New Google Earth 3D cities not as detailed as Apple iOS 6 Maps



  • Reply 81 of 82

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Google's transit information is ok in terms of schedules, but sucks for any but the most trivial directions.



    There's nothing there that third party apps don't already provide much better information for.


    I've noticed Google's scheduling can be a bit off.  I've had the experience of arriving at the station only to discover that the train I was supposed to take had left 30 minutes earlier than it was supposed to, at least according to Google.   This problem is more significant with regard to Amtrak and commuter trains that tend to have longer headways; with urban transit it doesn't matter too much.    But an additional issue primarily affecting urban transit, or any trip that includes urban transit, is that Google's algorithms tend to favor the minimization of transfers, which in most North American cities means favoring buses over rapid transit, if the latter even exists.  However, it often happens that traveling miles out of your way and taking two or three trains can often be just as fast or faster than taking one bus. 


    Case in point: I used to live in the Palms neighborhood of L.A.  and was curious about how Google would route me to Santa Barbara on public transit.  I assumed it would tell me to take the Expo Line to Seventh and Fig, then the subway to Union Station, and then Amtrak up the coast.  Instead, it laid out a bizarre trip into the SFV via a number of buses, where I would finally end up at the Van Nuys train station to pick up the train there.  What the heck?   Still, at least it does give you some useful information about (approximate) schedules and itineraries.


    As for third-parties, many transit operators simply link to Google.

  • Reply 82 of 82

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Right. Because it’s a matter of privacy. What don’t you get about this?


    I'm almost certainly not using the right legal terminology; rather than "damages" perhaps "tangible harm" would have been more appropriate, at least from the premise on which I base my argument.


    What don't I get about it?  Simple--what's visible from the street to a casual passerby shouldn't be considered private, whether the viewer is walking down the street IRL or virtually through the internet.   The photons that bounce off your exterior walls are not your private property.  In fact, I consider that the view of a house from the street is not a strictly private matter at all; rather the community has a justifiable interest in, for example, the proper upkeep of front gardens or yards and the upkeep of the houses themselves.


    I'm not saying it's OK to deliberately spy into people's windows, but I can't imagine that issue ever comes up with Google Street View, what with the Google cars doing their work generally on bright sunny mornings, when conditions would be least favorable for capturing interiors through windows

Sign In or Register to comment.