabotage... eh... I don't feel too bad :) The community had a good laugh too.
> People should be responsible for the machines they operate.
Yes, but there are limits. E.g. if you're sold a car whose brakes are not fit for purpose, the manufacturer should bear some of the blame when you hit something. The alternative is that every consumer needs to be an expert (or consult an expert) before every purchase, which is a ton of friction for a functioning economy.
I'm not sure how much blame Google should bear in this case, but that's why we have a court system.
What you are responding to is prima fascia defective product liability. Selling a car with malfunctioning breaks is the purchasers problem? I'm shocked
Never seen The Office, however 'people should be responsible for the machines they operate' is my exact feeling for a whole lot of technology. Thanks for the wording. I now have a concise way to voice my feelings about Autopilot regulation efforts!
Weirdly Google Maps usually knows about all the daily lane closures and closed exits on the interstate construction zones I drive through. Do state authorites have some kind of direct way to publish this information that mapping/navigation services can subscribe to? Or do they just rely on crowdsourcing this?
>It's clearly a hard problem to solve when no data exists.
If you read the article, Google had received reports that it was directing drivers to that collapsed bridge at least 2 years prior to this man's death, and google responded saying "they were looking into it".
If Google was told multiple times of the error and didn’t update their map, well, that’s negligence. You can’t recall a paper map, but you can update an online map easily.
People should be responsible for the machines they operate. North Carolina should be responsible for their roadways. Google _should_ update their maps but that's aspirational. It's clearly a hard problem to solve when no data exists.